Petition to declare stalemate as a win😭

Stalemate is only one kind of dead position.

If you think stalemate should be lost by the stalemated player do you also think the player who has the move should lose here? Anybody?

Stalemate should be worth more than .5, maybe considering it a win makes sense but the world of chess would never do that now because it's so ingrained in many endgame strategic plans. If not a full point maybe .75

So you'd have awarded Epishin .75 points here https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1533865 ?

Yep.

What would you call it under basic rules. Points are not awarded. A "semi-win" perhaps?

Except for tournament games  I don't think this would be different from calling stalemate a win for the player who hasn't got the move. In informal games a player would be deemed to have won if he did better than his opponent, regardless of whether the laws say he has won or semi-won.

In this position Black gets a win just because White can't move. Would you, by the same token, be in favour of changing the rules to make it a white win? 

(Couldn't manage the full 10 queens, but I've chucked in a few extra pieces to make up the difference.)

Why should you get a win for being incapable of checkmating your opponent?

You have not checkmated your opponent, and therefore cannot claim a win.

Your opponent refuses to surrender.  He requires you to checkmate him.

You made a really bad move.  It is your Opponent's Turn.  He cannot make a move.  "Pass" is illegal.

Therefore, It's his move.  He cannot make a move.  He is not in danger because his King is not in check.  It's a stalemate.

White to move.  Why should Black win this if he doesn't play the right moves?  There is a move that Black could make that is a complete blunder.  You want him to win for blundering?

1...Rd1?? 2.Qxg5+!! and now 2...hxg5 (other moves lose) is stalemate!  White cannot move.  White is not in check.  White cannot pass.  It's a standoff.  Standoff = Draw!

Or an example from Grandmaster games as Wikipaedia likes to put it.

This is the game I quoted to @DreamscapeHorizons earlier.

In the position shown Epishin has already spent well over 50 moves proving he has no idea how to checkmate in this endgame and blunders from a theoretically won position into stalemate with his next move. You want to give him the win for that?

Total beginners learning to mate with a queen are often prone to stalemating. At least if you made stalemate a win it would save them learning it.

-1

You need to still be aware of what you're doing. If you lose concentration and draw the game by stalemate when up a queen, it's your fault, not the rule's fault. 

Actually the point I was making. Sorry, I never use those Smiley things. (They didn't used to have them when I was alive.)

My guess would be that stalemates in games occur many times more often owing to blunders by the player stalemating than they do as a subtle game saving tactic. That alone would be a strong argument against changing the rule to give the player stalemating a win. 

Bull Manure !!!

   ---   You will get 1/2 point for a stalemate ( ie a draw ) so if you get two stalemates in a row you get one point. That is the same as winning one of two games being played in a row.

You already said that Kempinski could have claimed a draw a couple of moves earlier due to the 50-move rule, so where is the blunder?

You may also notice that back in 2001 the game was played with analog clocks and no increment (the first FIDE approved event with an increment was played a couple of years ago). Vladimir Epishin is/was a very strong player, but also well known about his nervous and erratic play under time pressure. There was no way him missing the mating patterns with enough time on the clock.

You can find several details about the game in Smerdon's book "The complete chess swindler".

I know that Epishin was a very strong GM. I suspect he might have been falling on his sword at that point (or possibly by move 179 just falling asleep.)

The blunder, if there is one, is that the 50 move rule is claimable and Kempinski didn't appear to be counting. (Obviously a bit optimistic that he'd lose count for another 18 moves or so though.)

If he'd done the same thing about  twenty moves earlier it would definitely have been a blunder. In fact the blunder was 158...Bc5 but that's not a stalemate (why I said "theoretically won" which traditionally ignores the 50 move rule rather than just "won").

But if you think I was protesting too much I'd have to agree.

N O

I agree

And why would you get a win with 10 queens against a king, if you are not capable to checkmate despite such a superiority?