Stalemate

I do not know what site you were looking at, but stalemate being a draw has been a rule for at least 200 years now. You may or may not like it, but it is a rule of modern Western chess (it may be different in other chess variants, though).

The outcome of a stalemate is always the same, it is a draw. At various points in time and in various parts of the world the outcome has in the past ranged right from a win for the side giving stalemate, a loss for the side giving stalemate, and that placing your opponent in stalemate was an illegal move which had to be taken back. The current rule has stood universally for about 200 years. In chess you must checkmate the king to win, so if the king is not in check but that side cannot move then logically it must be a draw. If the object was to physically capture the king there would be more of a case, but it's not. Aside from all this, having the stalemate rule as it is leads to many extra layers of depth and complexity, particularly in endgames. 

Honestly, if you're up material and can't checkmate your opponent then you don't deserve the win anyways

Check his game history. Played a total of two games. Stalemated his helpless opponent in both.

One thing it discourages is prolonging an inevitable victory by accruing an army of queens. I've accidentally stalemated bots by doing that.

"It makes sense to me that it should be a win for the one player because they have their opponent in an un-winnable scenario."

But that's true of both players! You have your opponent in an un-winnable scenario, and he has you in an un-winnable scenario. Why should one of you (and which one) win in that case?

SkylarMilne
Closed: Inactivity
SkylarMilne closed his account on Apr 3, 2021.

You are certainly free to think it is absurd, but I assure you it is not going to be changed just because some people don't like it. If you do not like the rules of the game, you can always find another game to play.

Alas, poor SkylarMilne.

Great meme, doesn't change how true my words are.  Stalemating a won position is like fumbling a shuffle pass in the end zone, missing a dunk when there is no one to block you, dribbling the goalie and kicking it over an empty net when there is no one to oppose you... and then you blame the rules

Stalemating a won game can be quite frustrating.... however, stalemating a game that was completely lost can often be more satisfying than a double rook queen sac smothered checkmating combination.

Stalemate is controversial. i feel like it should be a draw

The controversy is mainly stirred by beginners who get pissed off when they miss a win and need something other than themselves to blame.

Stalemate being a draw is, for the most part, a rather silly rule. That being said, capturing en passant and even castling and underpromotion are also silly rules...

expand... explain why you think this

all of these adds more variables and more possibility and complexity in a nice way to the game... removing them would simplify the game and dumb it down... if that's the case may I suggest tic tac toe?

although I do appreciate the non-castling as a variant to get out of heavy opening theory

OP joined 2 days ago, played 2 games asked some questions and closed their account 1 day ago  living fast that is..

My logic is that a Stalemate is just tactics.
The only person is to blame who is getting tricked into a Stalemate.

So, if i know i can trick my opponent into a Stalemate, who is smarter ?

And to react to Wornaki: maybe just stop playing chess, if you found the rules so silly, why keep playing chess ?

I consider exceptions to be silly rules. Castling and capturing en passant are exception to normal moves. Underpromotion gives the attacking side too many choices when they are winning a piece already and stalemate gives the defending side too many options to draw when they are likely losing.

the person that made this forum is inactive... bruh.

 I like chess, even when I consider some of its rules rather silly. I also like basketball and find goal tending and backcourt violations silly.