Stalemate is dumb: change my mind

Stalemate is a position of power for the player who can still move and therefore should be either removed or the result is a win for the player that can still move (your opponent not being able to make a move means that they lose). Please change my mind so I can make peace with the fact that these potential changes are likely to never happen.

mikaeas, what should happen if we each have only a king left?

This is a separate issue since both kings can still move, but I think a draw is perfectly suitable in that case.

"Okay. So you accept that any situation where-in it is impossible for anyone to win a draw is appropriate." No, I accepted that, in a situation where only two kings are left, a draw is reasonable. An example of a situation where a draw feels inappropriate:
One player has just a king left. The other player has 8 queens. One player literally cannot checkmate the other, and the other player has clearly gotten the better of them. Why should immobilizing the lone enemy king without checking him (which currently = stalemate) lead to a draw? It almost seems like a semi-checkmate, just without the check.

Hate to break it to you but you should look in the variants tab and check out stalemate settings and not complain here. THX I also love this game buddy as well https://www.chess.com/game/live/120337271527?username=mikaeas

Why are you showing me one of my games and suggesting I make/play a variant? Those two things have nothing to do with the post.

Funny because I was making fun of your stalemate instead stick to that variant

It would have been reasonable to have a stalemate be a loss in some scenarios. It saves you the challenge of leaving your opponent without a move; that said I'm not sure there is much desire to remove challenges from the game of chess. If there is lopsided power it is reasonable to expect the leader to manage their power; if this means that a player is able to sacrifice their way into a better position somehow it seems risky and clever if they pull it off - this notion fits well into the game's overall character.

At the very least not call it a stalemate, which is impossible with lone kings left

Me stalemating, as everyone does, has nothing to do with discussing stalemate as a concept, is another way to state my response.

Love this response, thank you for taking the time.

someone just stalemated and is angry about it…

Nope, I just genuinely think this about stalemate as a concept. However, yes, because I think this about stalemate, I am annoyed when it happens, of course.

A King cannot move itself into check, as a result, a stalemate can occur. What you propose is a King should be able to move itself into check and be taken as a result. Stalemate being included in the game, for centuries I might add, enriches the strategic depth, promotes defensive play, ensures fairness, and honors the tradition of chess, making it a sensible and integral part of the game.

No, that's not the only option. You could keep stalemate as a game-ending result (the king cannot move, so the game is over), and simply change what the result is.

So far, enriching strategic depth is the only good argument I've heard, and I think I'm at least going to be able to cope with it for that reason, lol.

Honoring tradition, good because it's been around for centuries... if something is a good idea, the amount of time it's been around or how many people have done it through tradition/generations is irrelevant.

How does it ensure fairness? I don't get that part.

I'm guessing this is coming from the fact that in most stalemates, the player who can still move would go on to win if the game continued somehow. If that is not the case, feel free to ignore everything I say here. Otherwise, let's consider this position (White to play):

Why should Ke6 win for White when any other move would result in Black taking the pawn and drawing? If your answer is "Because White would win if the game continued," then what would continuing the game look like? Does Black simply pass and let White play Kd6, and is Black now not allowed to pass again, but rather forced to play Kf7, allowing Kd7 from White, and so on? If so, fine, let's consider this position:

In this case, White does not win by allowing the game to continue. It is impossible to give Black a legal move without losing the pawn. Black's king is under siege, but you have not broken through and killed him, so why should this be a loss for Black?

You might now be considering if we should have the result of stalemate depend on theoretical continuations, somewhat similar to winning vs drawing on time. One last position:

Not only could White never win here, this would actually be Black's win if Black ever gets to legally move. Should White lose here? Should White not be rewarded with an extra half point for the ingenuity to set up this stalemate? And as for your original question, would you suggest that White should be awarded a win here?

So my final thought is this: even if you're right that stalemate shouldn't always be a draw, I don't think it should always be a win for the player who can move.

LucasNumb3rs, I can't figure out how to tag you in a reply, but thank you for your detailed response! I totally agree with you.

Regarding my comment about ensuring fairness.

Stalemate in chess embodies a fundamental concept of fairness by rewarding strategic acumen and penalizing careless play. Stalemate does not favor one side over the other. It can occur in any game, regardless of the material advantage or position on the board. This equality ensures that both players have an equal opportunity to avoid or achieve it through their decisions and foresight.