Stalemate is the most senseless rule ever

And how did white lose every single one of his pieces? He must not be that good either LOL

The point is not being able to make a legal move shouldn't be a loss in chess, not because he can't move, but because he wasn't mated. The goal of chess is checkmate, and since the stalemating player failed to do that, why should he win?

Actually, in a mutual stalemate, who ever's move it is would lose because he would lose his king 1st, so it would still be a win for the last player to move.

I wonder how many games played on Chess.com for the past few years feature mutual stalemates, excluding those where both parties agree to making moves together to achieve position (i.e. I am interested in unexpected mutual stalemates). If there is even one, the game should receive great recognition.

I could see realistic ones, like this:

I'm a bit confused by people saying "lose the king." I have never lost my king because it is the one piece that cannot be captured or lost under any circumstances.

They're saying checkmate is a win because the king will be taken next move, which is true.

In real-life battles, often the side whose king (or some leader) surrenders or gets captured by the enemy lines loses the battle.

The same goes for chess, but to simplify things, we just say that the king will get captured next move no matter what, without exactly removing the king from the board.

No.  When I get a checkmate, I make sure I smash that king with whatever piece has checkmated it.

What if he grabbed his king and fled the playing room, then jumped into his car and sped away, before u could smash his king?

Then I’d smash his car.  Muahahahahaha!! 

After all, chess IS life.  

Tell me step by step what you would do if your opponent actually did that?

He woukdnt make it to his car in the first place.   

Heres how it would go down.

My final move would get him in check mate.  He’d look up at me already staring at him, ready to grin

He knows what’s next, (I already had a rep on smashing the king as my final move) but he thinks with his pride and attempts to snag his king.   Big mistake.  I jab him in the throat with one lightning strike motion

As he is gasping for air, holding his throat with both hands, I simply move my piece smoothly and slowly...a most silent smash ever recorded in chess history.

What if he pretends he's about to shake your hand, but then swoops his king, knocking 10 pieces into your face, then dashes out of his seat.

He wouldn’t dash out of his seat because of this....

Those are chess pieces.  He’d piss his pants due to complete astonishment.

King Battles King till the end

King vs king is insufficient mating material.

http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/stalemate.html

 

On pages 57-62 of A Short History of Chess (Oxford, 1963) Murray gave, in a country-by-country review of rule changes, the following information on stalemate:

‘Spain (including Portugal). Stalemate and the baring of the opponent (unless baring and mate occurred simultaneously) were inferior forms of victory at least as late as 1634, and possibly as late as 1750.’

‘Italy. Everywhere stalemate was a draw.’

‘France. Stalemate was a draw.’

‘England. Before 1600 stalemate became a win for the stalemated player. This ceased to be the rule of the chess clubs from about 1807 ...’

‘Germany. Hardly any two authors prior to Allgaier (1795) agree to their rules. [This was a general remark by Murray on rule changes, and not specifically related to stalemate.] Gustavus Selenus (1616): ‘Stalemate is a draw, but in some places the stalemated king wins.’ G.F.D. v. B. (manuscript of 1728): ‘Stalemate is a win for the stalemated king.’ Klemich (1872): ‘The stalemated king wins.’

 

‘In England for about 200 years stalemate was a win for the player who was stalemated. This paradoxical rule may have started with Arthur Saul’s The Famous Game of Chesse-play, published in London in 1614. In a section on page C3 called “The Diversity of Mates, and which are worthy of praise, or disspraise [sic]” he wrote, “The Stale, a dishonourable mate”. (Curiously, he also referred to “The Mate given with a Pawne, a disgraceful mate” and several other examples of “graceful or Honourable” mates or their opposite adjectives.) In Chapter XV, entitled “What a stale is, and how it is given”, Saul wrote: “... you shall understand that a stale is a lost game by him that giveth it, and no question to be made further thereof ...”, adding that players giving a stale “... purchase unto themselves such shame, which will not after be put away without much blushing”.

Stalemate being a loss for the side that stalemated would be WAY BETTER than it being a win for the stalemater, but a DRAW is the best, as it being a win would conflict with insufficient mating material. IN A Position like this:

White could win by stalemate, even if checkmate isn't possible

Also a win for White if stalemate is considered a win for the stalemating player.