Stalemate is not logical to me

there are stalemates in life as well. There are situations in which you are powerless to change/win a situation.

But black hasn't eliminated all legal moves. K takes P. That's legal.

Fixed it.  Thanks. 

I don't think changing its scoring works and the logic of Stalemate from a historical but most importantly game theory is valid. I don't really understand, ultimately, why some people get hung up on the Stalemate rule. If we are going to insist on changing rules, why not change the three move repetition rule, which seems most arbitrary, and why not flip a coin to see which side moves first instead of mandating one side must always move first? A game must have rules and the logic of those rules must be logical and consistent from within the perspective of the game and it's gameplay. I would ask, what is the value of modifying the gameplay by changing or eliminating the rule concerning Stalemate. Would it enhance the gameplay? I'd argue it would detract from the game play we see now.

I would argue that changing the scoring has no impact on game theory but would impact how the game is played. stalemate would still exist but new strategies would be developed to avoid being forced into it. Today its routine to think a K+P vs K is just a draw when the defense has the opposition. But in a tournament situation a .25 difference could accumulate over several games and have a huge impact on the outcome. Instead of trading down to the last pawn people will adapt their play to keep that extra piece on the board thus creating more dynamic and interesting play.

Just some clarifications from my persepctive.

It seems to me that there is little historical logic to stalemate.  The treatment of stalemate throughout time has been all over the spectrum— see Stalemate.   Changes in the scoring system - 1=win, 0-loss, .25=draw has been tried before, most noticeably in the Belle Epoch tournaments in Monte Carlo during the first decate of the 20th century— see Monte Carlo.
"Contrary to expectations, there was no protest on the part of the masters against any of the rules, and the one providing for the replaying of drawn games, which was made use of last year and at Paris, again holds good.
As last year, these games will only count ¼ point to each player, and, in case of a second draw, another ¼ point is added to the score of each. Otherwise the winner of the second game will receive an additional ½ point, or ¾ in all." —Brooklyn Eagle, February 3, 1902

The three move repetition doesn't seem so much arbitrary, but rather just a setting of a limit. If the players refuse or can't make different moves, at some point the game must end and the sooner the better. Three strikes and you're out.

The "White-moves-first" rule never existed until the mid 19th century and even then it wasn't always followed until sometime later. We have plenty of games with Black pieces moving first.  It really makes no difference, play-wise, who moves first, White always moving first makes recording easier and for digital purposes, essential.

A most interesting read.  The Monte Carlo method was not strictly a scoring revision regarding Stalemate but it has interesting parallels to what has been suggested in this thread.  I thought it most interesting that Maroczy edged out Pillsbury by 1/4 point to take first, producing a clear winner of the event.

You're welcome. I'm suprised noone else spotted that. After all, my rating is 1001, and THAT'S in Chess960, which doesn't count.

@ number6 - material imbalances are irrelevant. It's whether you have the right to move that ends the game. Would you say that I can claim that your checkmate shouldn't count because I have more pieces than you? I don't think so.

Oh huh!   What about castling then?  It's not logical a huge masonsry structure could jump over a king either.   

I also feel stalemate is not fair in a game.

I have long believed that we should eliminate stalemate. Here is how:

If you have not delivered checkmate and if you have been so careless as to leave your opponent with no legal moves, then you lose. Next time play better.

Agreed.  My point is once there is a stalemate any decision based upon relative strengths is purley subjective.  Thus for simplicity, a 1/2 point draw is the simplest way to score the result.

If chess is played as a war or battle simulation, then stalemate does not make sense. Overwhelming force wins no matter what. Of course, if chess is a war simulation, then there is a great deal more about it that makes no sense. Why should the loss of the King lose the game? Why can't your pieces carry on a guerilla campaign? Why can't a Knight fight off an attack by a measely pawn? And so on ... As a war game, chess stinks.

However, if chess is played as an intellectual contest with arbitrary rules, then stalemate necessarily follows from two of those rules, as been pointed out many times. As a contest played with artificial rules, chess is outstanding.

@number6 - so you're suggesting some chess players will hurt their head trying to figure out what it means when they can't make a legal move.

@Mike, You shifted the goal posts.  You went from giving the stonger side the advantage to the side that forces stalemate the advantage.

These are two different things.

 
Why should white get .75 here?  Who forced stalemate in what is typically a dead drawn K+Q vs K+Q?

It is likely not hard to come up with a virtually infinite number of examples where a .25 bonus is not justified in a stalemate. 

Chess has staying power because it's rules are simple but the complexity of the game is infinite.  Making the rules complex in order to complicate a simple outcome is going in a direction that is illogical for chess.

you can make up as many exceptions as you like. Quite simply if you choose to play into stalemate (accidentally or intentionally) you certainly don't deserve the half point. Black did not have to place his queen on c3 where it could be captured. He could have perpetual checked to keep the half point. On the other hand swindling someone out of a winning position doesn't entitle you to a half point either. You may have denied the opponent a clear win but you got outplayed and desperation forced your actions.

How the **** did White get in that ****ing nightmare of a position?

btw, just to be clear, I didn't shift the goal post. the stronger side is the player who forces his opponent out of the game by denying him the ability to move.