Should stalemating count as 3/4ths of a win?

I need to spell it out for you.

On the premise that SparrowMount is wrong that awarding the win or threequarters point to the person who stalemates the other, I agree with those who are asking why a blunder (in allowing a stalemate when you're winning) should be rewarded. It's complete nonsense and also, Thriller pointed out that the same position can lead either to a draw by repetition (forced) or a draw by stalemate (forced).

Therefore you should have noticed that I've been supporting the better interpretation all along ... that if a win or 3/4 point is necessary, then it goes to the player who is stalemated.

It was black's moves that were forced in the sequence you showed and not white's. It was therefore a helpmate.

Do you understand it yet?

Simple position with White low on time: WKe1, WPe2, BKe3. White does not have a forced win but can force a stalemate. Black plays the clock with White successfully avoiding stalemate but still running out of time. Black then claims that since White could have stalemated then it should be scored as if the stalemate happened. (under FIDE if a helpmate against the flagged player can be constructed then the flagged player does not draw).

from @jetoba 
(under FIDE if a helpmate against the flagged player can be constructed then the flagged player does not draw).
that's interesting.
That would mean that K + 2 knights against K wins?
It would mean bishops of opposites wins?
But if the position reduces down to those - surely either player can claim a draw?
Or is it mainly just K+P against K because the P can be promoted for mating material?

In FIDE if K+B vs K+B ends in a player flagging and the bishops travel on squares of opposite colors then the flagging player does lose, as does a flagging player when the opponent has only two knights, or even if the opponent has only K+N and the flagging player has at least a bishop or a knight or a rook or an (underpromotable) pawn, or if the opponent has only K+B and the flagging player has at least a knight or a bishop or a pawn.

@jetoba
that's neat. Regarding FIDE. Maybe USCF is different.
Regarding the FIDE rule - is that for all time controls?
So even if the flagged player has a pawn that is not an a-apawn or an h-pawn and the other player has only a knight or a bishop then that other player wins.
And of course if its an a-pawn or h-pawn then the knight or bishop still wins.
--------------------------------------------------
I'm noting that some queening squares would not underpromote to the correct bishop color of moving - but it could be a knight instead. Or a rook.
So that pawn would actually lose the game.
Because of the helpmate with white K on g6 - checkmating knight aimed at f7 - black K on h8 and white making the suicidal move of Ng8 with that black knight coming from h6 or f6 but not e7 followed by the finishing white knight doing Nf7#.
------------------------------------------------------------
So the player in severe time trouble has to advance that pawn and try to sacrifice it as soon as possible.
But I can see what might then happen.
The other side puts his King in front of the pawn and doesn't take it.
and then runs out the clock shuttling his single minor piece.
The side with the pawn could try to make 50 King moves in the few seconds he's got!

FIDE and USCF are different. The USCF has always used their shenanigans with rules that make no sense and are always prone to interpretation issues.

The worst is note taking. FIDE is strict and specific. All you can write is header information, the moves played, the time, and draw offers, and they have a specific symbol for draw offers, (=)

Also, you CANNOT write the move first. You MUST make your move before you can write it. You can write the move your opponent made before you make your, but you cannot write your own.

USCF, you can write and then play, or play and then write, but you cannot note take. So what constitutes note taking? If you write the move, wait 5 minutes, and play it, is that note taking? If you write it, wait 5 minutes, cross it out and write another, is it note taking? Do you have to note a different move like intending X to be note taking? Personally, if you write a move and sit there 5 minutes, as long as you play THAT MOVE, I don't care. The moment you change it or play a different move, I summon the director immediately!

As far as the sufficient material rules, it is as follows:

FIDE - If one player runs out of time, and there is a LEGAL, no matter how stupid, sequence of moves to give checkmate, the person with time wins.

In the following example, if Black is in the bathroom and time runs out, it is a draw because no legal sequence of moves wins for White:

With Black to move, the only legal move checkmates the White King, so if Black's flag falls, it is a draw. But K+B vs K+B, with Bishops of opposite color, that is a win on time.

USCF it is all about mating material. If the player with time has:

1) Just a king

2) Just a king and Bishop AND NO FORCED MATE

3) Just a king and knight AND NO FORCED MATE

4) Just a King and 2 Knights and the side with no time has no pawns. If he has at least one pawn, it is a win for the knights, regardless if the pawn is in front of, on, or behind the Troitsky Line.

So the following is a win in USCF

With Black to move and he let's his flag fall. But the following is not a win

Black has promoted 3 of his pawns to knight, 1 to rook, and 1 to queen. His flag falls. By rule, this is a draw, but add 1 black pawn ANYWHERE and White wins on time.

Why assume that the one who's not in stalemate should progress and not the other one? Either way, that would promote a stalemate to somehow be "a better draw" than repetition or an agreed draw, or than by the 75 moves rule.

Since many good players, seeing that repetition or stalemate is inevitable, would agree a draw without playing it out, that makes your assumption completely illogical. It's therefore one which no good chess player will accept.

I think the conversation is ended, since there's no way back from that for you. You'd have to argue that a draw by stalemate is a better draw than an agreed draw, where the players know that stalemate is inevitable. Therefore it's incorrect and that's all there is to it.

@Thriller-Fan
I've heard of Troitsky many times.
But I hadn't heard of that 'Troitsky line' before.
"The winning chances with two knights are insignificant except against a few pawns. These positions were studied extensively by A. A. Troitsky, who discovered the Troitsky line, a line on or behind which the defending side's pawn must be securely blockaded for the attacking side to win."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Regarding a black pawn on the board against two white knights the point seems to be that if black's King is locked in a corner then if he has a pawn he can't get stalemate so therefore a knight checkmate becomes possible.
So for example white King h6 - black K h8 - white knight on e7 and white knight on e5 with white to move can mate with Nf7# or Ng6#.

But black has to have had a previous move. With his pawn - 
If his pawn was on e6 or h7 that would be stalemate already but its specified white's on move so that couldn't be.
And if his pawn was on g7 that would be an illegal position.
There seem to be only four legal places on the board black's pawn could be that could mess up the mate.
c2 or h2. Or f6 or d6.
So there are 7 'funny' squares for a black pawn to be there ... plus it can't be on the three squares of the white pieces.
So that's 10.
Leaving 38 places for the pawn and position to be 'square' for the win. 
Pun intended.

Now this video by Danny Rensch might put a Wrensch in things:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqFykCZ4I34

Yes I have created multiple extensive threads on this issue. The hypocrisy of using anything other then FIDE rules has endless examples:

If black refuses to move the pawn here, he gets a draw even though mate is forced.

If white in a time scramble pushes the a pawn, and realizes he's fallen into this basic mating net, he can not move and also get a draw...

BUT..

If black runs out of time here, he loses

EVEN THOUGH...

Black has a 50% chance of getting mated here he gets a draw if he loses on time...

YET...

Black will lose if he flags here despite white needing computer table bases to understand how to win here.

So essentially black loses the two positions above on time where he has a .00000000001% chance of actually losing, yet gets a draw out of the one where he actually has a 50% chance of losing. Insane.

And finally...

Even if black runs out of time here, he should get the win as white self-mated himself. This is the only type of example where one can argue that flagging isn't a loss or a draw, but a win since that's the only way the game could possibly end anyway. And you can retrograde-cascade that position by adding more queens on the h file and 7th rank.

All of these absurd hypocrisies and contradictions happen when you use USCF or this sites implementation of it. That's why the FIDE rules should be used and if checkmate is possible in any way by any sequence of moves it should be a loss to flag.

The 2 knights vs pawn Endgame is one of the most fascinating and one of the only ones that only computers "understand". The most complex 2 knights vs 1 Pawn forced mate I understand is this one:

Other King moves may delay or speed up the mate, but the idea is first creating the same opposition with black to move, then shifting the opposition from horizontal to vertical, and then once again making it black to move. Yet tablebases have discovered that this position is a win in 96:

Endgames like Queen vs Rook and Rook + Bishop vs Rook are hard but even we can understand the subtle reasons for the specific moves when we really study them. But only computers can solve these 2 knights vs pawn tablebase forced mates.

I agree that FIDE rules look much much better.
So there's an issue as to why USCF hasn't 'woken up' yet.

FIDE rules don't necessary stop seemingly unfair results such as black losing up 2 queens to 1 pawn, but at least that makes everything consistent. It doesn't make you draw a position that you have a forced mate in while also making you lose drawn positions. Either any checkmate being possible determines the outcome, or every position would have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and I prefer the former.

Keep the rules as they are. Like my puppy, chess is perfect as it is. Actually, my puppy still needs work.

yeah they can if one side decides to trade off everything but give their queen for free, and the other side realizes what they are doing and stalemates the other guy with their extra queen

the point is that in various 'rule' situations one side can let his clock run down and get a draw.
No 'stalemate'.

US Chess also does not award a draw to a flagged player when the opponent has forced mate, and also does not assign a loss to a flagged player in a position so blocked that the only possible result is a draw.

The only difference between US Chess and FIDE is when one player flags and the opponent has K+2N (while the opponent does not have a pawn) or K+B or K+N, In those cases a draw is given unless the non-flagged player has a forced mate. While in FIDE positions like K+N vs K+N or K+N vs K+B or K+N vs K+R are a loss for the flagged player regardless of whether or not the win is forced. In FIDE K+N can win on time against K+2Q+2R+2N+2B+6P. In FIDE K+B can win on time against K+2Q+2R+7P (a pawn can be promoted to B or N). In FIDE and US Chess K+P can win on time against K+9Q+2R+2B+2N.

Regarding the flagged side losing when its way up on material ...
I think you've got to have that.
Otherwise the point of having clocks is getting undermined.
Time is to decide.
Else players could win by taking far more time.
Which doesn't work.
-------------------------------------------------
Plus there needs to be consistency and simplicity regarding the material rules.
I think 'helpmates' win makes sense if one is willing to think about it.
For example if one side has pawn on any rank except 7th against lone king he's not to win if lone king flags because the lone king might get in front of the pawn and draw in many positions?
It would be much too complicated.
I don't know why USCF excludes the two knights and other helpmates.
Because its inconsistent.
A pawn on board would also often need a helpmate.
Especially an edge pawn.
So you give the pawn all the helpmates but not the minor pieces?
I think EE is correct on this one.
It can be in friendly disagreement though.

I'm sure there's been 'disagreements' where USCF players played in FIDE events and vice versa.
I can see the gesticulating - hear the angry voices - and the body language of very bad rules news on all sides.

There is the case of Nakamura trying to blitz out a win with K+R vs K+N and getting surprised when flagging was ruled a loss.

My guess though ... he didn't go crazy.
Naka probably kept his cool.
What about Fischer or Niemann in that situation?
Uh oh.