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

Of course you're talking about a variant, since most players won't consider it.

The rules as they are are neither illogical nor inconsistent, except that they may be inconsistent with your own wishes. No argument has been presented here as to why the present rules are illogical, so we're discussing a variant.

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.

I did present an argument. Its in my very first post. I'll copy-paste again.

"

'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.

"

Can we talk about this?

What is there to discuss if you don't give a good argument that the present logic's wrong?

And why do you reject the idea that the stalemater should be considered to have lost? What's wrong with that? It seems better than the stalemater winning.

Yes. Many stalemates occur in pawn endings where the "superior" player can never queen their pawn if the opponent doesn't move. What is so wonderful about achieving that? In situations where one player has the other king surrounded but blunders and creates stalemate instead of playing accurately and checkmating the opponent, why reward that blunder? Would you give extra credit to a player who had a simple mate in two, missed it, and went on to draw or lose?

@Optimissed Then can you point out whats wrong with my logic? Or whats not good about it?

The rules of chess will not be changed over silly wordplay nonsense.

Regardless, it's not a very fair change since the stalemater failed to win as much as the "victim" avoided a loss. 50/50 sounds logical and fair. Which is the current rule.

It's not wordplay. Checkmate is actually defined as checking your opponent (check) without leaving him squares to move (mate). It requires two things. I just based my logic off of this.

Can someone specifically tell me whats wrong with the way I think?

It sound silly because I tried to make it easy for everyone to understand.

I meant my second post. I left my first post blank, because I wanted to hear your thoughts before I posted my logic.

0.25 and 0.75 are pretty easy to add up in a score. They're not something like 0.33 or 7/13.

No. The aim of chess is to checkmate the king, not to end up better in material. Material doesn't matter as long as the kings are not affected.

No I'm not. You can actually force stalemate with two knights, opposite king-pawn and the rook pawn.

A win for the stalemater is just as bad as a draw for the same reasons I mentioned.

Btw @QuantumTopologistISBACK, there's something wrong with your quotes. You should recheck the formatting.

Honestly, I haven't seen any logical arguments which are based on suggestions that I could agree with, so what you're discussing is a potential variant but no more. I wouldn't worry about it if I were you. Have a think about it but I need to work now. Thanks for the conversation. The coffee machine is calling me.

@SparrowMount

i disagreed with you

read it again

if not 0.5-0.5, give advantage to the stalemated player