No, there has been no real "debate" at all.
Weak and stupid players who cannot bring home a win with extra material get frustrated when they stalemate their opponents and instead of improving their pathetic skill set, whine and cry to change the rules.
Stalemate is a draw. Trying to change that makes you a loser.
+2
The game is much richer because of the rule.
Check out my thread for a good discussion on stalemate
Check out my thread for a good discussion on stalemate
lol... there never is a "good" discussion on stalemate on chess.com. It always turns very quickly into both sides telling the other side that they're stupid and they don't know how to play chess.
Raise the 50 move rule to 150 moves, problem solved.
Also aren't most live blitz games played with extra time after each move.
Raise the 50 move rule to 150 moves, problem solved.
Also aren't most live blitz games played with extra time after each move.
Not exactly. Because there exist positions in which mate can only be achieved in more than 150 moves....
And because you realy dont want to move your king and rook around the board against opponents king and rook for 150 moves before game ends in draw.
That s something from the wiki
"
At one time, it was believed that all winnable endgames could be won within fifty moves. However, in the early 20th century, some exceptions were found, including A. A. Troitsky's (1866-1942) analysis of the two knights endgame as well as the endgame of a rook and bishop versus a rook. The rules of chess were revised several times to admit exceptions to the fifty-move rule for certain specific situations. Early on, the fifty-move rule applied to tournament games but not to match games (Troitzky 2006:197).
During the time periods when the fifty-move rule admitted exceptions, there were a number of revisions. In 1928 FIDE enacted rules that if an endgame theoretically requires more than 50 moves to force checkmate, twice that number of moves were allowed. For instance, in the rook and bishop versus rook endgame, 132 moves were allowed, since it was twice the 66 moves that were thought to be required at that time (FIDE 1944:17–18). (The actual maximal number of moves needed is 59.)(Speelman, Tisdall & Wade 1993:382) In 1952 FIDE revised the law, allowing for 100 moves in such positions but requiring that players agree to an extension for these positions before the first move is made. This was still in effect in 1960. The positions were not specified in the rules, to allow for the possibility of more positions requiring more than 50 moves to be discovered (which is what happened). The following positions were understood to require more than 50 moves:
rook and bishop versus a rook two knights versus a pawn safely blocked by a knight behind the Troitsky line rook and pawn on a2 versus a bishop on black squares and a pawn on a3, plus the equivalent positions in the other corners (Whitaker & Hartleb 1960). (In 1979 it was shown that this endgame can actually be won in just under 50 moves (Giddins 2012:184,186).[5])Article 12.4 of the 1965 FIDE rules states:
The number of moves can be increased for certain positions, provided that this increase in number and these positions have been clearly established before the commencement of the game.
Harkness notes that "Some of these unusual positions have been established and accepted by FIDE", including two knights versus a pawn (Harkness 1970:52). The 1975 and 1977 versions of the rules included the same wording (not specifying the positions or the number of moves) (Morrison 1975:25), (Morrison 1978:21).
In 1984 the rule was modified and it became Article 10.9. Now 100 moves were explicitly specified and the positions above were listed in the rule (Kazic, Keene & Lim 1985:24–25). (The wording about the positions and number of moves having to be specified in advance of the game was dropped.) Ken Thompson's investigations in the 1980s using the Belle chess computer discovered numerous endgames winnable in more than 50 moves. However, these often involved seemingly random moves that defied human comprehension or analysis, in situations that would hardly ever occur in real gameplay.[6] In 1989 the rule (still Article 10.9) was changed to 75 moves, and the listed positions were:
Rook and bishop versus rook Two knights versus a pawn (no mention of the Troitsky line) A queen and a pawn on the seventh rank versus a queen (see queen and pawn versus queen endgame) Queen versus two knights (see pawnless chess endgame#Queen versus two minor pieces) Queen versus two bishops Two bishops versus a knight (see pawnless chess endgame#Minor pieces only) (FIDE 1989:22–23).The rule was then changed to allow just 50 moves in all positions. Some sources say that the 1989 rule was in effect for only a "year or so" or a "few years" (Speelman, Tisdall & Wade 1993:382), (Lutz 1999:130) but one source of the 1992 rules gives the pre-1984 wording: "... increased for certain positions if it was announced in advance" (Goichberg, Jarecki & Riddle 1993:312). By 2001 the rule was Article 9.3 and allowed 50 moves for all positions (Schiller 2003:27–28).
Research into how many moves are required to win certain endgames has continued. Exhaustive retrograde analysis using faster computers to build endgame tablebases has uncovered many more such endgames, often of previously unsuspected length. As of 2008, the record is 517 moves (assuming optimal play by both sides) to make a piece capture or exchange that achieves a simpler and more obviously winnable sub-endgame, for a particular position involving a queen and knight versus a rook, bishop, and knight.[7]
Many of the longest games on record involve the rook and bishop versus rook endgame, when the rule for more moves was in effect.[8] (See pawnless chess endgame androok and bishop versus rook endgame.)
"
I dare to challenge your statement about there existing positions that require more than 150 moves.
KEEP IN MIND! If either side moves a pawn! The count starts over!
The longest scenario known is in the mid-70s. I want to say 76 moves, but I may be off a move or two. It's some position involving KRB vs KR.
Yes, there are chess problems that are White to move and mate in well over 200 moves. HOWEVER, they all involve either a pawn move or a capture of some sort periodically such that 50 moves never go by without one of those two events happening.
Therefore, if you made the rule 80 instead of 50, problem solved until someone can come up with a longer scenario such that more than 80 consecutive moves are made WITHOUT a pawn move or capture of any sort. Also, bear in mind, we are talking "BEST CASE SCENARIO" and NOT a Moron's version of mating in over 80 moves. For example, the fact that it takes you 94 moves to make with the Bishop and Knight isn't my problem. It's known that in the WORST CASE SCENARIO for a starting position, it's mate in 33.
Black to move, white mates in 545:
It said 517 moves is the longest known until piece capture or exchange into simpler position. I remember looking at it before and I'm pretty sure it doesn't involve any pawn moves.
100% agree with the second post
stupid rule. there's no debate because it's a friggin game. hahaha having said that. stupid not to award a win to the side that boxed in the K. stalemate is chicken sh*t. all the work wasted. NFL changd their sudden OT. why not chess?
Without getting into an argument, I personally think that not having any available moves should be a win for the other player.
Without getting into an argument, I personally think that not having any available moves should be a win for the other player.
I'm with you on that cortez, at one time stalemate was considered a win and it's still a win in checkers.
I'm not sure why anyone would want stalemate to be a win.
The only way to make a stalemate a legal way to win would be to make it legal to move the King into check.
The type of player who stalemates an opponent would lose more games from moving their King into check and having it captured than they would win from "achieving" stalemate. 
I like the sound of that... except that the player who was losing also deserves to lose. Perhaps it ought to count as a loss for both players so they both get the punishment they so richly deserve!
No, there has been no real "debate" at all.
Weak and stupid players who cannot bring home a win with extra material get frustrated when they stalemate their opponents and instead of improving their pathetic skill set, whine and cry to change the rules.
Stalemate is a draw. Trying to change that makes you a loser.
Stalemate should be removed from the game; if the opponent king is cornered, the game should be over.. It's not about being weak and stupid, IMO players who vote for stalemate are the big losers because they want a way out to win the game while losing.
Stalemate adds a fun bit of inspiration to a losing player and provides some great puzzles, but if I'm being honest, it's a pretty dumb rule. And also,does it occur often enough to really make a big difference either way?
Stalemate adds a fun bit of inspiration to a losing player and provides some great puzzles, but if I'm being honest, it's a pretty dumb rule. And also,does it occur often enough to really make a big difference either way?
Watch my last game (3415801196), I was forced to make the game stalemate..
By defintion stalemate is
"Stalemate is a situation in the game of chess where the player whose turn it is to move is not in check but has no legal move. The rules of chessprovide that when stalemate occurs, the game ends as a draw (i.e. having no winner)."
I understand that over the years, there has been a lot of debate over the situation and before there were many variations to what occurs after a stalemate but recently, a stalemate is seen as a draw. In my personal opinion, at the begining when I started playing chess, I was extremely frustrated by this rule as I thought to myself surely the person to stalemate should be the winner as they have cornered the king? However, after I realised that it makes sense as the king doesn't want to put himself into check, but would other variations make more sense such as, deemed a win for the stalemating player, a half-win for that player, or a loss for that player; not being permitted; and resulting in the stalemated player missing a turn.
What are your opinions on stalemate now and what were they when you started playing chess?
This is in no way a complaint about stalemates, just want to know opinions