Stalemate, a good way out or a great rule?

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".

To put it in military terms, you have a siege, but you can't bust into the castle.

But it is richer because the game is far more subtle with the rule than without.

My guess is either you are trolling, or simply unaware of the beauty that results because of this rule.

But if you siege the castle, either everyone inside runs out of food and dies or they surrender.

My guess is you didn't read my reply properly, it's all about preference. 

You need to read more military history. Yes, that was sometimes the result. But it was far from the only possible result. Sieges are expensive to maintain, the attacking army could come down with dysentery, the cold winter weather could kill off the attacking army, etc., etc., etc.

Well at least now you are admitting it is a preference. My preference is clear. And apparently it is the preference of most chess players at top levels or the rule would be changed.

Have you ever seen a chess piece get a fever? Have you ever seen a chess piece demand pay or get cold?

I don't mean to be rude. I am showing how comparing chess to real life is not a good comparison

One way that chess could be more inviting to kids is by having them win more and NOT by having people like 9497010838 (author of above post) laugh at them when they only get a draw. I hope you realize how negative to the chess community you're being. 

Never said it wasn't a preference; besides your analogy with military history is just too entertaining, i think u need to read the history of stalemate my friend.

Don't seem to be able to that in the app either, but have fixed it from my computer now.

You've misunderstood. I said it would make the game more boring, primarily because it would make the endgame less complex and possibly also by making players less likely to give up pawns for an attack. I never said anything about the number of draws.

How about instead of getting rid of stalemate all together, the player who can't move doesn't move and passes along his turn.

The problem pfren mentioned is still there with that rule though; most K+P vs K endings are a win to the player with the extra pawn. 

I never thought of it that way before, but that makes sense. In todays world, there is often a sense of entitlement because so many people have so much and those that dont, feel they deserve something they didn't earn.  A checkmate, no matter how it's done (luck, bad moves, good moves, etc) is the point of the game. 

I think the stalemate rule makes perfect sense because it rewards those that perform, and it punishes those that dont. I'm willing to listen to a good reason why a stalemate should be a win, but so far none of the reasons make any sense. One thing that hasn't been explained to me is that if the king would be considered dead in a stalemate (lost) would other pieces be subject to the same rule? For example, if a bishop has no legal place to move, but it's not being attacked, does the other side get to just take it? I guess in todays world, many would say yes.

If you only have a bishop, (this is a hypothetical situation) and it has nowhere safe to go, you still have to move it because its your turn.

I agree with you on keeping stalemate but that analysis seems a bit off to me. After all, converting stalemates to wins would mean there'd be people getting nothing out of games where they're currently awarded half a point. In fact, if you take the view the person stalemating has 'earned' the win you'd probably think it's the current rule that's more in keeping with the 'everyone gets a trophy' approach to things. I think this whole argument is more down to people not grasping the point that the goal of the game is checkmate, rather than wanting a pat on the head whenever they play.

If I only have a bishop (or any other piece) that has nowhere to go, how can I move it? Instead of a bishop, say its a rook. It has nowhere to go, under the "stalemate is a win" scenario does the other side get to just take it? Because that's what would happen to the king in a stalemate, the other side wins (captures the king). I dont understand the logic in the other side getting your piece (any piece including the king) if its not attacked and has no place to move.

Apparently you didn't read my whole comment. I said if it has nowhere SAFE to go. And I said the bishop would be your ONLY piece, like it most likely would be if you got stalemated.

While the rule that stalemate is a draw may seem puzzling to beginning players, it's a part of chess as we play it today. Since there are endgames where skillful play is required to avoid stalemating one's opponent when it is possible to checkmate, it's valid to regard the stalemate rule as adding to the richness and challenge of chess.

But there are other situations where one player can acquire an advantage that's too small to allow checkmating the opponent, but which does allow stalemate to be forced. For that reason, I think it should be possible to get something points-wise from stalemate, but not enough to overthrow the principle that checkmate is much preferable.

That's why I think making stalemate a 3/5 - 2/5 point win would be a reasonable thing to do, something that would add to chess instead of subtracting from it.

Just throwing this out there.What about the part of the rule that does not allow for a player to move his king on a capture square,or inadvertently move a piece that would allow the king to be captured.Why not just have it the player missed it, his king is dead, game over.