Perpetual check is also a draw.
Petition to declare stalemate as a winðŸ˜

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.Â
Â
And there are cases where stalemating is an art.
Take the following example. White to move and draw!
(Edit, I screwed up the diagram - add a Black pawn to h3)
Â
1.Nf7+!! Rxf7
Only legal move
2.Qb2+!! Rxb2
Or 2...Kh7 3.Qc2+ with a draw as 3...Kh6 4.Qg6 is mate and interposed with the Rook loses while 3...Kh8 4.Qb2+ repeats the position.
3.Rg8+!! Kh7 4.Rg7+!! Kh6
Capturing with the Rook is also stalemate
5.Rg6+
With the eternal Rook Draw between g8 and g3. Once the King finally takes, it's stalemate, and a hard earned half point for White. Why should Black get a win?
@ThrillerFan
Yes many such positions.
I would say this is much more frequent though:
A whole lot of players go through that without ever getting on to the stalemates you're talking about. Probably the overwhelming majority, who learn chess when they're ten, then give it up in favour of football or something.

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.Â
Â
And there are cases where stalemating is an art.
Take the following example. White to move and draw!
(Edit, I screwed up the diagram - add a Black pawn to h3)
Â
1.Nf7+!! Rxf7
Only legal move
2.Qb2+!! Rxb2
Or 2...Kh7 3.Qc2+ with a draw as 3...Kh6 4.Qg6 is mate and interposed with the Rook loses while 3...Kh8 4.Qb2+ repeats the position.
3.Rg8+!! Kh7 4.Rg7+!! Kh6
Capturing with the Rook is also stalemate
5.Rg6+
With the eternal Rook Draw between g8 and g3. Once the King finally takes, it's stalemate, and a hard earned half point for White. Why should Black get a win?
Â
In this example it is abstract art, as 1.Nf7+ Rxf7 2.Qc3+ leads to a forced mate. Are you sure Black's pawn is on h3?
pfren wrote:
MARattigan wrote:Â
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?
Â
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?
...
A better example would have been this. Kasparov (White to move) still has 48 moves to go under the 50 move rule in the position shown.
Â

Or....you could just learn to play better chess.

Â
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?
Â
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?
...
A better example would have been this. Kasparov (White to move) still has 48 moves to go under the 50 move rule in the position shown.
Â
Â
There is no 50-move rule in blitz, as the games are not recorded by the players.
Â
There is no 50-move rule in blitz, as the games are not recorded by the players.
But that doesn't appear to accord with the FIDE laws.
Appendix A. Rapid chess
Art A.2 Players do not need to record the moves, but do not lose their rights to claims normally based on a scoresheet. The player can, at any time, ask the arbiter to provide him with a scoresheet, in order to write the moves.
Appendix B. Blitz
Art B.3.1.2 each game is recorded by the arbiter or his assistant and, if possible, by electronic means.
Art B.4 Otherwise, play shall be governed by the Rapid chess Laws as in Article A.2 and A.4.
Maybe the laws governing the game in question were different at that time, but obviously someone was recording the moves, otherwise I would have had difficulty posting it.
again, like i said b4 in a similar thread, stalemate is just like a check. with the rules of a check, you can get forked, which isnt fun, for sure, but its no reason to demolish the rule of the check. same for stalemate. its just another thing to be wary of. its no ones fault but your own if u stalemate someone, doesnt mean you should get rid of it
Keeping stalemate a draw comes in handy in situations like the 29th. game of the 1978 Korchnoi-Karpov world championship match, decribed here https://en.chessbase.com/post/who-needs-stalemate-let-s-abolish-it- (section "Stalemates in World Championship play").
Since nobody responded to my post #50, I'll respond myself.
If you want stalemate to be a win you can't simply replaceÂ
Art 5.2.1 The game is drawn when the player to move has no legal move and his king is not in check. The game is said to end in ‘stalemate’. This immediately ends the game, provided that the move producing the stalemate position was in accordance with Article 3 and Articles 4.2 – 4.7.
with
Art 5.2.1* If the player to move has no legal move and his king is not in check the game is won by his opponent. The game is said to end in ‘stalemate’. This immediately ends the game, provided that the move producing the stalemate position was in accordance with Article 3 and Articles 4.2 – 4.7.
because whenever a stalemate occurred the game would be both won by the opponent of the player stalemated under your revised rule and drawn underÂ
Art 5.2.2 The game is drawn when a position has arisen in which neither player can checkmate the opponent’s king with any series of legal moves. The game is said to end in a ‘dead position’. This immediately ends the game, provided that the move producing the position was in accordance with Article 3 and Articles 4.2 – 4.7.
So you would also need to do something about art 5.2.2.
Art 5.2.2 was introduced sometime between when I learned the rules and the present. I don't like it much, but the reasoning behind it seems perfectly sensible, i.e. if nobody has won the game and there's no possibility of anyone winning the game, the game should be drawn.
When it was introduced, the previous rule declaring the game drawn as soon as a KBK or KNK position was reached was excised. If FIDE had been consistent they would have excised also 5.2.1 and you wouldn't have had a rule to change.
In any case the question is basically what you you want to do with rule 5.2.2. You could make a specific exception for stalemate, but that wouldn't make much sense, or you could change art 5.2.2 to
Art 5.2.2* If a position has arisen in which neither player can checkmate the opponent’s king with any series of legal moves, the game is won by the opponent of the player who has the move. The game is said to end in a ‘dead position’. This immediately ends the game, provided that the move producing the position was in accordance with Article 3 and Articles 4.2 – 4.7.
You probably wouldn't be happy with that either. This would be a Black win, for example:
Â
The fact is that stalemate is a particular kind of dead position. Why would you want to treat it differently?
No need, it's pretty easy to not stalemate. Just find a move they can play, or make every move a check.