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

You bring up interesting points.

First, it's not a loss by forfeit. Black isn't not making a move because he just isn't, it's because he can't. It has to be stalemate or checkmate.

Also, as long as one player has sufficient material, the game will go on. And if one player magically stalemates himself with his own material, he is simply stalemated and will get 0.25.

Simple.

But that's just it, it's not always the case. It can just mean that one (or even both sides) have no legal piece move. That's not the same as losing the game. It just means the game can't continue beyond that. You can have positions where neither side can move regardless of whose move it is, like this one:

Well, in case of a double stalemate, the player on move will be the one stalemated. Doesn't matter if the other player can't move.

You bring up interesting points nonetheless.

OK so what you are saying is if an insufficient mating material position is reached, even if the end position is technically a stalemate it's just a draw correct?

But this would mean some stalemate positions would end up being a win and others a draw. That's why I like stalemate being a draw, because it applies to all stalemates, no matter who is doing the stalemating, and what type of stalemate position it is. Any other rule would have to be split up into different sub-rules depending on the position, like who is stalemated, is it a king capture or forfeit, is it a deadlock vs only one side stalemated..etc.

I don't think that's a checklock. Black can simply move one of his pawns.

The pawns move the other way.

Pawns are going down the board in that one.

Oh, if insufficient material is reached the same time as stalemate, stalemate will have higher priority (just like checkmate does) and hence a half-win.

Why though? Once checkmate is no longer possible, both sides are immediately relieved of the obligation to make moves, so why does the position happening to be a stalemate change that? Stalemate means they can't legally move, but insufficient mating material means they no longer have to, see where it becomes a Grey area now?

What about this position where stalemate could be forced in 3 moves?

Sure insufficient mating material occurred first, but stalemate can be forced in 3 moves immediately after? At one point does stalemate no longer trump insufficient pieces? On the move? 1 move away? 2 moves away?

Umm, there is sufficient material as long as either party has material enough to force stalemate (2 knights for example) The game will continue without a draw.

Generally minor piece vs king endgames are not forcible stalemates, hence if such a position is reached, it's a draw. But if the position is reached at the same time a stalemate occurs, its just stalemate.

Sorry, I got confused earlier. That's why I wasn't clear.

Ah, but it is possible to force with 1 knight, depending on the position. Like I posted earlier:

So it's an interesting question as to whether (if we pretend stalemate is a win) play should be allowed to continue in such positions since stalemate is a possibility! The only genuine insufficient piece draw would be king vs king then! And I don't think one should be able to lose to a lone king, which is part of the reason I prefer stalemate being a draw. I think if you've managed to capture every single one of your opponents pieces, you've earned at least a minimum of a draw as a game result.

Well done. That's a help-mate for black, 0-1.

That is, by the correct rules where the player who is stalemated wins, since the other way round makes no logical sense at all.

No every move is forced. The white king triangulates and the knight cuts off the squares until the king is in the corner. What part of that is a "help-mate"?

I only bothered reading the first four pages.

Note that if stalemate becomes a win under FIDE rules then FIDE would have to rule that a lone king CAN win on time if the opponent's material included an a or h pawn (it would be possible to reach a position with the rook pawn is one square from queening, it's king on the queening square, and the opposing king is two files away.

Thus a lone king has a reason to continue playing for a win when the opponent is low on time.

Changing the stalemate rule to anything other than a draw for both players also automatically changes the rule about the clock flagging.

Yes that's what I was saying before, that only king vs king would be the guaranteed draw for both sides. Even king vs 1 knight would then be a loss on time as 1 knight can not only stalemate a lone king, it can force it, as showed above a couple times.

I don't think a stalemate is a half checkmate at all. It just means one side has no legal moves, and is not in check.

A check is half of a checkmate though. Under attack, but can escape. But in a stalemate, the other king doesn't need to under any threat at all. The example posted where the black king is deadlocked is one where the both kings are not under any sort of attack at all. But one side can't move any pieces. That's not a half checkmate.

It ends because the game cannot continue.

Legally, one player cannot move two pieces of the same color back-to-back except castling.

White must make ONE move, then Black ONE move, then White ONE move, then Black ONE move, etc.

The moment one side cannot move, the game is officially over. If the player that cannot move is also in check, it is checkmate and his opponent wins. If the player that cannot move is not in check, there is no option but to declare the game a draw because the player to move can't legally move, and yet, his king is not in check. Therefore, it is stalemate and a draw. The game CANNOT continue because you cannot "pass" when it is your move.

And we are here to criticize your faulty logic!