If there's going to be any abolition, make it checkmate.  I'm tired of losing!

He can't pass his move either, which is why stalemate exists.  If he could pass, you could checkmate him on the next move.

If he drew you, then he wasn't dominated.  He continued doing his best at a game he would probably lose, and he outplayed you in the endgame.

If you really had dominated the other player, he probably would have taken the defeat and started another game, whereas you are upset about a tie.

Ask yourself if you actually like playing chess.  It's a fair question, and "no" is a fair answer.

If you stalemate your opponent...you weren't really winning, now where you?

I notice the decent players with a real desire to improve post all sorts of questions and ideas for discussion and advice.  Then you have the whiners complaining because they don't like the rules.

Take it to FIDE - they have a permanent committee on the rules, and it's their job to listen to stuff like this.

Huh, I didn't know that, and thanks for letting me know.  I guess that explains why chess.com has a chess960 feature.

Well it's just a rule in chess. Nowadays any rule changes produces a new chess variant, not new chess. Maybe someday a variant gets so popular it eclipses current chess, and we call it the "new chess" or some other fancier name, but I dunno...

Please don't call people who don't like stalemate as sore, because if we allowed stalemate as a win then I'm sure we will get a bunch of sore losers crying for stalemate as a draw. Its just part of chess, just as stalemate win is a part of XiangQi(a chinese game similar to chess). Personally I feel that there is nothing inferior with both rules, but since I'm playing chess on this site, I'll stick to the current chess rules.

The strategy of chess seems to reflect war in real life, which makes it so interesting.  The stalemate rule is therefore appropriate.  In reality until the King or ruling faction is thoroughly removed there is always the possibility of a future comeback.  Therefore, a total checkmate (or resignation) is required for a win.  So a stalemate is exactly that -- an indeterminate ending, which must mean a draw.  Pure and simple.

Judging from what I've seen on chess.com, that must be one of the most frustrating jobs ever.

I don't get the joke.

This is what Fine's Basic Chess Endings says about Q vs R endings without pawns:

"This is a win, but from a general position the process is complicated.

In order to have drawing chances, Black must keep his Rook near his King, for otherwise a check will capture the Rook.  The basic winning idea is to force Black into zugzwang, so that he will have to move his Rook away from his King."

The book goes on for another page elaborating on this idea.

Hmmmm.....

To demolish your point with one sentence, what if there is no clock? 

Well, first of all, this is a 4 man endgame, so with tablebases this ending isn't theoretical at all.

Secondly it is a win for the stronger side.

Oh, I see.  You know it's won, but instead of saying:  "it's not a guaranteed win"  you say:  "it's a theoretical draw"

When you say the result is a theoretical ______ it assumes best play from both sides.  So it's not correct to say a theoretical draw.  You can say there are drawing chances due to the technical difficulty or practical problems, but it's not even a theoretical position... it's been solved.

TBH, being able to force a stalemate is a hugely underrated Chess skill. It shows that you can work with losing pieces to achieve something. Without stalemates the endgame of chess just isn't any fun for the loser.

What I meant is, if there is no stalemate rule, and it is clear that you really have no chance of winning, than it is no fun for that person since they are just waiting to be the loser. If there is a stalemate rule, then even if you have drastically worse material, then it is still fun because you can try and force a stalemate.

hey judas you left your 30 pieces of silver in the stream go get them and let the adults talk about chess thanks

Firstly, it is Judas Maccabeus, a Jewish hero, not Judas Iscariot.

Secondly, I am 23 years old, which is probably older than you judging from the immaturity of your comments.

Thirdly, why the hostility? Perhaps my comments are dumb, it is possible, I have only recently taken up chess as a hobby. However, there is no reason to be so rude about things.

hahaha i love it i am being broken off by a jew hero thanks for keepin me grounded boss.

I was brought up told that I should hardly ever resign because there is often still a chance of winning because the other player gets excited about winning and then makes a mistake. I hardly every purposely put someone in a stalemate on purpose unless it's bound to be a draw anyway. I mean, who would give up a win or unknown conclusion for a stalemate?

Jebcc- No need to say stuff like that about Judas just because that's his name. I'm sure we could find someone with ur name who did something terrible too...but, we are not going to. 

I think one thing that makes chess interesting is insistence! when the loser try hard to reach stalemate, the winner should be aware of ALL of his moves. you should avoid laze even if you have the best position and it makes the game more exciting.