Stalemate is the most senseless rule ever

Are you people ever going to stop griping about stalemate?  I've got just the idea to help you get out of the rut you're in.  

Why?

  If I get to a position where I have two rooks and my opponent has none, that is good play.  He should not get rescued because he does not have a legal move.  If he gets stuck in a position where he can't move, he has to skip his move and I get to move again.  If a grappler holds his opponent down so that his opponent can't move, is it a draw?  No.  He can simply pin his opponent's arms down and keep punching his immobilized opponent in the face over and over again until he wins.  If you don't like it, don't get held down.  If you don't want to get pinned down so you can't move a single piece legally, don't get down on material.

Silly, that seems like a pretty good example. But the rules of the two games are different. In chess the rules are very specific that each side takes turns in making their move. There is no such thing as a pass or skipping a move. Think of it like tennis or raquetball or something similar. There is no option to skip your turn or take a pass. If you skip your turn, you will lose. So the play of the game very much revolves around this basic fundamental rule. In wrestling, I assume, there is no rule about taking turns. In wrestling one side can keep moving as many times as he is able to without letting the opponent move. Also, sometimes stalemates dont have anything to do with being down on material. Sometimes they happen when the side with the most material is not able to make a legal move.

I think the most senseless rule ever is the chess.com one that allows the creation of forum threads without explicitly prohibiting the creation of threads opposed to the stalemate rule.

I think that's where they assign a thread if the OP is a tad "off."

yeah lol

If you get into a position where your opponent can force the stalemate or if you have sufficient forces on the board to deliver mate and give your opponent no place to move, then you failed to convert the game, it is as simple as that. By the rules, that is a draw, because in the game each player gets a turn, until stalemate, checkmate, correct draw claims or insufficient material. You don't get to pass your move, you don't get to take two turns in a row.

Playing a superior game and then blundering it at the end doesn't deserve to be a win. I wasn't advocating that the stalemated player should get the win, just arguing the other side that by allowing the stalemate, the stronger side doesn't deserve it either.

Allowing a skipped turn is a completely different argument than making stalemate a win

But they are related, in a way. Stalemates come down to the fact that one player doesn't get to make a move when it is their turn. Since they can't make a move, the game doesn't allow one to pass the move and they can't move into check, the stalemating player also can't make a final move and deliver checkmate.

Allowing it to be a win also makes drawn king and pawn endgames wins, since in the end, those resolve to stalemates. It completely changes the game.

Well making stalemate a win on the move would make insufficient material positions winnable, but allowing a skipped turn would keep them draw-ish, except for king and 2 knights vs King endings

True, if stalemate was a win, then insufficient material to checkmate games could last longer. Don't think many of them would be forcible stalemates.

If you don't like the rules of a game then don't play that game. You can not change the rules of any game to suit yourself. Frankly, stalemate is a subtle and clever part of chess. And yes, I have been in an overwhelming position and my oppent has managed to draw by stalemate. Who is at fault? The rules of the game? No, me and my lack of insight.

But it creates a paradox. Should stalemate be considered a win in ALL endgames, or only CERTAIN ones:

In this endgame, would it be a draw before this sequence of moves because mate is impossible, or would white be able to force a win by stalemate, EVEN when mate isn't possible.

Well, if stalemate was a win, you would play until 50 moves without capture or pawn moves, triple repetition, or stalemate was achieved. Under time loss, by the weaker side, it would be a win as well, since stalemate is possible

Yeah, but one guy argued that once insufficient mating material was reached, both players would be relieved of the obligation of making ANY more moves, meaning stalemate is a win only if a checkmate is possible.

HAHAHAHA

You need read some chess theory. Plenty of endgames that have a winning side have forced stalemates. Also, you've already been provided with examples of games at the master level in which stalemates were forced in history. There are plenty.

Oh, your rating was lower than mine when I responded to your post. I had not played since, so your rating went up. But this does not change the fact that I've literally played in championships in the past.

Perfectly said.

You have to KILL the KING, not just trap. "Stalemate" in a war is literally a DRAW!