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

As I said earlier, checkmate needs two things: check (king in check) and mate (no legal moves)

Stalemate gets at least one of the two right (rather than a draw which gets none), hence half the win.

That's just my logic.

Also, it's easier to add up the points than with other fractions.

Stalemate should always be 1/2-1/2, if the side with the advantage doesn't know how to checkmate, it's their fault

It's not just always a skill issue, sometimes its impossible to checkmate despite having a lot of material and a good position. For example, the two knights endgame for the matter or many many pawn endgames. Its just to keep things fair.

Stalemate isn't unfair. It's an important rule of the game. It is always a skill issue. If you're up two knights but you trade off all the pawns for some reason, then you clearly didn't know how to win up two pieces

I don't recall what game this was exactly, but there's a famous grandmaster game I think, where one side was down a full rook but sacrificed their rook for completely free (capturing it was forced), and on the next move, trapped their own king by pushing a pawn, and there was nothing that the offending side could do to avoid stalemating the defending side. Again, skill issue. Should've seen that coming and prevented it

Without the attack on the king, the game can't be won and isn't won. Yet one player can't move, so the game can't continue. Therefore the only reasonable result is either a draw or win for the stalemated player. (A full point). Messing around with half wins and three quarters of a point would lead to game fixing.

Can you elaborate what you mean by "game fixing"?

Haven't you heard of it?

No

I googled it. No rule is game fixing as long as its predetermined before the game and it applies to both parties.

There could be situations where for one player, an extra quarter point could lead to prizes and wouldn't affect the other player, so a stalemate could be arranged between them.

Of course, in practice the whole idea is unacceptable.

How can a stalemate be "arranged between them?"

A stalemate is a positional draw, not a theoretical draw nor a draw by agreement.

There is no way either color can force stalemate. At least when humans play.

You don't know what you're talking about. I'm unfollowing.

Can you plz try to explain? I'd love to hear your thoughts.

What they mean by "arranged stalemate" is that both players might converse before the game, and agree to make a draw

For example, Dubov vs. Nepo in the FIDE World Blitz Chess Championship 2023 featured an arranged draw. The chief arbiter decided that the game was a pre-arranged draw, and both players scored 0 points, i.e., a double forfeit, 0-0.

Ah, now I see what you mean. But draws have the same problem. Or you can just resign a game or lose on purpose. That's up to the sportsmanship of the players. That's a completely different problem in sports in general. Situations needing 'arranged stalemate' are rare and don't increase the problem too much. The benefits of the quarter system outweigh the negatives.

As I said, stalemates reduce the need for armageddons and tiebreaks and improve the ranking system of tournaments in general.