Stalemate, a good way out or a great rule?

It doesn't occur often, but there's always the possibility and this make endgames much richer. Many would be trivial wins without it.

I suppose you mean a way out to draw the game. But anyway, any of us have to deal with the rule either we are losing or winning; some days we'll benefit, others we'll be harmed.

I call that winning the game because the opponent is in a losing position.

People that dont like the stalemate rule often don't consider that point.  The whole point of the game of chess is to capture/kill the enemy king. Stalemate does not accomplish the single most important purpose of the game. All the other draws (by agreement, 50 move rule, 3 fold repetition, etc) do the same thing as stalemate, fail to capture the enemy king. Which is why logically stalemate has to be a tie.

Why has the game to stop when the king is captured.Might as welll sacrifice him to

@play_e5 its "Stalemate", not "stealmate"

Arguments are a bit pointless, could be either way. I personally prefer stalemate being a draw because, as Scottrf pointed, makes the game much richer.

At least in blitz, stalemate should be a win for the side who can still move, because in blitz you can make illegal moves, so you should have to move your king into danger. 

A point that's often missed in these debates is that getting rid of stalemate is a good way of making chess a lot more boring. A lot of endings where one player has a slight material advantage are made more difficult to win or because of it. Almost any king versus king and one pawn ending would be a win without it, for example. No stalemate makes these endings much less rich and interesting and is a disincentive risky play that gives up material in the middle game.

Against that you get the argument that it sometimes means a player with a massive material advantage draws and this seems unfair. But that's not really an issue between players who are any good at all. Even at an over the board rating of, say, 1000 it's vanishingly rare to see someone stalemate with an extra rook or more in a long game. At ratings lower than that there's so much randomness in results that one extra way to fluke out of a loss doesn't make much difference.

Good players may stalemate in blitz of course. But (and I say this as someone who really enjoys blitz) you kind of deserve it if you're playing at those time controls. Part of the distinctive fun of blitz is those crazy swings in fortune, so again I actually think stalemate is adding enjoyment to the game there rather than the opposite.

Gaaah... Stupid app! I swear that was formatted with paragraphs and everything but it seems to have converted it to a text wall.

Good point. You changed my mind.

how is that possible I didn't get it yet 

you could edit it.

I was thinking stalemate was unfair if you're up a queen, and your opponent is clearly losing. But if you can't promote your pawn, you shouldn't win.

Why don't start a  petition.

Because if you aren't a part of the solution you are a part of the problem

you can't promote your pawn if there is a king in your way, no matter how many moves you could get for free. The best solution for stalemate, if you were going to change it, would be to have the side who can't move not move. You wouldn't be able to promote either way.

how about we all just agree to disagree?

Yes, I have captured the enemies king in chess. Not like the other pieces, but that's because the king is

so very different. The whole game of chess is based on capturing the king, so, the rules on capture are different. I played a game once where this position occurred. I captured the enemy king. Other captures require removing the piece from the field of play, but capturing the king does not because the game is over. That instant the game is over, there is no point in physically removing the king, it's over, the king has no place to go. Imagine, in this diagram, the rook is a gun or a rocket or sword or something that kills the king. The king is dead, game over. It's not removed from the board because it CANT be removed. It has nowhere to go. Game over.

PS: The king cannot be captured when it's not in check. Just like any other piece, it must be attacked to be captured. So a stalemate cannot be a win because the king is not in check (attacked).

My position on this is simply that the game is much richer and more interesting as a result of this rule. As a result, it should stay.

The end-game in particular is far less interesting without stalemate.

Much richer? Yes, when the losing player has the opportunity to win even though he is in a position where there is no way out. It's all about perspective and preference i guess, IMO if a king is captured and has no way out i.e. stalemate, why should there be a draw? The king has nowhere else to go and the player has no options left. There should be a win for a stalemate, not a draw to make the game "richer".