Comments by DerekNalls

I have no idea why any competent game designer would choose to imitate the maze of overcomplicated rules associated with checkmate from FIDE Chess that unnecessarily create a wide "draw gulf" but unfortunately, there are many thousands of such unimaginative, similar chess variants available.  Sorry, I have a tendency to conceive of chess variants potentially as the infinite variety of unique, non-trivial differences from one another that they are in theory.  In practice, they fall short.

Making it possible for the king to be captured as a game-winning condition is significantly simpler than numerous check & checkmate rules.  In effect, it ends the game once move sooner.  Also, making the royal piece incapable of movement would render a game similar to Chess much less drawish.

I didn't say or infer anything about making stalemate a loss.  That would be unfair to one player and you didn't specify which player- white or black, the attacking player or the defending player.  Yes, the stalemate rules in FIDE Chess also annoy me because it is possible to design chess variants that are absolutely drawless without decreasing fairness.

Inventing chess variants strictly to be "computer resistant" is not a
worthy goal.  It is intentionally disruptive.  However, inventing chess
variants to be theoretically deep (i.e., possess a high branching factor)
is a worthy goal (amongst several other, desirable game characteristics). 
Of course, it is probable to also be "computer resistant" incidentally.

"Humans typically suffer more than computers from large branching
factors."
___________________________________________________________________________

Although the quoted remark is not generally untrue, I find generalizations

about the playing strength of humans at any particular game of little,
practical use because it varies radically between individuals.

A game with a high branching factor will (almost) certainly throw a dense,
cognitive fog around the tactical & strategic play of a novice, human
player [in the majority] yet an experienced, incisive human player [in the
minority] can usually see through this dense, cognitive fog to
consistently, correctly identify the most important offensive and/or
defensive move on the board and execute it.  Humans are better than
computers at quick-and-accurate pattern recognition which is conducive to
being able to play many chess variants well.  Computers use different,
non-geometric techniques to evaluate potential moves, anyway.

By contrast, I do not take exception to generalizations about the playing 
strength of computers at any particular game because they are predictably,
reliably useful.  The best available hardware running the best known 
programming, customized to play a given game as well as possible, is the 
given assumption.

A game with a high branching factor will certainly trap a computer player
within a search ply where it becomes intractible (i.e., unable to complete
it in less than a tremendous amount of time).  All except the most trivial

chess variants with the lowest branching factors become intractible at some
point.  Critically, it is a matter of how many plies can be completed
before this occurs (if very long time controls are allowed) and whether or
not this average number of completed plies represents a formidable AI
opponent to an intelligent, competent human player.  If not, there is a
serious problem which can only be overcome by heavy pruning within an
evaluation function.

Light to moderate pruning will not address the problem to a non-trivial 
extent.  Heavy pruning is risky.  Any errors in the evaluation function are
potentially catastrophic and there are many places for such game-specific
errors to exist unknown.  If an evaluation function occasionally throws
away from consideration a move(s) that needs to be made, then the human
player will likely soon discover tactics to routinely, successfully beat
his/her computer opponent every time.