Why did I get a stalemate when my last move put their king in checkmate?

 @Blueemu

No.  The rule is no legal moves not no legal king moves.  

Black has a legal move. Lay down his King to resign =P

Not to be mean, but... You don't always have to move towards the King to win. You had a forced mate:

43. Rg8     Kh6 (only legal move)

44. Qh4#

You'll get him next time 8^)

Not sure if OP still looks at this thread but that was excellently said sir

Blueemu was just explaining that the kings are not checkmated on move one (since the author mentioned that if the king cannot move then it is a loss).

Stalemate is a very common occurrence, and is the cornerstone of 80% of endgame theory.

hence the term C-H-E-C-K  Mate, the definition of checkmate is IF the king can't move, AND they are in check, it's checkmate.

its not a check so no checkmate

I heard someone say that a stalemate should be a loss recently. If you are in trouble and can position yourself where the defenders can't check you, but you also can't move, it should be good for both sides. You shouldn't have let the king hide in the cupboard when your bishop and knight bursts into the kitchen. You got to plan things a little better. I think it adds to the fun of the game. 

Often the stalemate clearly has one player with an advantage but not necessarily.  Suppose both players are unable to make a legal move (e.g. if a pawn moves up against another pawn and can't continue) but it's White's turn to play.  Is that a draw or a win for Black under some sort of new rules?  If play can't legally continue it would become a matter of judgement...it is also possible that the "winning" player could be the one without a legal move.  I think the rules were made with these other, admittedly rarer, possibilities in mind.  TTC.

Here, we see a young Garry Kasparov, with a crushing position with seconds on his clock, accidently stalemate his opponent The look on his face is priceless.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtTkfmaiI4I

If stalemate was abolished that would mean endgame theory would change dramatically. For example, all these positions which are drawn would become wins for White if the stalemate rule was eliminated. 

Thanks for that link.  I won't feel so stupid next time I give stalemate from a won position.  If Kasparov (even the young version) can make that mistake, anyone can.

Black got away with one; that kind of thing usually only happens to me in blitz

It is a stalemate because black have NO legal moves, not one.

Precisely Rocky.

Those of us who have spent our lives studying endgames seriously, aren't about to let all that work be thrown out the window, to please a few weekend wood-pushers who haven't put 2% of the work into endgames, we have.

From Cylvouplay's argument, yes, the final move (by White say) would have to both stalemate Black and cut off all legal moves for White simultaneously but that may be possible.  The neat position you showed is possible to achieve in a game so the rules should cover it.  It's irrelevant that this is achieved by "mistakes" - so long as they are legal moves.  After all, under time pressure in fast games lots of mistakes are made.  I'll try to look for more plausible examples but they are rare.  TTC.

ttconnor153 but... Rules have it covered anyway no matters if stalemate's a win or a loss or a draw! When it's your turn it's your turn and that's it, the fact that "if it were the other's turn he wouldn't be able to move" has nothing to do in the equation. It's your turn and you can't move so it's stalemate, period. The situation of the other players has nothing to do with that and there is no need for the rules to "cover" anything because rules is each players has to play his turn.

I understand that your logic is to say : "considering that not being able to play may lead to pass your turn, in that case there would be some uncertainty that the other is not himself in stalemate so better avoid this idea". But really, this is not the kind of consideration we need. We never pretended Chess to simulate a war or anything. I never saw a Queen IRL teleport to the other side of the battlefield to destroy a rook and point the king in the back with her sword and yell "Check" just to see a Knight jumping back from the middle of the field and stand in the middle triumphally while the Queen realises the knight's able to jump on the "square" she came from and now there's no "square" left to run back, wondering how to get out of the "h" row! I mean... So we don't care about double stalemate, only one has to play and rules says it's stalemate and draw, period. "Feel free to change the rules at home with your friends as long as you don't try to bother people who already agreed with the rules" is the only correct answer/statement to give to ppl who claim the rules are not logical. Rules are meant to create a excellent game and for that, rules do already perform remarkably. That's enough for most people to agree with the rules and play the rules. Others may need to find another game or create their own or if they persist, better go the the psychiatrist.