I think I figured something out.

This may sound idiotic to higher level players - like "duhhhh", but in my ongoing quest to figure chess out with no studying of any sort whatsoever, just playing the game over and over and over, I think I finally learned something...

One step to checkmating instead of stalemating is to make sure that the move I'm about to make would be a "check". In other words that the move would make that little clicking sound - the check sound. As long as that would be the outcome of the move then it cannot result in stalemate. Am I right?

So, in the situation where I have some jumble of pieces around a king and I'm worried about stalemating instead of checkmating, repositioning without putting the other player in check is where I'd get into trouble - as long as the move puts the other player in check it can't be a stalemate. 

Right?

I hope I made this question clear enough. 

Thanks.

More simply put: A move that puts a player in check cannot be a move that causes a stalemate.

Right?

That is correct but in most situations where you are at risk of causing a stalemate you can't give a mate without making non-checking moves. Also, does asking advice here not constitute study? If that is true then I would think that practicing mating with different pieces vs a lone king shouldn't really be considered study either.

I thought of that. This doesn't count as study. I learned the game all on my own without no help from nobody.

 That's my story and I'm sticking to it... 

No but seriously, yes this is a form of study. I just have never dove in to learning any names of openings, gambits, etc. Is what I mean. (Let the shunning begin).

I don't know a Kings Indian from a Sicilian from a cassowary swallowing an apple.

You don't need to study openings. But solving puzzles and practicing simple mates can be fun. They also serve as a form of positive affirmation. If you get better at them you can see improvement even if it doesn't translate into rating points immediately. I don't think anyone will shun you for not knowing openings, most of us regret the amount of time we spent studying openings just to lose hundreds of games in the middle and endgame.

The reason for that I guess is that the bug just hasn't bitten me. I've tried to get it to, but... (shrug).

Why would anybody want to sit around studying astrophotography - way too complicated and boring... until the bug bites you. I used to do that for hours on end.

To each their own as they say. Maybe that's a good thing lol cos the chess bug apparently has a highly addictive toxin.

My dad used to think I was nuts for watching fishing on TV. "How can watch that boring (explive)? Then he'd go watch golf on TV. Lol.

I just so far the same with chess I guess.

I don't usually post this many of my own thoughts in one of my own threads, but I just realized - if a bug is going to bite you it will probably do so without your knowledge. If you chase a bug around trying to get it to bite you it will probably just run away.

That's me philosophying.

On one hand, this is obviously right. It is right by the definition of stalemate.

On the other hand, this is a bad strategy. Giving random checks in the endgame is just stupid. If you have only a queen (or a rook) vs a bare king, you can never win by just giving checks.

A much better idea would be to use your brain, and think a bit about your moves before you play them.

I'm not discussing a strategy. I'm discussing a move.

Any move that is check may be right or wrong depending on the position. Any move that is not check may be right or wrong depending on the position. 

The answer to your question is YES.

However, it is not sufficient to win in many instances, though.  For instance, K+Q vs K, you will have to make some king moves to make progress towards checkmate.

It's probably too simple for most people to think about often. My point was just that any move that causes a "check" cannot cause a stalemate simultaneously. Obviously every move of the game can't be a check, and especially for us lower rated players those end game moves where we are rearranging without checking are the moves where we are most in danger of accidental stalemate.

If you want good advice for this situation, here is one:

When your opponent has only a king (and maybe a blocked pawn or two) all you have to think about is stalemate. Don't forget about stalemate. Before you make a move, stop and think about stalemate.

Thanks yeah. It was just one of those weird lightbulb above the head moments when I realized this a few hours ago.

@3
"practicing mating with different pieces vs a lone king shouldn't really be considered study"
++ Yes it is. Practicing the 5 basic checkmates KQ vs. K, KR vs. K, KBB vs. K, KBN vs. K, KNN vs. KP
is considered study and is helpful.

Yes, that will do in most cases, but sometimes you will have to play non check moves and make sure that you are not stalemating your opponent. If you have 4 pieces vs a king and 10 seconds left on the clock then only playing checks can sometimes (but not always) be a good strategy. It depends is the answer to the question whether that's a good strategy or not. 

@17 I was comparing that to asking for advice in the forums. However, is practice the same as study? I don't really think it is. I don't disagree that it is helpful though, which is why I made the suggestion.

@19
"is practice the same as study?"
++ Practice is a better way of study. If you study from a book or a video,
all may seem logical, but you tend to forget or not apply it when it occurs.
If you study by practice, you remember better and you can apply it in practice.