Stalemate is the most senseless rule ever

You've got it backwards. Stalemate originated as a chess term, not a military term. Because stalemate results in a drawn chess game, the word is used figuratively (not literally) to describe situations that become deadlocked. There's no such thing as a draw in war. An arbitrator doesn't show up on the battlefield and say, "This looks like a stalemate, fellas. I'm going to call this a draw. You can all go home now."

The reason stalemate is used figuratively to describe deadlocked situations ― is that it results in a drawn chess game. If stalemate resulted in a win for the stalemating or stalemated player, it never would've been used figuratively to describe deadlocked situations in war or any other endeavor.

Really? huh. I thought chess was based on war, like the pieces ARE soldiers.

GM Torre suggested 4 points for a win 3 points if you stalemate your opponent 2 points for a draw 1 point if you are stalemated  0 points for a loss. Personally I think that would be good. You can outplay your opponent and still be unable to force mate. Examples K+N+N vs K, K+(a or h pawn)+wrong bishop vs K at the promotion square. Resign to a stalemate would be included as an offer between draw and resign. 

The problem with stalemate being a win is that checkmate wouldn't have to be possible to win. But, insufficient material would end up being both a draw, and a win, a contradiction I pointed out months ago.

Stalemate is a draw only because the rules states it as such. The rules could be changed to what GM Torre suggested. If it is desirable or not is a personal preference. I tend to see the stalemated side as helpless, unable to respond.

Example 1 and 2 in #299, I'm OK with a 3 points wins for the weaker side. 341 is a nice 3 points win. 342 and 343 are also worth 3 points as I see it. 377 paradox: The material is insufficient for a mate but not for a stalemate, 3 points for the stronger side, 1 for the weaker. No paradox if the rules were changed.

Here's a historical perspective on stalemate along with various attempts to discredit it.

https://www.chess.com/article/view/stalemate2

But the other side is also helpless as he will not be able to actually kill the king off. What about a simultaneous stalemate, with both sides? They are both just as helpless. Think of king and pawn endgames, the losing side with the lone king can stalemate the side with the pawn on the rook files, should he win?

The players move altenately. If a simultaneus stalemate would occur the last player to move would get the 3 points. Yes, to your last question. I've seen the argument that the stronger side should be strong enough to mate else it should be a draw. I've yet to see the argument that the stronger side should be strong enough to avoid being stalemated. Personally I think GM Torres suggestion good. Others may of course disagree.

A reflection: I've seen that sometimes the stalemated side was awarded the win. I believe that in the vast majority of the cases it's the same as a draw. The stronger side could avoid this by just moving his king instead of any piece or pawn until the 50 move rule.

My argument wasn't about who played the better game, the argument was the contradiction between stalemate and insufficient material. It would imply that stalemate is a win in a normal position, but a draw in insufficient material, even though now the material is stalemate sufficient but not mating sufficient. There is no way to resolve this conflict, therefore stalemate has to be a draw for consistency purposes, otherwise I agree stalemate should be a win.

It seems we are discussing two things. You are correct in that as the rules stands today a stalemate cannot be both a win and a draw.

My point is that if the rules were changed as of GM Torres suggestion the paradox disappear.

What was his suggestion? Is it on this thread I don't remember it.

First sentence, post #387, this thread.

They're not all based on soldiers or warriors. But regardless, 'stalemate' originated as a chess term.

Lighten up, buddy. Endgame wasn't offended. No reason for you to be.

Give it a rest, son. You're a hypocrite. Your response to Dodger111 (#384):

"Larry Kaufman? GM? HAHAAHAHAHAHA

"I wish there were more funny people like you. He is an IM who bought the title. Also, he lost to a 9 year old Liang. 9 year old Liang is literally my chess strength."

Lets see of the people who think stalemate should be a loss by forfeit, lose the argument by forfeit again!

Yeah, white totally deserves to win here!

And here!

Fine, but it's still a stalemate. And chess is not supposed to mirror war at all anyway. It's just a set of mathematical parameters. You think in a war horses would only jump in L patterns a pawn would refuse to get out of his kings way because "i can't move backwards" LMAO