MOST STUPID RULE : STALEMATE

Just had a the Nelson CPU force a stalemate when it was losing after only 5 moves? That's some BS. I was using my Castle to defend, and it just kept movie the Queen back and forth to check my King, instead of moving another piece so it could actually get a checkmate. I call complete BS, because it had the ability to make other moves.

Curious if this Ola is the same thing as Voila? 

If I understand this correctly, the computer was losing and it decided to save itself and get the draw? Also, moving the queen back and forth perpetually attacking the king isn't stalemate, it's a tactic known as, well, perpetual check.  The game would go on infinitely so when the position repeats 3 times it's a draw but it's not a stalemate.  I've seen the masters do this perpetual check against other masters to save games when they would be in otherwise losing endgame positions.   King safety is paramount to avoid this trick.  Most common with queens on open diagonals to the king.

Also curious of your actual game, if you don't mind, I'm curious how after 5 moves there was a forced perpetual check. 

If I could pull up the game, I would show you. But it was clearly not the only move that it could make, and I was just doing the best move I could make. Edit: found it, I was black.

From there it took my knight, I moved my left castle up, and it just started checking with the queen.

It doesn't matter if he had other moves to make. Repeating the move three times was in his best interest and he got all the rights to do so. It's your duty to not get yourself into a position where you do not have to repeat the moves yourself.

you guys are all acting like chess is a video game, like chess 2.0 is gonna come out with new buffs and nerfs to the pieces, IT'S NOT. That's how chess has worked for hundreds of years, and I see no reason for it to change now because of some people who think that a simple, universally accepted rule, is dumb. 

You are describing perpetual check. That is completely different topic to stalemate. Perpetual check is a defensive resource for someone who has no chance of winning the game.

You have to be careful not to allow it. If you do, it is completely your responsibility. In the same manner you mustn't allow your opponent to checkmate you. 

Basically the logic of your post is this:  You would like to force your opponent make suboptimal move, instead of his best move.

Why would he do it? Why would he voluntarily lose the game when he can draw? And another question.

Say your opponent then counters your logic with: You can't make that winning move, you can make any other losing move in the position, that is ok. What to do then?  

That is the same kind of logic, and I hope you will understand how it doesn't make any sense.

I don't understand.  I am guessing that moving your left castle was Rh6 and it sounds like it went Qc8+ Re8  Qc5+ Re7 etc.  But instead of Re7 Black could have played Kg8 and avoided further checks.

exactly

Stalemate is not an issue. It adds more depth to the game, so learn to not stalemate.

its a draw. 

Only in certain positions.

I think that its okay I mean you got yourself into it not the board itself 

What's the alternative?  Pistols @ 20 paces?

I don't think Karpov immediately filed a complaint with FIDE following that draw with Korchnoi claiming that he should be awarded the win because he 'deserved it'. 

I agree with you completely, but I fear my sarcasm may have missed its mark. 

Interesting, yeah white is clearly losing and I would do the perpetual check that the computer did if I were in that same position.  I noticed you moved your king instead of castling.  Castling would have been better, preventing this perpetual check, or was this a mouse slip?  Thanks for the share. 

It would be nice to see the entire game because from the narrative the position continued ... Qxc5,   Rh6 Qc8+   Re8 Qc5+  and then Re7 instead of Kg8 and ending the checks.  If that is the case then the perpetual was not even forced but was simply acquiesced to.

The rules of chess have served us well for hundreds of years. It seems more sensible to me for people to just LEARN them, rather than demand to change them.