Stalemate is the most senseless rule ever

Impossible. Draw happens when first side whose turn to move is in stalemate.

I think it wouldn't make any difference. A tie. So it wouldn't matter if white, black, or both white and black, are in stalemate. In every scenario, it's a draw.

What he means is that the position is such that both players have no legal moves left and yet both their kings are not on check. If the position is just simply shown, it may be difficult to determine whose turn it is to move (and therefore who gets stalemated).

1) I am not seeking any attention. You people are the one who decide to give me a lot of it. I know I am awesome! 

2) That is what I have been saying. 

3) I know people here love to glorify chess a lot. But it is no more than just a game and that's it. "Sport", "War" are words too big for a board game. 

4) Imagine that in Boxing or MMA you absolutely destroyed your opponent, but you were not able to KO him, so it is declared a draw! Makes no sense at all. 

It is not always so clear.

White to move.

But Pashak, just becuase one side is in stalemate does not mean that that side got destroyed. There are many positions where the side in stalemate would've had a clear advantage, were it not that it didn't have a legal move. I refer you to comment #199.

Good point. Check out this position:

White just played Ke1 stalemate, to save the game? Does he deserve to win? Stalemate is a tactic used to save lost games. THAT'S Why it is a draw. If u can calculate a way to force your opponent to stalemate you, u deserve a draw.

This is a good analogy but there is one flaw in analogy. The correct analogy is: Lets say you are running in a Marthon. And you are clearly going to win. Your competitors see that they have no hope of winning. So, they all faint down. Then, the adjudicator of the marathon says that you have not won the race because all your competitors fainted before you crossed the finish line. Is that fair? I think not.

I think stalemate is clearly win and not a draw. To balance I out, I think perpetual check should also be a win for the side giving perpetual checks.

Some people are saying that making stalemate into a win would end gambit play. I don't think that's correct assessment. On the contrary, it would force the players to play more aggressively consistently. It would reduce the number of draws drastically. So, players will have to play aggressively to win rather than passive play hoping for a draw.

First, stalemate doesn't preclude you were winning and lost; second, it's a rule, not an adjudication;  third, stalemate does take into consideration the failure of the stalemating side to achieve the goal  of checkmate.  Treating it as a draw is the only rational consideration.  In the other argument, draws aren't necessarily the result of passive play nor are they by necessity boring.  Those are simply simplified conclusions or assumptions. In fact a draw is the natural conclusion of well played games.  Trying to force wins/loses by such things as speeding of the game (as mentioned elsewhere) or changing the rules in order to attain these less natural results (ones that come about only by blunders or a series of less that optimal moves, or even through poor play vs poorer play) seems to me to be a rather bizarre mutilation of the game. 

I recntly had an opponent resign in the following postion:

Even if i won all 3 of his pawns, I had the "wrong color bishop," to promote my rook pawn!

The most i could hope for was a stalemate!

aes

I know that it sounds unfair for the stalemates to be ruled as draws, since in most cases (post #284 is an exception to this) the side enforcing the stalemate is material up and the stalemated player is in a situation where any move played (this includes the moving of pieces which are pinned to the king) gets the king captured. In fact, historically stalemates used to be declared wins during a certain period of time.

But I feel that making stalemates draws makes chess more beautiful. Without the draw ruling, most players will not need to study king and pawn versus king endgames since keeping pawns alive guarantee wins. King and two knights versus king would be a win. Even players who do not know king, bishop and knight versus king endgames can just stalemate the opponent for wins. Imagine the change (probably hard to imagine) in chess.

If you are on the losing side instead and not of the resigning type, you will probably fight to bring the game to stalemate and hope for a draw. If this avenue is removed, you might as well resign in all unrevivable losing positions, since there is probably no good way to get a draw.

Some players will opt for stalemates being draws. Other players will opt for stalemates being wins. Unfortunately, stalemates cannot be declared as draws or wins at the same time or there will be biasness in the way which arbiters decide the outcomes.

Perpetual check is kind of policemen trying to catch thieves, but they always fail to catch the thieves. Mission failed. Thus, it is a little unusual for perpetual checks to be declared wins.

In chinese chess (xiangqi), a stalemate is a win for the stalemating player, while a perpetual check is not allowed in games, where the side giving perpetual check is declared lost. Why not try chinese chess to experience the good outcome of stalemate?

ALL OF THIS NONSENSE AND REPETITION, this FORUM has long reached a draw by 50 move rule.... TRUTH=Stalemate means the attacker failed to be precise therefore he SHOULD be punished.  He created a scenario in which his opponent could make no legal moves, therefore nullifying the rest of the game.  If your king is not in check, he can not be captured on the next move, and if you can't make a legal move, the game is over. CUT AND DRY

The forum is not 'moves long'. It is 'posts long'.

thank you for your valuable contribution Eric and I apologize for my lack of concern to detail.

Phil Hellmuth is your daddy. 

I think stalemate is there to maybe demonstrate the "greatness" or  "luck" of the losing player. If the individual who is ahead is having a tough time checkmating the king, then it would maybe seem that the elusive defending player might have some skill in "out-playing" his opponent who is more powerful. Well, for now, I wont complain about stalemate as it saved me a few times  

If the side forcing stalemate should get the win, what about the side forcing perpetual check?

Objectively, stalemate should be a win. I think people will adjust and theory will develop over time if stalemate becomes a win. And then people will even beauty in it.

About perpetual check: Perpetual check is another form of stalemate. Only difference is that in stalemate king is restricted to only one square while in perpetual check king has more than one square. But, in both situations, king is trapped. You compared perpetual check to cops trying to catch a thief. But the king is not just any thief. He is the leader. If the leader is constantly under threat and running for cover and his organization is paralysed, then its a win.

So, I think both stalemate and perpetual check should be a win. And making perpetual check as win offers a redeeming chance to losing side(which is the reason people wanted stalemate to be draw).

For which side?