Stalemate in chess is not a win because the winner is decided by checkmate. The King escapes to safety in the wilderness rather than being captured.
Did you even read the paragraph? It should be a win in chess because a king with no moves without going into check should lose, because you can't skip a turn, so you should be forced to go into check.
Yes, I read your paragraph and I took the time to leave a comment on your thread. Checkmating is one of the big skill factors in this game - seeing Checkmate or not, getting Stalemate instead etc - these are part of what make the game great, and what separates people at different skill levels (not understanding Checkmate at all, missing when opponent has Mate in 1, seeing Mates in 2, calculating Mates in 4 etc). Chess shouldn't be made simpler, it is great as it is.
I'm rated nearly double you, I see more checkmates than you. I'm saying my opinion, that knight and king vs. king should be winning because they could eventually be forced into check. CHECKMATE occurs when has no legal moves that don't result in check, therefore stalemate should be the same.
This isn't how chess works, sorry. In the very early years of chess, a Stalemate was classed as a half-win I think, but the rules developed over the years into what we have now. Far better players than us discussed and debated the rules hundreds of years ago haha - I don't think we can improve it. 
Stalemate in chess is not a win because the winner is decided by checkmate. The King escapes to safety in the wilderness rather than being captured.
Did you even read the paragraph? It should be a win in chess because a king with no moves without going into check should lose, because you can't skip a turn, so you should be forced to go into check.
Yes, I read your paragraph and I took the time to leave a comment on your thread. Checkmating is one of the big skill factors in this game - seeing Checkmate or not, getting Stalemate instead etc - these are part of what make the game great, and what separates people at different skill levels (not understanding Checkmate at all, missing when opponent has Mate in 1, seeing Mates in 2, calculating Mates in 4 etc). Chess shouldn't be made simpler, it is great as it is.
I'm rated nearly double you, I see more checkmates than you. I'm saying my opinion, that knight and king vs. king should be winning because they could eventually be forced into check. CHECKMATE occurs when has no legal moves that don't result in check, therefore stalemate should be the same.
you can't force a stalemate with knight and king vs king
get out