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

Triple repetition is not stalemate, it just means that if neither player can find anything better to do than continue to move their pieces around in the same circle it is pointless to continue. Only once in all the years I've played have I had to call in the arbiter in such a situation--my opponent was in time trouble and repeating moves to reach 40 moves to get more time. Usually just pointing out "that's the third repetition" is enough; my opponent can't see anything different to try.

if anything, the stalemated player should have advantage

case 1: it is a winnable endgame

the stalemater was careless enough to allow stalemate

the stalemated should be rewarded for playing on

case 2: it is a stalematable, but not winnable endgame

the inevitable stalemater was careless enough to allow this endgame

if youre 2 knights up with other pieces on the board, you should be able to win a pawn and then later promote it

the inevitably stalemated should be rewarded for playing on

OR they made a combination where they sacrificed into the 2 knights endgame, in which case finding that combination should be rewarded

also it would be VERY funny to see all the "i dEsErVe tO wIn fOr sOmEhOw mIsSiNg mAtE wItH aN eXtRa qUeEn, i oUtPlAyEd hIm" posts

stalemate's coverage should be decreased.

• threefold repetation makes 50% sense to me, it may be 10fold or something to solve real deaddraw situations, but many times threefold is used to cheesy bailout from losing.

• stalemate when there is no move but not in check; is simply nonsense. enemy can and should attack again.. and finish off the sorry king.

Stalemating and draws in general are a big deal when that's all that's needed to clinch winning a whole tournament in sole first place or to win a title or keep one.
I imagine the higher the level of play the lesser the frequency of stalemates ... but conversely the percentage of draws that are not stalemate goes up the higher the level of play.

• I think perpetual checks are perfectly fine. They're a nice way for the losing player to clinch a draw in a game. They also make a lot of sense logically.
• Are you suggesting that the king should be capturable in chess?

Thank you for agreeing.

Stalemates are in three categories.
Corner - edge - and midboard.
Midboard stales are rare.
You could say that checkmates are all about the numbers 9 and 6 and 4.
And stalemates are all about the numbers 8 and 5 and 3.
In each case - the number of squares that have to be unavailable to the King for it to be mated. But with stales - the King's other pieces have to be locked or non-existent.

No such thing.

A stalemate is scored as a draw, but not all draws are a result of Stalemate. There is also:

50 move rule

Repetition (whether perpetual check or not even a check at all)

Mutual Agreement (an accepted offer)

Time vs Insufficient mating material

It's hard to prevent game fixing and pre-arranged draws. But the extra quarter point could mean that one player wins first prize in a tournament and the other also wins a prize. For the first player, half a point isn't enough to win first prize but 3/4 of a point is. However, he has black against someone who is famous for last round draws (for example). For that player, a draw would give him the GM norm he needs, perhaps. But so would 1/4 of a point. So they reach a mutually arranged settlement where they work out together a game leading to a stalemate and they play it.

It just adds more complications which don't help anyone, since I genuinely think that if stalemate has to be a win, then the stalemated player must be the one who wins, since the other way rould would completely alter chess theory. Types of game that frequently lead to stalemates would be analysed again with a view to using that to win by. So it must be that the player who forces stalemate should lose, if anyone has to lose.

Sorry, you said you knew what game fixing is and you probably should have said no you don't know what it is!

Stalemate = draw is just fine.
Stalemate = win would make chess no more decisive.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2009.04374 

It is not nonsense! Play better chess.

Stalemate is an art. Take a look at the following game I had against a 2309 player over the board in March 2023

White's 51st move was a blunder. Why should he be rewarded for Blundering? Also, his 54th move officially sealed the deal. There is no way to avoid it at that point. White should not be "rewarded" for this pathetic endgame performance. All this bull(bleep) about 3/4 of a point or he should get to move again and I must pass or any other baloney.

Are you people are doing is whining. Play better chess. Winning takes hard work. Success in life takes hard work - a concept I have noticed a very large percentage of Gen-Zers and Gen-Alphas don't get - not all, but a very large percentage!

Stalemate is what stalemate is. The rule applies to everybody equally, which is what matters. If you are too inept to avoid falling for cheapos, again I say, play better chess!

I understand that such a situation is possible. But compared to arranged draws and losses, the probability of an arranged stalemate is much less. That's what I said.

Most top players have enough sportsmanship to not do something like that. They play the game because they like it. Not for titles and money.

The Nepo-Dubov draw is completely acceptable. The players were just tired and wanted to move on. Many others did the same. But FIDE cut their points because of the ridiculous way they drew. But that's a different argument.

Stalemate also provides numerous benefits which outweigh game fixation. It reduces the need for armageddon/tiebreaks in two-on-two matches. Because of the extra digits, tournament ranking systems are more precise. Also, it just makes sense to separate it from a conventional draw.

I still don't understand why you want the stalemater to lose or get 0.25 points. It makes no sense.

Why does it make more sense for them to win or get .75 points??

Is there a special term for chess snobs?

chobs

lol thanks

I talked about it in my first post. I'll copy-paste it for you.

"

'Checkmate' is made of two words - check (king on fire) and mate (no legal moves)

In a checkmate, there is check and there is mate,

but in a stalemate, there's no check but only mate,

whereas, in a draw (by insufficient material), there's neither check nor mate, rather *both* players are theoretically unable to deliver checkmate.

My logic: Stalemate gets at least half the checkmate right (no check but mate), whereas a draw does neither. So, a stalemate should be a sort of half-win (half-draw), hence 0.75 points for the stalemater and 0.25 points for the victim.

"

@79

It does not matter even if you give 1 to the stalemater and 0 to the stalemated.
"it seems to almost always be possible to defend
without relying on stalemate as a drawing resource.' - Kramnik