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

FIDE rules don't necessary stop seemingly unfair results such as black losing up 2 queens to 1 pawn, but at least that makes everything consistent. It doesn't make you draw a position that you have a forced mate in while also making you lose drawn positions. Either any checkmate being possible determines the outcome, or every position would have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and I prefer the former.

Keep the rules as they are. Like my puppy, chess is perfect as it is. Actually, my puppy still needs work.

yeah they can if one side decides to trade off everything but give their queen for free, and the other side realizes what they are doing and stalemates the other guy with their extra queen

the point is that in various 'rule' situations one side can let his clock run down and get a draw.
No 'stalemate'.

US Chess also does not award a draw to a flagged player when the opponent has forced mate, and also does not assign a loss to a flagged player in a position so blocked that the only possible result is a draw.

The only difference between US Chess and FIDE is when one player flags and the opponent has K+2N (while the opponent does not have a pawn) or K+B or K+N, In those cases a draw is given unless the non-flagged player has a forced mate. While in FIDE positions like K+N vs K+N or K+N vs K+B or K+N vs K+R are a loss for the flagged player regardless of whether or not the win is forced. In FIDE K+N can win on time against K+2Q+2R+2N+2B+6P. In FIDE K+B can win on time against K+2Q+2R+7P (a pawn can be promoted to B or N). In FIDE and US Chess K+P can win on time against K+9Q+2R+2B+2N.

Regarding the flagged side losing when its way up on material ...
I think you've got to have that.
Otherwise the point of having clocks is getting undermined.
Time is to decide.
Else players could win by taking far more time.
Which doesn't work.
-------------------------------------------------
Plus there needs to be consistency and simplicity regarding the material rules.
I think 'helpmates' win makes sense if one is willing to think about it.
For example if one side has pawn on any rank except 7th against lone king he's not to win if lone king flags because the lone king might get in front of the pawn and draw in many positions?
It would be much too complicated.
I don't know why USCF excludes the two knights and other helpmates.
Because its inconsistent.
A pawn on board would also often need a helpmate.
Especially an edge pawn.
So you give the pawn all the helpmates but not the minor pieces?
I think EE is correct on this one.
It can be in friendly disagreement though.

I'm sure there's been 'disagreements' where USCF players played in FIDE events and vice versa.
I can see the gesticulating - hear the angry voices - and the body language of very bad rules news on all sides.

There is the case of Nakamura trying to blitz out a win with K+R vs K+N and getting surprised when flagging was ruled a loss.

My guess though ... he didn't go crazy.
Naka probably kept his cool.
What about Fischer or Niemann in that situation?
Uh oh.

They probably will stay the way they are.
In both FIDE and USCF. Different.
A player playing someone who doesn't know the rules ...
The player has two knights against his lone King.
Lone King resigns. The player takes the win with signed scoresheets.
Later - he finds out the rule. Appeals.
Too late.

Do not know what all here are thinking.

Myself loves MariasWhiteKnight.

That is not the best case because even under FIDE the player can get a draw by the 50 move rule and if there is any type of delay or increment the time will be available.

Unless you are talking about the player considering the already fallen flag to signal a loss.

Your smurf (me) says Draw.

@jetoba I didn't word my post quite right.
I'll fix it now.
The player with the lone king resigns.
Is what I meant.
I think you gathered that.

Regarding the 50 move rule - in the example given I'm talking about a common situation with a player short on time and then flagging out.
He has seconds left and has just lost his last material.
He doesn't even consider trying to blitz out 50 moves.
Or tries and fails. Then resigns/gives up when the other player calls 'flag'.

I should mention that there is a particular situation where a player can lose if the other player flags - and that is 'board position'.
For example:
Player calls 'mate' the other player calls 'flag' and the first player already is setting the checkmating piece down. Or its already stalemate for a draw.
The tournament director is supposed to go by the position on the board - whether checkmate or stalemate. Not the clock.
Many might say that calling 'mate' isn't good enough because it can't be proven or one player could claim he didn't hear - that he was 'concentrating' ...
or that it just isn't the rule.
I've seen these situations in live tournaments by the way.

What defines a "forced mate". Where do you draw the line? A mate in 3 or a mate in under 20? Either you include all mates, forced or not, or let an arbiter have the discretion to award a draw to any person reasonably up on material that flags. I see nothing special about the king + 2 knights vs king that makes it any more drawish than KNKB. As I said, in some positions just making the wrong move can get you mated:

Yet actual Endgame studies exist where the last move results in a KNKB but would be drawn under this sites version of USCF rules:

This site would immediately declare a draw before white could play ng6#, which is absurd. 99% chance white will see that checkmate at that move, gets stuck with a draw, yet .000000000001% chance 2 queens would lose to 1 pawn, yet the pawn wins if flagging. It's totally backward. At least FIDE keeps it consistent, 2 queens lose to 1 pawn the same way a king loses to 2 knights or 9 queens + 2 rooks lose to 1 knight. As long as a mate exists with those pieces, it's a win/loss. The only piece combinations that are a draw are KBKB same colors, KNKQ, KBKQ, and KBKR, for the side with more material, if they flag.

Because a knight can checkmate a rook, in fact black in this position should lose on time if he flags because this is possible:

"This site would immediately declare a draw before white could play ng6#, which is absurd"
Yes it is absurd.
But it kind of has to do it apparently because otherwise the rules would be inconsistent in the case of using computers.
Because a player might be playing for the draw that way.
They're apparently all different.
You could argue that they're all absurd.
FIDE - USCF - chess.com. ...
but they've got their reasons.
Things aren't always what they seem to be.

That's why any mating material left rule would be the simplest. KBKB same colors, KBKR, KBKQ, and KNKQ are the only piece combinations where the former side cannot mate the latter. Any other piece combinations that isn't insufficient mating material for one or both sides, the side that flags loses, simple to program.

You could consider that K+R versus K+R scored as a win against the flagged player who loses - is absurd even though it has helpmates.
Its essentially a drawn position.
How many types of position where flagging loses that are actually draws - are there?
Queen versus queen is usually a draw.
Many pawnless endings are a draw.

Queen plus knight versus Queen plus knight should be a draw but it could be easy for one side to blunder.
In some over the board tournaments USCF had a rule they may still have that if one player wants a draw to be adjudicated in a simplified position then the tournament director is to form an opinion as to whether a master could swindle a C player in the position and if he thinks the master might be able to do so then no draw.
Maybe FIDE has a similiar rule.

But you can't have something like that in an online chess site.
The computers just have to decide instantly.
And in some cases the players have to agree.
And absurdly - the computer won't give a draw in K+R verus K+R.

Isn't it reasonable to suppose that USCF and FIDE must both have a rule that either player can claim a draw there?
I've encountered some situations on chess.com where I pressed a draw button and the draw was instantaneous. Years ago.
Had the impression the computer did it. But wasn't sure.

Rook vs Rook endgame is winnable even without blundering the rook!

So why should white get a draw if he flags?