Stalemate sucks and it needs to be removed

Remember, you don't have to promote the pawn to a Queen, it can be promoted to a Rook as well and a decent experienced chess player should be able to checkmate a lone K against a K and a R.

Stalemate isn't the issue.

Failure to pay attention is the issue.

nice username

Agreed, stalemate has no real basis behind it. It should be removed.

Removing Stalemate makes as much sense as giving beginners an extra Queen. Stalemate of the kind to which you refer results from a hard and fast rule that the King can't move itself into Check/Checkmate. If one has an advantage such that a clear positional dominance has been reached, it is the responsibility of said dominant player to maneuver the attacking pieces into a clear Checkmate. Surrounding the King is Stalemate!

Its a tactic though, and yes its terrible when it happens, but its a clever way to pull a draw from a loss. I call it (snatching a draw from the mouth of defeat).

No pass in chess. That's wouldn't make any sense. Zugzwangs would become meaningless.

It's not a warning thing, the king has to be under attack, whether he is aware of it or not. Saying "check" has nothing to do with it. Also, the black king isn't "dying" here:

He is not allowed to ignore check, he has to remove check. Any other move is illegal.

No the King cannot move into check.

You do not have to warn the opponent. In competitions if everybody says check all of the time then some games between lower-rated players would have a constant metronome of check-check-check that would disturb the other games.

You still cannot capture the king, but touch move does apply and could be disastrous for the checked player.

Technically because a king can't walk into check in chess you don't have to but it helps the game not be illegal

Checkmate means the king will be killed next move. Whether the king is actually captured or not is irrelevant. I know the interesting case of a "checklock" where having no moves while in check would be like a stalemate, but just classifying that as a normal checkmate solves that. It's just semantics.

Sure, why not? Since the goal of chess is to kill the King, any player who has successfully trapped the king are likely going to take advantage of that and take the king. The only way allowing kings to walk into check would affect the game would be that one side could gamble, walk his King through check, like say, a bishops diagonal in the Endgame to obtain an advantage, hoping the opponent doesn't see they can take the king. But if they do, it's an instant loss. Whether the game actually ends at checkmate or king capture is just as trivial as asking whether these moves should actually be played out:

And this a draw:

Do you realize how backward that becomes?? The case where the king is actually under attack becomes a draw, yet the case where the king isn't under attack would be a win?

Historically stalemate has been a mix so it's hard to tell.

-In some of the continent, stalemate was "half a win" for the stalemating player (in the sense of getting half the ante from betting).

-In Britain, the stalemated player was the winner, not the stalemating one. I think the logic for that was that the stalemating player was punished for being a) unskilled and b) forcing an illegal move. But also it was seen as a comeback mechanic. There was great resistance to making stalemate a draw in England because people liked the idea of a potential comeback mechanic when you are losing.

Do you think that all rules which make chess simpler will make it better?

I bolded a sentence in my original post that already answered it. You cannot ever simply capture the king (but see the PS). Leaving the king in check is an illegal move and is prohibited (in FIDE competitions two illegal moves lose the game).

Touch move does apply, so if the opponent made an illegal move then they are obligated to make a legal move with the first piece they touched or captured that can still be moved or taken. If somebody in check moved a queen to a square (without making a capture) then that queen would still to move if it can be legally moved to stop the check, and if that means it's only move is to block the check without being protected then the queen has to block the check regardless of whether or not there are better moves in the position. If a piece took another piece (not the one giving check) and the capturing piece does not have a legal move then the captured piece must still be captured if there is any capture that ends the check. An example is White Kg1, Qe2, Rd3, Pc4, Black Kh8, Qe8, Bc5, Ne3 and Black plays Ng2 (discovered check planning to trade queens and play Nf4+ forking the king and rook and going) where Qxg2 does not stop the check - even though Kf1 would escape the check touch move means Kxg2 (followed by Qxe2+ and Qxd3 and a K+Q+B vs K+P ending) or Qf2 (followed by Bxf2+ and a K+Q+N vs K+R+P ending) would be required depending on whether the queen was touched first before capturing the knight or the knight was removed from the board before moving the queen to g2.

PS the only time you can legitimately take the king is in a blitz competition if capturing the king is a way of claiming a win due to an opponent's illegal move (many blitz competitions award a win if an opponent's illegal move is claimed and that is any illegal move, not just leaving the king in check), but be very very certain that the rules of the competition do not consider taking the king to be illegal and that your capture of the opponent's king would cause you to lose.