Should we get rid of stalemate?

In my opinion (everybody's got one) if your position is so bad that you can't make ANY legal move, you deserve to lose.  The rules could have easily been set up for this relatively rare contingency.  

And, I don't remember every losing a game because of stalemate, so it's not personal.

Hmmm... hundreds of years under the same rules, which are proven to work just fine... and someone thinks they can change these rules with a forum post on chess.com...

"Do not feed the trolls" is right. 

You can change the rule(s) it will just become under a chess variant.

You have a major flaw in your logic.  Not having a legal move doesn't make your position bad.  I once had the following position in a tournament game - Note that it's not letting me post a diagram - When I get to the Preview Screen, the button is missing to actually submit it - Is this a Firefox error or a Chess.com error?

WHITE - Kh3, Rb2, P's f6, g3, g4
BLACK - Kg6, Re1, P's f7, g5, h6

Black has the better pawns, but no way to make progress.  It is Black to move.  The game went:

1...Kxf6 (If 1...Kh7 or any other waiting move, then 2.Re2 Rh1+ 3.Kg2 Ra1 4.Kh3 and While each time Black gets 1 tempo, he can't make progress) 2.Rf2+ Ke6 (or 2...Kg7 3.Re2 with the same problem with making progress) 3.Re2+!! Rxe2 1/2-1/2

Without the stalemate Rule, we'd be sitting there for ever until it became a R+P vs R ending in all likelihood.

So, we should get rid of stalemate, then?

While we are at it, lets get rid of the silly rule that you cannot checkmate someone with a K+N+N vs K. I think checkmate should be an option here.

Also, lets declare a new champion, why should the WC title be decided by 1 game? Anyone can lose a game. Lets just do what the US congress did a few years ago and declare Bobby Fischer the champion.

While we at it let's ban the clock.

Good idea, you have no idea how stressful it is to be in time pressure!

I don't know about "major flaw."  Having read Silman's Complete Endgame Course, there are a lot of quirky ways to achieve stalemate from what would normally be a lost position.  The vast majority of the time it seems like a gimmicky way to get a draw.  Your rare situation given might be an exception.

If one is not skilled enough to avoid stalemate then they don't deserve the win. Atleast that's how I feel.

its ok to give checkmate with K+R vs K, but they arbitrarily decided you can't give checkmate with K+B vs K. They should change this rule.

Also they should change the rule about controlling the center being a good thing. This is discriminatory to people who like to control the flanks.

Preventing stalement is part of the winner's skill. Furthermore, a losing player tricking their opponent into causing a stalemate (or taking advantage of their overconfidence) is an achievement in itself that should be rewarded with a draw. 

I always enjoy this conversation because you get comments like, "Why don't we just say that you can capture your own pieces?  And why don't we change rule X for no reason?" 

And underlying these sorts of jokes is the idea that we live in the best possible chess world, that the set of rules that has developed into 'modern chess' is the best possible set of rules.  And that if you'd like to changes any of these rules, you must be either A) just angry about being tricked into stalemate, or B) stupid enough not to realize that the chess we play now is perfect and cannot be improved upon. 

All of this of course ignores the inevitable changes that have been visited and continue to be visited upon the rules of chess.  The most recent changes have been just tinkering around the margins of chess rules, such as declaring it illegal to write down your move before moving.  But it wasn't that long ago, by the standards of this ancient game, that the vizier became the queen, the elephant became the bishop, and the pawns could (arbitrarily) jump out two spaces on their first move (and the even more arbitrary rule allowing en passant capture as a result).  These pieces all became more powerful relative to the king, and the result was a faster, more exciting, and less often drawn game.

I'm sure the same arguments were made against what its opponents called "mad queen chess": that chess was already perfect; that if you didn't have as much fun playing the long, grinding game of 'real' chess, you should just give up chess; that the rules will never change.

My point isn't that stalemate, like checkmate, should be counted as a win.  I like stalemate.  I think it adds an element of fun and surprise to chess that means players have to remain vigilant until checkmate is finally delivered.  The point is that in discussions about rule changes to chess, there is no point in rejecting out of hand the idea of rule changes a priori.  This is especially relevant in the case of stalemate-as-draw, which is also a more recent development.  Other ancient branches of the chess tree, such as Chinese chess (and I believe Korean chess), do count stalemate as a win today (although I don't know how far back into history that rule goes).

Let's let these discussions happen without shutting down the whole idea ahead of time with the idea that the status quo ought the be the status quo because it is the status quo and has been for some time.  Top level chess is disappointingly drawish.  Changing stalemate to a win is a rule change that seems very minor, as most people don't even know the stalemate rule unless they've spent some real time being interested in chess.  But it also would be enough to turn the game on its head for those who know chess, and might just make chess less drawish.  So it's a very reasonable rule change to propose, as it addresses a major complaint about top level chess today.

As for the complaint about upending all of endgame theory, that's sort of the point.  It would also upend middlegame theory and even opening theory.  Gambits would be much riskier, for one.  The point is, it would change things.  Would it change them for the better?

Ray is right. Otherwise it would be too easy to win in an equal or unequal endgame.

For now, lets just enjoy chess as it is

My apologies, but if you are idiotic enough to stalemate your opponent in that position you should be banned from ever playing another game of chess or stating another opinion concerning chess.

Hmm... when you talk about K+P vs. lone K, is it possible you are confusing a stalemate with a draw? They really are two different situations. And by the way, I reject, on principle, suggestions that we alter any rule that is a fundamental part of the game. So let's keep stalemate, draw by repetition, en passant. They are all part of the richness of the game, so let's leave them alone. If we give up a stalemate to an opponent who is in a heavily losing position, we should just suck it up and learn from it.

I think you guys are missing the point.  Stalemate should be abolished because it would decrease the margin necessary to obtain a theoretically won position, not to avoid accidental stalemates in clearly winning positions.  This is more applicable at the top level of chess where there are too many draws.  At my level, I only draw about 1/10 standard or correspondence games, so it's not a big deal and actually makes the endgame more interesting.

A stalemate is a draw.

 Ubik42, a stalemate is indeed different from a draw. While both result in a game with no clear winner, a draw comes about when players agree neither can make headway against the other, when neither has sufficient material to force mate, or when there is a 3-fold move repetition. None of these is a stalemate, which results only when the player on move is not in check, yet does not have a legal move available. The two terms are not interchangeable.