Wow! It may not be, "logical" but it is a RULE!! People should learn to live with the RULES and play the GAME!! Do you all see what i'm saying here folks; watch what i'm doing at many levels; many metaphors are contained in this post...Just thinking outloud here...
Your attitude blocks all progress. If our ancestors had shared your attitude we would still be playing medieval chess and stalemate would be a win.
But is regression really progress?
0-0 is the result then!
Ooh, can't have that. You see, I lost a game once in which my opponent castled kingside, so I'm of the firm opinion -- no wait -- I demand that kingside castling be aboloshed. Anyone who doesn't agree with me is a worthless troglodite.
We need a third candidate mound of turd so that the result can be 0-0-0.
This isn't a "I'm mad so I don't like it."
It's just totally illogical.
I didn't read the post, but is simply taking out the king just the proposed way of winning the game?
I love it when people treat entirely obvious jokes seriously. I can't even explain why it's so damn satisfying, but it is.
"But is regression really progress?"
It could be it could not be. But how will you know if you don't give it even a chance?
That's the problem, no one is willing to try new ideas.
Taking out the king is the way to win the game. Everything other way is just a way to make sure people play fairly.
Both threads are giant mounds of turd...
Perhaps someone ought to make a vote thread over which stalemate thread is the bigger turd? At least that one might be fun.
you'd want to cap that one with an age limit
You must be taller than the mound of turd to vote.
Both an age and height threshold. Incisive thinking. Thanks @Grobe, and @Chrisr2212 (what a hubba-hubba hottie). 
Unfortunately, many would still not meet these twin condidtions.
Haven't seen @Matthew11 since he blocked most of the Chess.com universe earlier in the year. This thread is attracting only the finest people.
A lot can be learned from this game. One of the reasons I hate sudden death time controls is that you don't have enough time if the game is too long. Notice how many blunders are made by white and how white could easily have won this endgame. In fact two gms playing this black would have resigned.
A very instructive game -- if instead of arguing about the rules you understood how to win this game.
The great thing about chess is how hard it can be to win even in a won position. Taking this away makes the task easier and this game would have been trivial and would not require additional skill.
No, and this is a perfect example of why stalemate is not a good rule.
I had invested a lot of time in getting a totally domiating position, which is very easy to convert. I had about 5 seconds left with no increment for the whole endgame. Also I had "switched off" because its so obviously won.
My opponent was just premoving his king on a suicide mission to where ALL MY army is! His king is running to MY army to be ATTACKED (ridiculous, because of stalemate rule) THE NATURE OF THE GAME , THE LOGIC OF THE GAME IS FLIPPED ON ITS HEAD BECAUSE OF A STUPID EXCEPTION RULE tacked on like a bad fake beard onto a 5 year old girl at haloween.
You must move at all times, EXCEPT when you actually cant move (precisely the moment you should be punished for violating the rule), the game is ubruptly over with equality of all things.
Monster, that all makes perfect sense from "your" point of view, it's not all the same from your opponent's point of view. you say "His king is running to MY army to be ATTACKED". if i was your opponent i would say "my king has 4 trap doors in the 4 corners of the board and will avail of one of them if you prevent that king from leaving the square it's on" or something to that effect. i wouldn't consider my king to be on a suicide mission either. that all requires a variant of the game. if you fail to recognise the possiblity of the win escaping you when you are easily winning, it's likely you will continue to fall for that trap, as apparently you have done again a couple of days ago. sure, stalemate is cruel, just as life itself is, it'll kill us all one day!
What a stupid post.
If it was only from my perspective, I would only be arguing stalemate to be a win when Im on the favourable end of it. Clearly Im arguing for it to be abolished at all times.
I notice no one ever addresses this point.
You must move at all times, EXCEPT when you actually cant move (precisely the moment you should be punished for violating the rule), the game is ubruptly over with equality, of all things.
or the fact that if we removed stalemate, the natural way to end the game (WHICH ALREADY ELEGANTLY EXISTS IN THE RULES) is if you cant move your clock will run out.
Good loser sneeze!!
how many more await us ?? when are you starting the thread demanding that black moves first ? Switches the topic to a totally irrelevant tangent, because they cant make any relvent points to the current topic
i think you are right though in requesting that the stalemate rule be abolished for every game you play. that will solve your particular problem.
twists 180 degres what I say, without "replying to my post" so others can see what I actually said, this is called lying. Its what people who cant debate with logic tend to do.
try contacting support on chess.com to bring it in for you, learning from your mistakes ain't much of an option.
Tries to shutdown debate because he knows he is on the losing end.
My mistakes in blitz games with 5 secs left are irrelevant to whether or not the rule is good or not.
Typical post of a fool!
C'mon Monster we all know why no one has been able to answer your assault on stalemate - you're clearly smarter than everyone else and we're all a bunch of sheeple (that was the term, right?) Just write a letter to FIDE or whatever you're going to do and be done with it man - now, why don't we all just grab a beer (or Kool-Aid for those who are too young), crank some Journey, and have fun!
I'd like to use Monster's first post as a template to express my idea of abolishing the "Shooting the moon" rule from the game of hearts. Hear me out, guys.
If a player collects all of the hearts and queen of spades, he should receive all 26 points from those cards (this is the logical conclusion when you take all the other rules into consideration). He took all of the penalty cards himself, commited suicide, he doesn't get to null all those points and then give 26 points too all other players. I can't choose to do the same at other times.
All too often when I play against the computer with 5 minutes left on my lunch break and about to complete a round without collecting any penalty cards, disaster happens where a player (always David) happens to collect all of the penalty cards. Logical thing to do: let's null all the points he would have received for that round and give each other player 26 points??
To all the fools who want to comment: "you're saying this because you lost a game of hearts" of course it is you fool. But more to the point, also because "shoot the moon" is not a logical rule.
Please also do not say it is my fault that I let it happen. It is you who hoarded all the hearts and queen of spades, that is your fault. I had none.
And don't tell me to just get used to the current rules or to start my own hearts variant. That's sheeple talk.
I was thinking of a way to jolt your brains out of the mode of:
"The rules are the rules"
and actually arguing "which rule is best" not "which rule is current". (most seem not to get this).
Existing rules create highly enjoyable game (not for you but for other 99.99% of players). So they are obviously good. Why to change?
As for your "new" rules - I have no clue if it will be enjoyable.
I also enjoy learning endgames a lot, have plenty of books. Do you have something to offer for your "new" chess?? That's where tradition comes in. You think it's bad but again 99.99% think it's great.
This is highly personal and subjective but that's normal when we talk about a game played for fun.
"Stalemate is not a logical rule."
But @Monster's continual rant (remains) highly logical.
Syllogisms reign supreme, yet again. 
Stalemate is illogical, but modern endgame theroy is so dug in to the rule it would make the game better, but it would have to chage so much.