How is this a stalemate?

why should multiple timelines matter, when there is only one we are currently in?

That is all nice, but it is not the same game of chess. Here we do not play Chinese chess, and if we did, I would hope we would learn its rules and play in accordance to them, not try to bend those same rules to our will because we don't know them and we messed up a winning position as a result.

Here stalemate as a draw makes perfect sense, the game would be simpler otherwise and 1 pawn up would be more decisive as a result (and a lot more of the endgame theory would be simpler).
If one seeks more simplicity perhaps he can choose some other game instead of chess.

One would be able to tune out in many cases as they would have an automatic win, which is not the case now. Now one needs to be very careful and avoid last minute saves.

OP could have easily won that game if he was more careful (and knew about the rule in the first place), and that is a fact.

Well, if the other rules are similar, perhaps OP should try it.

Sure, but that was long time ago, when the game was being developed in what it is today. Through time, trial and error, the balanced version of the game has emerged.

I do not know enough about this mirror ... "Teran empire" version of chess to comment about how their version of stalemate works within that game.

The fact is that chess works well as it is. Changing it just so a novice player would be happy is unreasonable, and would disrupt a balance of the game we have today. It would be as if a Human relocating to Vulcan asking all the Vulcans to ditch logic. Sounds ... illogical.

With respect, there is nothing to get or not get. This is a topic about stalemate in chess, and has nothing to do with Chinese chess or Chaturanga. If I would like to know more about Chinese chess, I should go elsewhere, chess.com is not really the site to do that.

The weird thing is, every person who complains about stalemate is always below 1500. Have you ever seen, let's say, a 2000 rated player complain about stalemate?

It is not that weird, it is understandable, human nature. You are new to the game, and expect to win and all of a sudden ... poof ... a draw.

First instinct is to be unhappy and to feel you've been wronged. Problem is of course that novice players don't know about the game enough to understand that such a change would affect the game in a negative way. And it can be relatively easily avoided most of the time.

I am sure they thought it through and it works well there. But really, I do not care about rules of other games at the moment. I care about this chess and here it wouldn't work well without changing who knows what else, and there is no need for that. It is much easier that one either accepts the rule and avoid the mistake next time, or to play some other game that he likes more.

As I said, I really do not compare it with other games. There is no need to, and I do not play those.
For this game, it is more correct that stalemate works the way it does because of combination of rules chess has. And without the stalemate rule = draw, the game would be worse than it is today. I am talking about the scenario where you just change that one rule and nothing else.

Yeah, here we can see how difficult is to convince people when they have been fooled.

Well, i am not a fool, and the rules are faulty. To adress your point, sure... 2k rated player has submitted for so long, its fine by him... unless he has character bigger than such petty hypocrisy. Also, sure, checkmate makes the game more difficult, and sure, get your kudos, but its also counterintuitive, and i want my points... make it half the points, but dont call it a draw, and dont treat it as a draw, cause you are WRONG ABOUT THAT.

You can't change just that one rule and nothing else. All stalemates are also dead positions, so if you changed just the stalemate rule to make it a loss for the stalemated side, whenever one occurred the game would finish up as a loss for that side and also a draw.

You'ld have to also change the rules to say the player that moves into a dead position wins. But there is no known algorithm to reliably diagnose when a dead position occurs. That doesn't matter too much if a dead position counts as a draw because, if the position is not recognised, nobody will be winning anyway, but the situation is problematic otherwise.

Hmmm, Analogy did not work, but i guess i found the problem.

You assume, that surround leads to surrender, but that is wrong. Only a threat leads to surrender. Without a threat you can live happily ever after in your position.

With that in mind the genius inventors of chess created the wise rule, that, if you are not in a threat but have no legal move, the result is a draw.

hope this helps

Is there a chess variant in which stalemate counts as a win for side not in stalemate? If not, maybe such a variant could be invented?

That way, people who are unhappy about the stalemate rule could play that instead of trying to change the rules of chess.

@long_quach thanks. I suppose I should have read the whole thread before posting.

These stalemate-rule-should-be-abolished threads appear regularly here.

You shouldn't listen to long_quach ever.

Chinese chess is not a chess variant. It's a completely different game with different pieces, different rules, different board.

@magipi appears to be correctly pointing out (in the confined language of his lineage) that though Chinese chess is a variant of Chaturanga and Western chess is a variant of Chaturanga the two variants are significanly different and this forum is about only the latter. I agree with him (in the confined language of my lineage).

Yeah. threat... here is the threat... and i have already said a couple of times, so people should really understand the things already said, but here goes: The threat is as a follows... either you think about your options, and let the time run out. or you make an "illegal" move, and get knocked out. Those are the options, so just resign, like a good sport would.
Crooked rules. Jump through hoops, which dont make much sense.
Kinda sounds like coomie rules... yeah, communists liked chess veryvery much... send them straight, as long as there is a carrot at the end of the road. But whatever - stop stupid, commies are stupid. Not very genius at all... our spy gave them nukes... which was a damn shame.

@ellipsis_GG

... so just resign, like a good sport would.

In the diagram @insane posted or the first diagram I posted earlier, Black should resign even though White, with a lone king, obviously has no prospect of even checking him, let alone checkmating him? Is that more true to life?

g

You ain't gonna convince the troll to stop trolling.

Even if he was truly a confused beginner when he made this topic, that day is long gone. Now he is just here to trashtalk the community and the game.