We should
Should we get rid of stalemate?


¨

"Also make a new rule based on how much material is left"
That wouldn't work because then stalemate would be a win in some positions, a draw in some, and a loss in others. It has to be either a win, loss, or a draw, not both or all 3 at the same time.

@warlord1981NL why would I resign against an opponent who I can swindle with a stalemate? That makes no sense.

@Warlord1981NL if course its your problem. If you have command of the board and you have not left any legal moves whilst not placing your opponent in check, it shows you have poor positional awareness.
If you had any positional awareness you wouldn't be in a position where your only hope is a stalemate in the first place...
And you've just explained why stalemate is a draw, not a win. Both sides, equally, have poor "positional awareness".

In the meantime, what moves are you suggesting after “banning” stalemate when you have exactly zero legal moves?

In the meantime, what moves are you suggesting after “banning” stalemate when you have exactly zero legal moves?
I think they are suggesting either it's a win for for whichever side they think should win, or, the game is negated. Not a score of 1/2-1/2 but a score of 0-0.
I don't know, it will be interesting to see their response. Trying to figure what would happen next after getting rid of that rule is the equivalent of thinking ahead one move in chess. It may take a while.
Stalemate is like you are winning a game of football by 100 points and the ref suddenly says draw.Ridiculous.

what if you're going against someone and are/is in a losing position? You'd probably want stalemate at that time, I definitely would.

Stalemate is like you are winning a game of football by 100 points and the ref suddenly says draw.Ridiculous.
Help me understand your analogy. In your example the ref decides the game. But the stalemate rule isn't something a ref can decide. Nobody gets to decide, since it's written in stone so to speak.
Both players know the rules, both players make moves that lead up to stalemate. No ref can change that or override that.
To use your analogy of being 100 points ahead (in chess maybe that would be like being a queen and two rooks ahead) but being ahead doesn't decide who wins or loses. It's just indicates who has the advantage, at the moment.
So if someone is 100 points ahead and fumbles violently, a lot, shouldn't the score reflect that?
I think if someone is 100 points ahead then they should have no problem winning the game. But often we someone squander this advantage. The penalty for squandering this big lead? A draw. When you think about it, it's the most equitable, most fair, most sensible rule in chess.
And of course it can save the game