Why is this a stalemate?

It's in the rules:

http://www.chess.com/chessopedia/view/stalemate

That's a pretty silly rule then. Thanks for clarifying

 New to the game.

Could have written the rules better.

This is a stalemate because the king is not on check, but also, he have no free square to move. In this case, it's a draw. You do not checkmated him, but also he can't move. The game is "blocked". So, stalemate. 

Why silly?  It adds a dimension to the game that helps make endgames more interesting.  It also allows for skillful and unexpected play.  It does seem pretty annoying though if you've just thrown away a game.  Been there, done that; no fun at all.

EDIT: Oh sorry about the lame Chessopedia link.  I just looked, saw that it was a paragraph and assumed they defined it.  Wrong.  

It's silly because he literally has no chance to defeat me. If he can't make a move without being in check that's basically checkmate. He had no chance to win at all while I could've made any mistake I wanted and have more then enough pieces to ensure victory. Obviously I'll learn from this but in a situation like this it should be a victory. 39 to 14 points is not even close to being a stalemate. 

Yep, that's the standard beginner's argument.  Right down to counting points.  We've had one or two previous threads on the subject...

That's why he wont be awarded the win.

'Basically checkmate' without check is stalemate.

Well you managed to find one mistake you couldn't make to ensure victory 

No. Your opponent isn't allowed to move into check. There's no way to proceed. Yes, learn from it.

39 points to 14 was very close to being a stalemate in this instance. Exactly so in fact.

Yea no legal moves = Stalemate. if hes' not in check

Since you are new at chess, we are trying to show you that, here, in chess, your objective is to catch the opponent king. 

Doesn't matter the number of pieces you have. You must catch the opponents king. This is the only way of winning, except if you are playing a game with time control, because than you win if your opponent run out of time. 

And how to do all that? catch king, avoid stalemate, not lose by time? Welcome to the Chess Universe! 

I like this answer.  Well said.

You won't think it so silly when you're hopelessly behind in material or postion or both and are able to force stalemate. Trust us, then you'll think the rule is pretty cool.  >:[

Nice example by skotheim2!

The reasoning behind the rule is the fact that it is illegal to ever make a move that puts your king into check. In your eample, the king was not being checked, so he was safe where he was. However, he could not make any legal moves, because every possible move would put his king into check. This ends the game as a tie.

I hope this clarifies a bit! And as a tip, when you are getting close to checkmating your opponent, try to keep checking your opponent's king. If his king is in check, you at least won't get a stalemate.

In your example, instead of playing 31. Qxc5, you should have played Qc4+, forcing 32. Ka5. Then you would win with Qb6#, without ever capturing his last pawn.

In fact, 31... Rg4# is one move faster.

That is true. I'm a bit new to this myself, LOL!

Could turn out to be a very self-instructive game for you.

You had forced mates after 18..Ra2, 20..Qf2, 22..Qe2, 25..Re1, 26..Re4, 27..Rf2.

You preferred to gobble material and paid the price.

Here's a post you will never see in these forums:

I just played a game where I was about to be checkmated and I accidentally stumbled into stalemate. My opponent was deprived of the win and had to settle for a draw. I think the stalemate rule stinks and I would never use it to draw a hopelessly lost position. Is there anyway I can give my half-point back to my opponent to give him the win he deserves?    >:[