Personally, I think stalemate should be 1/4 point for the stalemated player and 3/4 points for the player who made the last move.
Should Stalemate be a Draw?
Sort:
ErrolEG wrote:
It suits the spectators to have both players try their utmost. The possibility of snatching a draw from the jaws of defeat encourages the losing player and sets a new challenge for the winning player = more excitement. 1/2-1/2 is not fair when 1 player is dominant of course (hence the calls for 1-0 or 1/4-3/4), but it raises the quality of play demanded of both. 1-0 or 1/4-3/4 won't have the same uplift effect.
I agree. That is another reason why I think stalemate should not be a win. However, it does not make any logical sense why a position like this should be a draw.
The king is completely surrounded and is about to be checkmated, but it is considered to be a draw??!! However, this rule teaches beginning players that it isn't over until it's over. This rule is the reason why playing mindlessly, even when up a queen, isn't a good idea. I think 1/4 - 3/4 takes the best of both worlds. 1/4 - 3/4 won't have the same uplifting effect as 1/2 - 1/2, but it will still be very exciting to see if the player can manage to get valuable points in the tournament.
Anonymous_Dragon wrote:
Another newbie , another stupid post
Fair enough. You can just ignore this post if you want
It does not really matter. Even if stalemate is a win, chess is still a draw.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2009.04374.pdf
Should queens also be allowed to move like knights?? Inquiring minds want to know?
Jun 24, 2021
0
#8
KnightAttack1567 wrote:
Anonymous_Dragon wrote:
Another newbie , another stupid post
Fair enough. You can just ignore this post if you want
It's not possible. People like you create unwanted nuisance in the community
It is what it is. Stalemate is the player's own problem from time and miscalculation. I just found a recent game I spectated:
Yes indeed, such misfortune, ran out of time. Stalemate is the only hope (other than resigning and blunders) that the player down pieces can end this game brilliantly. This is a chance to the losers to draw, but not a "mate".
Some people make posts like this because they are so unskilled that they keep making stalemates in easily winning positions.
So they want to over turn 200 years of chess to make the game easier for them. 
Oh !!!
ponz111 wrote:
Some people make posts like this because they are so unskilled that they keep making stalemates in easily winning positions.
So they want to over turn 200 years of chess to make the game easier for them.
That's not why I made this post
I am not complaining about the rule. I just want to know what other people think about it
And now you know why the "Official Rule Book" (7th edition) is 140 pages of "easy reading."
Onward Chessnuts, Leave No Stone Unturned ...... 
On one hand, stalemate doesn't make any logical sense. The king has no legal moves, meaning that any square the king can move to results in it being captured (it is the ultimate zugzwang). Thus, it is completely illogical to call the game a draw. Also, the two knights vs king endgame will finally equal a win instead of a draw. Here is an explanation as to why stalemate should be a win.
On the other hand, stalemate equaling a win results in a king and pawn vs king endgame always resulting in a win. Even a 900 rated player should easily win this endgame under these circumstances. It eliminates the need to know about concepts such as the opposition. Therefore, if you lose a pawn in the endgame, you might as well resign. Even if you lose a pawn earlier in the game, if you're playing a strong player, it's essentially game over. Not to mention, it now becomes possible for a bishop vs king or a knight vs king endgame to equal a win.