MOST STUPID RULE : STALEMATE

It's surprising that so many people still have a hard time with that. You are right, the objective of the game is checkmate. So in a position where neither side will checkmate, both sides are incapable of performing the objective of the game. 1/2-1/2 is the most reasonable and fair outcome. The only other option I can see is 0-0. Because both players are eliminated from reaching the goal of the game.

Exactly. Without the rule, you have a conundrum. Hence, the regulation hundreds of years ago. It's like the offside rule in soccer. You get used to it and move on.

I dont understand people defending stalemate. Its not about the fact that if you blunder leading to a stalemate you deserved to loose, its about the fact that the rule shouldnt exist to begin with! The same goes for if the opponent manages to make a "great play" that ends up in stalemate. The thing is there shouldnt even be a rule that would allow him to win with a single king in the first place. He lost all the pieces, why should he have a chance to draw? Completely unfair. There is no excuse for it really.

"So in a position where neither side will checkmate, both sides are incapable of performing the objective of the game."

They'll never get rid of it, so get used to it. Learn not to stalemate.

It's also a pretty good idea to learn how to stalemate. That can be worth half a point sometimes.

ok

I hadn't thought about it, but you're right. Sometimes you find yourself in a position where it's best to secure a draw.

In a war, a king may be able to reach a compromise.

stalemate can be an annoying rule at times but its still very fair and makes sense. the king has no legal moves, and isnt in any checks, so yeah of course its a draw.

You can only win by Checkmate or resignation.

No check, no mate, no win.

And sometimes a stalemate occurs with more than just the king on the board. Like I said previously, I once sacrificed a rook to prevent a stalemate in the very next move, and ended up winning, although in that position there was no guarantee that I would win. It was a gamble.

They say chess is supposed to be some sort of war game, but to me it's just a social game. But I see your point. A stalemate could be a compromise.

stalemate is good because theirs no other way to end a over the board chess game king v king when both players haven't heard about the 50 move rule. they can call the position stalemate although this isn't technically correct, but it ends the game

King vs. king is not stalemate. Please look up what stalemate is. It will be very useful.

Stalemate is not the problem, the root of the problem comes from not being able to take the king if the opponent blunders it, like pinning the horse to the king with the bishop like it happens so many times, if the opponent moves his horse, then you take the king in your turn and he loses, same goes in a situation where the king doesn’t have any safe squares anymore, he just moves to any square and maybe the opponent won’t notice so you can keep moving into a safe square, like imagine you are in a time scramble and you move your king next to the opponents king and they don’t notice it and in the next turn you take their king and win the game, sounds fun to me hahaa but damn misogynistic royalty, the queen can be blundered, but the king has special privilege, 💀

[Removed: I3]

Joined 27 minutes ago and came here to troll. Not quite the world record but a good effort!

https://www.chess.com/game/live/100460555169

hmm yes, stalemate bad.