Stalemate is the most senseless rule ever

side whose king cant move without getting checkmated, must be the loser.

OK. I was thinking maybe it was the side that was able to avoid a checkmate. If someone can avoid checkmate, there is no possible way to lose. Except on time I guess but that goes for both sides.

In the past, there were all kinds of rulings - draw at some point of time, win for the stalemating player at some point of time and win for the stalemated player at some point of time. Currently we know that stalemate is a draw. I feel that the outcomes of draws and wins for the stalemating player are the only reasonable options to rule the game because a stalemated king is technically about to get captured in the next move and has obviously no chance of escaping doom or even remotely any chance to win the game.

This means that if your king is on the receiving end of a stalemate every time a stalemate happens, you lose all the time, when a draw ruling would save you from all the losses. Chances are, if you are getting stalemated, you will wish for the ruling to be a draw, whereas if you are stalemating your opponent. you will wish for the ruling to be a win for the stalemating player.

It is just a pity that this rule is made to give opponent a very very very small chance of draw.

If you've got your opponent beaten out of sight but still can't manage to avoid stalemating him, you're a n00b who doesn't deserve a rules change to give you yet another way to win. Equally, if you can check someone as often as you like but can't mate him, then either find another line of play (if you're winning as easily as all that) or accept that if you weren't perpetually checking then you would be losing.

Honestly. The rules of this game are not a big secret. If you can't accept them the way they are then buzz off and play some other game, because it seems you haven't worked out what "winning" actually means in this one.

I agree. If stalemate means one side must win, then it might make sense to award the win to the side that gets stalemated because it seems like finding the stalemate (and avoiding a checkmate) is as difficult if not more difficult than finding a checkmate. It doesn't make sense to reward the person who cant figure out how to win, and at the same time penalize someone who has figured out a way to not lose. I'm beginning to think stalemate is the most sensible rule ever.

Well, you know, these are the rules of the game. If you don't like the rules then find a game that suits your preferences better.

For example, in football there is the 'offside rule', footballers have to accept this rule without complaining too much.

As for cricket, well it would be just too difficult to try to explain.

Leaving your opponent with no room to do anything is an essential tactic and a basic way to win in every single sport/game/war, except chess. Somehow, you get rewarded if you get into that situation. BUT, whether or not you like the rule it's incredibly simple to play around, simply leave them with a little room in order to mate on the next move. And, at the beginning of this thread, people were saying that if stalemate isn't a rule, that you should be able to move your king into check. As it stands now, moving your king into check is an immediate loss of the game. Hikaru Nakamura has an example of this which most of you probably know where he underpromotes in a very fast endgame in order to confuse his opponent and it works, cause the other GM made an "illegal" (game losing) move. Somehow, you lose if you do that while other legal moves are available, but if you don't have other options other than killing yourself, you get a draw. Lame.

Yea, my buddy was destroying me in a game once, then the game went into a stalemate.  He got so pissed he quit chess.com and I haven't played him since.   hahahaha  it was great.

ill gotten gains mexi :(

We still kick it, but he salty to this day about it.   hahaha ill gotten gains...that's a good one. 

NOO!!!!!

True in blitz, not regular games. Any illegal move in blitz is a loss.

Offside is also a very stupid rule that just prevents way more exciting games. 

What about this endgame?

White has just Stalemated black. Should white be given the WIN for this game. He cannot win. The best he can do is draw. This is the best example. If u say: But the black king will be captured on the next move by the white king.. well, what about this position:

Black cannot move AT ALL, so his king couldn't be captured on the next move because he can't even make a move period. It has to be a draw. What about this endgame?

If white had promoted to a queen, black could have played Rc4+, forcing a stalemate. After C8=Rook, there's no stalemate, and white forces a win. Stalemate is a drawing tactic in endgames and needs ot be a draw.

Diagram 2 is BS, why should we even discuss a position that have never ever happened and will never ever happen? 

If a position like that happened in real life, the player with the black pieces should be killed immediately. 

Many things have been written about stalemate, but at this point none of them is original or interesting. Let's move to a better, more interesting topic such as "What would Bobby Fischer think about rematches when the opponent let the time run out in the first game?"