Stalemate is the most senseless rule ever

lol - I didn't say chess is a war simulation.

Correct, and this is essentially making amends to some extent - not in the form of regaining material, but in the form of escaping a loss.

Back to the war analogy, suppose a sniper just accomplished his job, but enemy forces arrive before he escapes.  He can't move or he'll get caught.  He didn't lose, and the enemy can't really move without letting him escape.  This logic says it should be a draw, however, the sniper loses if he moves whereas the enemy won't lose if they leave.

The more I think about it, stalemate should be a loss for for the player who has put himself/herself into a position that they can't make a legal move. How is that logic refuted? OK it's my turn but I can't move without being taken, I should win? LOL!!!

I should be awarded a tie?  LOL!!! This game has been called the game of Kings. I think I know why now. Some King put himself into stalemate and then declared himself the winner!  This is only logical explanation I can think of for such a stupid rule.

Now that I've thought about it some more a time machine to figure out this illogical rule sounds like a great idea. We could go back in time to the moment when a tyrant King or a spoiled brat Prince made up this stupid rule just for their own benefit, because they were in abosulute power! 

If you don't have any legal moves left but are not in check, it is your opponent who has played badly for allowing it to happen. Or, maybe you defended well and steered the endgame into a a position where stalemate was inevitable. In either case, I don't know how you could argue that the "superior" side deserves to win.

If we agree that checkmate wins the game, then stalemate should be a draw. The opposing king isn't dead and can't be killed by any legal means. 

Has such a thing happened in real life? Yes, many times. There have been unsuccessful sieges where all of the surrounding territory had been taken but the King's private domain remained in tact. The combatants would agree to terms and move on. 

Right! 

But how is that an unsuccessful siege?

This is a demonstration of Clausewitz's rule that I quoted earlier in the thread

"The purpose of war is to bring the enemy to a more amenable state of mind". 

It's been demonstrated to the king that he can be captured. Now he will behave. 

You don't always have to chop off his head to know that you won...

I feel that the situation that you describe is more similar to a checkmate than to a stalemate though... :-)

A real-life situation that resembles stalemate - that's quite a challenge to find...

Maybe in a boxing match, where you hug the opponent and the arbiter separates the two fighters, 

or still in a boxing match, that you're down for the count - but the round ends before the arbiter gets to ten... 

(although in both cases the fight continues and there's no draw).

Not easy, really, to find a real-life parallel...

But who needs it? :-)

A marathon race, perhaps.

Imagine all the runners behind you collapse in the race, with no runner in front of you (ok this sounds ridiculous but I will give this extreme case as example). You are currently in front of all of them and was about to finish the marathon when just 200 metres away from the finish line, you also collapse (no offence, I am just using this as a hypothetical example). If the race requires participants to cross the finish line, you will not receive the first-place trophy even though you are in the lead. This is somewhat a 'stalemate'. You had all the chances to win the race (akin to material up on the board), but failed to win it. Had you crossed the finish line, it would be a 'checkmate'.

Even soccer could display 'stalemate' behaviours. Suppose the score between the two teams are tied, but currently a skilled player from one of the teams is about to kick a ball into the goal post. No one is defending the goal post and it is easy for the player to kick the ball into the goal. Unfortunately the time runs out and the referee blows the whistle just a split moment before the player kicks the ball (although the player still continues and kicks the ball into the goal post since he has the momentum and fails to react to the whistle blow in time). Again in this case, the team had all the chances to win, but the player could not come into contact with the ball in time to land the winning kick.

Because the goal is to "KILL" the enemy king by attacking it... If you trap it in a safe space you don't meet that objective and if your opponent cannot move to allow you to achieve that goal, then you don't deserve to win.

So where all are the intellituals now? I guess you guys know I'm right about a Tryant King or Spoiled Brat Prince making up the "Totally Illigical Stalemate Rule" for their own benifit! 

That really makes your side of this debate really weak, doesn't it?

New idea for you guys, why don't we modernize what we call Stalemate. 

I propose if you get lucky enough to have your King in Stalemate that you must say, 

"I declare this game a "Donald Trump"

I win!

Someone said they never see stalemate in the games of elite players. 

The stalemate theme shows up quite often in the games of elite players, but they usually avoid it. 

Here's just one recent example, from the classic game, Carlsen-Aronian. Go to move 61 and see how White avoids playing stalemate but has to agree to the draw a few moves later anyway.

http://en.chessbase.com/post/chessbase-magazine-178-carlsen-vs-aronian-classic

That's actually quite a good example - and I'm sure that it took some imagination to come up with... :-)

Another one, and more natural, that suddenly came to mind - was the "offside" rule in football. 

Also there, one can say - "what? He's alone in front of the goalkeeper and it's ILLEGAL to score a goal? Isn't that the purpose"?

And also there, some of the finer plays is to play FOR offside - all of the defenders RUNNING FORWARD, to create this trap...

And also there, sometimes you miscalculate and it didn't work as you expected...

What do OFFSIDE and STALEMATE have in common?

Someone REFINED the game, to make it HARDER and more CHALLENGING. 

Great!! :-)

Stalemate is always part of every chess game that can reach an ending. 

You calculate a rook ending or a knight ending based on the eventual pawn ending. 

You know that K+P vs. K doesn't always win, because of the final stalemate. Otherwise you would plan the whole transition to the endgame differently!

You even know that KNN vs. K doesn't win because of the stalemate. 

(There may be (I'm not sure) a way to force stalemate even with KN or KB vs. K - I'm not sure about that actually...)

So there. It's present in each and every game, at any level - except for these quick middlegame (or opening) crushes.

Chess is a game of war and as such is made to resemble real warfare as much as possible. In a real war in some instances neither side wins. One example is the Korean War. There are many other examples. Also stalemate gives chess another dimension since even if one side is down material it can still avoid total defeat. I love chess and I love stalemate.

Except that modern Chess is demonstrably not "made" to resemble war as much as possible.  It has been abstracted further and further away from war in its evolution, actually:

- Vizier to Queen

- Elephant to Bishop

- Queen and Bishop moves lengths increased (unrealistic)

- Double pawn advance (unrealistic)

- Pawn promotion (unrealistic)

- Pawn capture diagonally only (unrealistic)

- Pawn cannot retreat (unrealistic)

- Castles cross the board in one move (unrealistic)

There are no supply logistics in Chess, there is no attrition, there are no terrain obstacles, there is no luck, no weather, no hiding or surprise tactics, no faulty communication between king and pieces (no command hierarchy rules of any kind)...I could go on and on and on.  When major changes *were* made to Chess, they neglected to modernize the game with cannons, trenches, longbows...any major developments.

It is abundantly clear that Chess has not been made to resemble war as closely as possible.  Chess is a logical abstraction.