Stalemate is not logical to me

For instance,

OK so stalemate is good because I am not? Great logic. You probably think chess=smarts. Keep on with that and leave the thread alone. If I am stupid, why even bother? Is stalemate good or am I just a moron? Pick a topic, 

The stalemate rule in its current guise has been in place for 150+ years. OK, you disagree with it but unfortunately for you it is going to remain the status quo so you had better start practicing how to give checkmate instead of throwing away wins and allowing your opponents a draw.

I have forced stalemate in positions where it is possible. I have blundered into stalemate when playing too fast.

Your opponent did nothing to earn a draw. You missed an elementary mate in one and stalemated instead.

Stalemate is part of the game. Learn to deal with it.


No, I do not think chess = smarts. But, attacking the rules because you do not know the game well is certainly stupid.

These are my last two game that ended in stalemate. I played badly in both. In the first, my opponent blundered by taking the pawn (similar to your blunder). The second was hard-fought with errors on both sides. We reached a drawn position with my rook against two pawns. I offered a draw. My opponent wanted to play on. On his last move he could have moved away from the pawn and let me capture it--draw by insufficient material. He chose to stalemate me.

Without the stalemate rule, a lot of pawn endings would be completely different, and the game would lose much of its value. That's my argument.

This game is the last time I forced a stalemate. Again, my opponent might have anticipated it and played better.

The stalemate rules likely existed before playing with clocks, so why don't we just say the stalemated player runs out of time?

USCF and FIDE rules would agree with what the result would be, so we can just change chess.com's insufficient material rule to cover these situations - we could just re-purpose the existing stalemate code.

So, what would that result be?  Well, there are no series of forced (or even legal) moves that would result in checkmate, so the result would be a draw.

You know, instead of waiting perhaps hours (or even days or weeks for "daily chess") to finish out an inevitable game, why don't we just have the game end immediately, instead.  And, hmm, since we aren't "technically" allowing the player to run out of time because we're ending the game early, we should probably not call it the same thing as a draw by insufficient material to mate.

Well, since the game is unable to continue in such a situation, it is thus the case that neither side can make any progress.  Such a situation is often known as a "stalemate."  So, we can just end the game immediately as a draw by stalemate!

Wait.... I just re-invented the wheel again, didn't I?

Why have forums at all then if people aren't allowed to discuss? you don't like his opinion? don't open the forums again. Alternatively you can delete your profile.
This is logically flawed, it's like this

*Someone complaints about a cheater* - U don't like cheaters? don't compete and u won't face any cheaters

OKAY 

My favourite kind of stalemate.

More satisfying than actually winning

OMG YOUR FAVORITE IT IS MY FAVORITE TOO

There is no logical flaw in pointing out to beginners that they simply don't yet understand.

Stalemate as a draw is one of the core of chess, as much as the concept of "check" is.

I mean, why not just let the king be eaten and whoever lost the king lose? all the other pieces can get eaten, so thats not logical, right? Nobody is questioning that(at least I never saw it).

yeah, same as stalemate. Its a rule that make chess the game it is. Logic be damn

Stalemate is not interesting in some postion and important in some position

OKAY

OMG TERRIFYING GAME WHAT A BLUNDER

WHERE YOU FIND THIS GAME

CAN YOU TELL ME PLEASE

IT IS HORRIFYING BECAUSE KING DIDN'T TAKE G AND B PAWN ITSELF

THANK YOU 

Ugh you play bad, mlchesssml. Verry bad