Wouldnt chess be better off if we eliminated stalemate ?

Question

this is the primary reason for draws, especially in top flight chess. the game would become so much more dynamic, because a king and pawn vs king would always win.

theres too high a probability of a draw now, for common fans to take interest.

Answer 1

a big yes stale mate should be eliminated for good

Answer 2

I have to disagree a little. Some cultures do not have a problem with draws. We see this in associated football (soccer) all the time save in elimination tournaments, and from what I understand soccer is popular in some places in the world. :-)

Yet I understand the desire for some level of closure. A stalemate just seems like incomplete business, not seeing who is the better player. For the casual fan, that may be true, but I suspect that competitive chess appeals to a different fan base.

Having a match decided based on which pieces are remaining is a dangerous proposition. I recall reading of one match where a player sacrificed a lot of pieces, including his own queen, to create a checkmate. Strength alone is not a deciding factor.

However, I agree that boiling down to bare kings or very close to it can seem rather boring. In those cases, it's not so much a stalemate that creates the draw, but simply the inability to checkmate. With a true stalemate, one player has manoeuvred himself into a position where he cannot move. Seeing that happen from an inferior position can be just as exciting as a checkmate.

Answer 3

You are incorrect the majority of games in "top flight chess" are not drawn by stalemate, and in fact only a tiny minority of all games are drawn by stalemate.

Also I would like to question you on how you would like to remove the stalemate rule(despite it not making the game any better, and probably worse), make the side that can move, move twice, this seems absurd to me.

I am also confused on how you think eliminating the stalemate rule makes the game more dynamic, as it would most certainly have no effect on short draws, and I don't know anyone who would call queen king mates against a king dynamic(most people would see it as boring). Furthermore this would allow for people to call most games where a side is up a pawns king + king vs pawns + king endgames, which would subsequently make games shorter and less entertaining.

Some people propose giving the side has stalemated their opponent 3/4 of a point, however this is also absurd as there are many positions where the side which has been stalemated is actually better, for example in the position White: Kh1 ph2, Black: Kg2 white is up a pawn but has stalemated black).

I would also like to point out some of the games where stalemates have created a more dynamic, imaginative final position, which can be found  at:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalemate

Answer 4

No and there is no way to to eliminate it.

Answer 5

king and pawn vs king is not always a win,work on your endgame.

Answer 6

I agree, I consider stalemate as both sides having lost.  But still, the stalemate is a fact of life, so players of Chess must strive to avoid it.

Answer 7

Stalemate is really quite annoying, but if you have the upper hand and you blow it, that's just due to your skill.  If you plan, stalemate should be avoided.  Forcing a stalemate shows good skill by the loser-to-be player.  Drawing is annoying and ruins the excitement, but stalemate is fair.