Stalemate is the most senseless rule ever

The touchmove stupidity is even worse. Now they have a rule where when promoting a pawn you have to touch the pawn, grab the queen, and remove the pawn with the same hand or some crap. I like how they say the two handed castling can cause "confusion", even to grandmasters with IQs of 150+ lol. They worry about millisecond time differences, but then waste 10 minutes arguing about it with the directors LMAO. They need better drugs for OCD.

I dont think chess mirrors war either. But when you said "stalemate is all about the king fending off an army all by himself" you certainly implied a warlike situation. I dont think kings fend off armies during earthquakes.

You're not just a hypocrite ― you're a liar as well. Kaufman didn't buy the GM title. He was awarded it for winning the 2008 World Senior Championship. I disagree with automatic awards of the title for winning the Junior or Senior Championship and Kaufman wasn't strong enough to earn it by achieving three GM norms ― but that's neither here nor there. He was awarded it in accordance with the rules. He didn't buy it.

I will repeat (for the benefit of new readers) the suggestion of GM Torre for a new points score in chess: 4 points for a win, 3 if you stalemate your opponent, 2 for a draw, 1 if you are stalemated and 0 for a loss. This would of course require a rule change. I will use this point system in my reasoning.

I am a little curious as to posts like #407 and #408. If it is the responsibility of the player to avoid stalemating his opponent, wouldn't it be the responsibility of black in #407 and #408 to avoid getting stalemated in those situations? Or do I misunderstand something?

You could also ask yourself: Does black deserve a draw in those positions? If white can take advantage of such sloppy play by black then I do think white deserves the 3 points for stalemating black. Black would get 1 point for avoiding getting mated as of the point system above.

The point system above gives a more fine graded point system to chess. Smaller differences in playing strengths would be visible in tournaments.

I don't think the theory of endgames would change by such a point system. The only change would be that the point scored would change. Saving yourself to a stalemate would get you 1/4 of the available points, (instead of 1/2 as it is now) which still is better than 0.

As I don't think it is possible to resolve this by establishing axioms and reason from there, it is up to the preference of each person in this matter. Personally I think the above mentioned point system would be good. I also want to hear what other readers of this thread think of the above point system. What's good about it? What's bad about it?

exactly, makes 0 sense. The person who gets stalemated isn't always the one who is winning, and what about insufficient material. So if you get stalemated, your opponent gets 3 more points than if you won?

GM Torre suggested a new point scoring:

4 points for a win

3 if you stalemate your opponent

2 for a draw

1 if you are stalemated

0 for a loss

I repeat it is 4 (four) points for a win

A draw gives 2 (two) points

A loss 0 (zero) points

In between there is the stalemate points:

3 (three) points if you stalemate your opponent

1 (one) point if you are stalemated

Sorry if I was unclear earlier.

So you are saying that white in these cases should get 2 points for this:

but THREE for this??

I believe white would be able to stalemate black in the above position also but else it would be worth 2 points. Yes to the second position.

For me, the rules seem fair. Please respect the person who made this rule. And anyways, checkmate and stalemate are different, so why not to make different end scores?

I agree. To me the most interesting part of the comment is "why is it considered a draw if the king will be brutally destroyed in the next move".

If is such a huge word here. If I had an extra queen in most of my games, I would win a lot more. If I were able to make 4 consecutive moves in a row I would win a lot more. If my opponent were blindfolded I would win a lot more.  I think the important part of this rule is that there is no if. The game is over, there is no next move so it's irrelevant "if" the king could be destroyed. I think it's completely fair just the way it is, but I partially agree with Kennets comment about the suggestion of different scoring. I agree with 4 points for a win, zero points for a loss, and 2 points for a draw. I would just add that a stalemate by either side should be 2 points also.

That's too complicated and makes no sense. Why should white get 2 more points for drawing than losing? You're 100% right, there is no if. It is illegal to move your king into check, so there is no next move. If moving the king into check was legal and you had to capture the king to win, then of course, stalemate would be an obvious win, but it wouldn't be called "stalemate". The game wouldn't be over. Since the player cannot move the game is over, don't see what's so complicated about it.

My point was that if a win is going to be 4 points, and a loss 0 points, and a draw 2 points, then I agree it's a good point system as long as stalemate is 2 points also. I suppose white should get 2 more points for drawing than losing for the same reason right now white gets half a point more for drawing than losing.

The current scoring system is the best. Stalemate is just as much of a draw as anything else. That guy is hilarious for saying different types of draws should count as different points. Maybe stalemate with just a king should 3.5 points!

When the game is over, wheter by mate or stalemate, the pieces remaining are irrelevant. The valuation is the same if one side has more pieces left or both are equal. It doesn't change the evaluation. The examples in this thread are therefore irrelevant. A stalemate is a stalemate regardless of pieces remaining.
It is also irrelevant what piece done what when the game has finished. The evaluation doesn't change. Anyone may argue othervise but I would be grateful if words wouldn't be put in my mouth.
Personally I've never denied that the game is over when a stalemate occur. The only thing I've done is argue for the point system suggested by GM Torre. It is a personal preference. Other people have the right to think otherwise. There is however no objective truth as to what the evaluation of various situations on the board should be. There is no way to establish by a logic chain of reasoning that a stalemate must be a valued as a draw. It is a matter of personal preference. As this is the Internet I'd like to point out again that I personally like the suggestion by GM Torre. 

The argument that it would be illogical for stalemate to result in a win (for the stalemating or stalemated player) is based on the fact that the objective of the game is checkmate. Stalemate is not checkmate and therefore it cannot logically be a win for either side. The problem with the argument is that if the rules were different ― if stalemate resulted in a win for either side, the objective of the game would be checkmate or stalemate. Then one could argue that a draw by stalemate would be illogical because of the game's objective.

Having said that, I think it's more than just a matter of personal preference ― unless one's preference is to make the game less challenging and interesting. Stalemate should result in a draw because the game would lose much of its complexity and richness if it resulted in a win. It's as simple as that. Endgame skill would become considerably less important. If stalemate resulted in a win for the stalemating player, any king and pawn vs king endgame would be easily won by a patzer with enough sense to keep his pawn protected. No technique required.

Pashak was actually serious.

He believes trolling is basically to be punishable by death.

@431, also add that in a knight vs king endgame, which is insufficient material, would now be winnable by stalemate. Checkmate wouldn't even have to be possible. And not only that, it is possible to force stalemate with a king and 1 knight if the king is on the edge. In addition, a double stalemate which is when both players cannot move, its would still have to be a draw, which would mean stalemate is a win in some cases but a draw in other cases, which is total nonsense. Another thing to add is that stalemate doesnt necessarily mean that the king will be captured next move, it could just be the all the pieces could be jammed up, and the king in no danger. It would mean white could win by stalemate with just one king vs the entire set of pieces, which is obsurd. And for those who argue "loss by forfeit" then i argue en passant is absolutely ridiculous and was made by whiny players who want to capture a pawn when they can't.

I cannot set up positions with my mobile device for some reason, but just make up a position where both players have their pieces blocked in with their pawns on their 8th rank, and after one player exhausts his pawn moves, stalemate. I mean i guess its still technically stalemate for only one side (the last player to move), but for all intents and purposes, both sides are trapped.

Well for all intents and purposes it doesn't matter who moved last. Both players would lose by forfeit. It just shows how making stalemate a win would have to include all different versions of stalemate which would make chess a very unorganized game!