Stalemate is not logical to me

But in those two positions, checkmate isn't even possible by white. So at that point black should have a guaranteed draw. The same way if one side flags but the other side has insufficient mating material it is a draw, since the draw was the worst possible outcome anyway. With that logic, checkmate would not even have to be possible at all to win a chess game. Even here:

White could force stalemate, but he could never checkmate, so insufficient mating material wouldn't even be a draw.

tough

Why not?

Yes, it would change a lot of the game. I don't want the rules to change and I know it wont change because of me. hahahaha. yes, maybe some insuficient mating material could become enough to win the game. Maybe knight and king wouldnt be a draw anymore. But its not happening anyway.

I am not attacking the idea that stalemate shouldn't be a draw because it ruins the complexity of chess endgames. I am saying it leads to circular reasoning and contradictions. You say if a side cannot no longer make a legal move, they should lose (a forfeit loss essentially, right?). OK, but since the purpose of the game is checkmate, once checkmate is no longer possible, both sides are immediately relieved of the obligation to make legal moves in the first place. So when insufficient mating material occurs, it doesn't matter if the stalemate side can't move, since they no longer have to because the game is already drawn. So even if insufficient mating material occurs here:

Black is no longer required to make one more move because checkmate is impossible for both sides. So the "stalemate" here would still be a draw. So stalemate would end up being a win in some positions but a draw in others, which is inconsistent. That is why stalemate must be a draw, otherwise is causes this contradiction.

That's missing the point. The goal of chess is for one side to checkmate the other. When neither side can do that, it's a draw, obviously. And when the game is a draw, both sides no longer have to make any move. Even when only one side just has a king left, the other side can let his time run down to 0 and get a guaranteed draw. So yes, the side that still has pieces left while the other side just has a lone king, can pass if he wants. Of course no sensible player would do that, but the point is once a drawn position is reached, neither side is obligated to make any more moves (note drawn and not "drawish"). Players shouldn't be required to keep playing a drawn insufficient piece position because stalemate is still possible, that's absurd.

hi

Here's another absurd thing. What do you do about indefinite stalemate? Let's say you could pass. The side that can move may never let you out. So does White have to play 50 moves and only then claim 50 move rule draw in the following position?

White King f2

Black King h1

Black Pawn h2

You want Black to pass each time and force White to play Kf2-f1-f2-f1-etc?

Yes, I understand that, but that is not the point I am attacking. Whether you have to take the king or just attack the king has no bearing on the stalemate problem. I am not claiming that stalemate shouldn't be a win because one could only take the king if they make an illegal move. It is the mere fact that stalemate would be a win in some positions and a draw in others, following the stalemate-should-be-a-win logic. It would conflict with other draws, such as insufficient mating material. One could claim that the game should continue here because black might accidentally move his king into the bishops diagonal if the king had to be physically taken to win:

But since neither side can Checkmate the enemy king, the game is immediately a draw at this point. It doesn't matter if the king had to be taken, when checkmate the king becomes impossible, the game is a draw, so black doesn't have to move his king at all. The game is already over. Same with perpetual check, repetition is a draw immediately, after 3 times, even if hypothetical by a 4th time, or a 17th time, one side may forget to move his king out of check and let it be taken. So even if one actually had to take the king, that would change the issue of stalemate not being consistent if it was a win.

Basically, whether the game ends at checkmate or the king actually being captured, stalemate ends up being a win in this game:

But a draw in this game due to insufficient material:

It doesn't matter what criteria you use, if you make stalemate a win, regardless whether checkmate is the rule or the king being captured is the rule, stalemate ends up having a different result depending on the position. That's why stalemate is a draw, because stalemate is a draw in all stalemate positions, not just some.

Because if you are in check and don't move your king (or block or capture the checking piece) you have made an illegal move and must take it back and make a legal move. Whether or not the opponent has said check is meaningless.

Well insufficient mating material is a rule of the game, so unless you want to do away with that as well, and repetition, and dead positions, stalemate has to be a draw to be consistent with these other rules.

Let me try to explain this line by line, going by the arguments of why "stalemate should be a win".

1. Both sides are obligated to make legal moves until the game ends, no one can "pass".

2. The game ends when one sides King is captured (if you insist on not using checkmate).

3. When insufficient pieces remain for either King to be captured, the game is a draw, since neither side can win.

4. Stalemate is a win because the king will be captured next move or the side cannot make a legal move at all.

5. The King being captured in chess is a win because the goal in chess is to capture (checkmate) the king.

6. Therefore, stalemate in an insufficient king-capture material position is a draw, and..

7. Stalemate in Sufficient-king-capture-material positions is a win.

8. So stalemate is a win in some positions but a draw in others = inconsistent rule.

Nonsense. If any move, legal or not, is allowed to stand in "original chess" every game would be over on the first move. The first player could just pick up any piece they wished and kill the enemy king.

If you mean there is no checkmate in chaturanga or other ancient precursors to chess, so what? That has no bearing on the rules of chess. There's no checkmate in football either; what does that have to do with chess?

So what you are saying is that this game should continue endlessly even though capturing the king is impossible, because one side might accidentally move their king into the "line of fire"?

How many repetitions should be allowed because at any point one side could just move their king to a square that's still in check instead of repeating the moves? Should this dead position be continued for thousands of moves until one side decides "screw this, I'm moving my king past the pawns":

If there is no such thing as an "illegal" move, why can't any chariot or camel or soldier just fly over all the enemy pieces and kill the enemy king on move one?

He's saying the king should be treated like any other piece, it can move into the line of fire of another piece, hoping the opponent doesn't see it. Not that pieces should be allowed to break their geometric constraints of movement. I understand that argument, but I am saying that it doesn't matter in this stalemate debate. Whether the king needs to be captured or just attacked & trapped, it makes no difference. Stalemate needs to be a draw in either case otherwise it conflicts with other rules.

And I already explained why that's wrong.

Black can resign this game, or walk out of the tournament never coming back, and he gets a draw. FIDE explicitly states that when one side can no longer lose, he cannot lose by flagging, for example. The minimum result is a draw for black. He can never lose.

What doesn't matter in this stalemate debate is what the rules of some other game might be.

I know, I am just trying to point out that whether the game has to continue 1 more move for the king to be captured in a checkmated position or not, is irrelevant to why stalemate has to be a draw. People who claim stalemate should be a win always claim that the king can be taken next move, or that the stalemated side should "forfeit", and I have posted positions in this thread and other threads in the past numerous times showing why that is false. The problem isn't claiming that the king has to be attacked to win the game, that not being able to make a legal move counts as a forfeit. There is logic in that. The problem is how it conflicts with other rules of the game.