On Dec 7, 1:23 pm, zdrakec wrote:
Actually, of all the suggestions I offered, the "stalemate=loss" was
the one I thought the most reasonable. Not because it wouldn't have a
major impact on the praxis of the game - for it surely would, and for
that reason alone I imagine will never be seriously considered - but
because, as I mentioned above, it seems to me that the player who has
stalemated his opponent has satisfied the basic object of the game: to
place his opponent in a situation from which his king cannot avoid
being captured.

Since when is the object of war to prevent somebody from moving?
If a king surrounds another's king's city, but can't actually capture
the
king and seize the town, then all they are going to do is stare at
each
other across the moat, and the king on the ground will be expending
his country's resources forever. Isn't this where the idea of
stalemate
came from in the first place?

"Draw" is just another outcome. "Black to move and draw" is just
as valid a problem as "White to move and win". Since draws are
penalized (you lose half a point), if you keep drawing you will
eventually
be outscored (and out-rated).
E