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

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

If anything, the side stalemated side should get the 3/4 of the point, teach the 1/4 side that it's time to learn endgames!

Then why shouldn't either player be allowed to make two (or more) moves in a row anytime they please?

That is also hogwash. There are cases where the stalemate side had chances to win, but the other side pulled of the defense to stalemate his opponent.

Most common scenario is a trade down resulting in the following:

With black to move, 1...Kf8!! Is a draw. The draw should score the same no matter what. White should not get more or less for stalemate (2.h7 Kf7) or repetition (2.Kh7 Kf7 3.Kh8 Kf8 4.Kh7 Kf7 5.Kh8 Kf8).

Stalemate is a draw. DEAL WITH IT!!

Oh, and even better, move the White pawn to h5. Now white has 4 options. Repeat with king moves, stalemate black (2.Kh7 Kf7 3.h6 Kf8 4.Kg6 Kg8 5.h7+ Kh8 6.Kh6), K vs K (any other 6th move in above line and 6...Kxh7) or be stalemated (2.h6 Kf7 3.h7 Kf8)

All 4 draws must be awarded the same!

key is in the word 'anytime'.

stalemate is a situation that occurs 'when' both sides can not beat eachother (real life) in a war. and there are some positions in chess which actually is a stalemate. where all pawns are blocking eachother and no capture or progress is possible. but it is called draw.

50 moves rule is very similarly a stalemate situation but again it is called draw.

but when you run out of legal moves and your king is stuck.. even he is one move away of being captured.. it is called stalemate. in fact there is no stalemate situation here (with real life defination) you are just stuck and enemy can finish you off

Nope, it's a draw, it should be a draw. Neither side won so it's a draw.

"The enemy cannot finish you off because the game is already ended."

thats all we are discussing here, it shouldnt be ended.

stalemate should be called out when both sides can not beat eachother 'because' they are consistently resisting.. being stuck doesnt mean defending.

I'll paraphrase it;

If you surround your enemy and he can not move nor defend then you win. That's not a draw.

If you can't deliver checkmate you did not win, no matter how many pieces you have left, or how surrounded your enemy is. It's a draw.

what you are doing is reminding us the current rules. but we already know the rules.

what we are doing here is criticizing the logic of stalemate and how it actually should be.

Can someone find anything wrong with my logic? If yes, then that would be a real argument.

Are you suggesting that the king should be capturable instead?

Just because you can't move doesn't mean it's a loss, it shouldn't mean it's a draw either because it's your move and you have to move but u can't. So u get 0.25.

Hikaru Moment

Many stalemates occur in endings where there is no possibility of immediate checkmate, or (see post 83 for an example) where the "superior" side couldn't achieve checkmate even if they got to make 100 moves in a row.

If a player has an overwhelming advantage and puts their opponent into stalemate that is poor play, a blunder, a mistake; that player doesn't deserve any kind of bonus.

What you want is called a "variant". You should propose a chess variant just like all the other ones we've already got around.

I agree with @DenialOfNature

It should not be another variant, it's no bonus for good play either. We are debating whether a rule in chess is accurate and benefits the game or is illogical and inconsistent. If the rules are illogical and inconsistent, the quality of the game decreases. In snakes and ladders, a certain ratio of snakes to ladders is chosen such that the game is most enjoyable, fun and not too long. That's what we're doing here.

That being said, can someone find anything wrong with the logic I proposed?

Current rule is accurate, benefits the game, and is completely logical and consistent. I dont see any problems.

But it could 100% be a variant though.

DRAW.

VARIANT.