Stalemate Sucks.

Consider the following 2 simple rules:

In chess, we take turns playing. White, then black, then white, then black.

The goal of the game is to capture the enemy king. Always has been, always will be.

Now put the two together and you'll see why stalemate makes sense. You have not yet captured the king, so you can NOT claim a win, and your opponent cannot make a legal move. It's his move, he wants to move, but he can't. You are not allowed to make your move to capture his king, so... we're stuck. Besides, there have been some very well thought out stalemate traps, as mentioned by Shadowknight, which can actually be quite clever and beautiful.

Chess is a series of problems which you have to solve, with the ultimate goal being to capture the enemy king. Part of the problem includes not leading to a situation where your opponent has no moves to make, because at that point you have not achieved your goal, and the game cannot progress.

Stalemates can be infuriating for beginners and even intermediate players, but I don't see why people can't accept them. They make the game more challenging, and thus more fun and more involving.

Not at all. Those rules are what causes the player not to be able to move and not being able to move is what should cause you to lose. It isn't that it "fits" with those rules. It is that those rules stop the player from moving and it should simply, and obviously, be that if you cannot move then you lose.

The objective of chess is to defeat the other player. And in fact taking the other king is not the objective of chess as you never get to take it, the game ends right before you would get to take it.

As I said earlier, chess was modeled after war. In war and move your opponent tried to make ended in their loss, then they already lost. The winning side doesn't say "Wait! He doesn't have any options, let's call it a tie and go home".

Because stalemate is an option, I will obviously use it. And I've gotten draws where I shouldn't have because that rule exists. It isn't that I'm all made because someone got a stalemate on me, the rule simply makes no sense at all and it makes far more sense for the opponent in the stalemate situation to lose, including myself when I've caused a stalemate to tie. I should have lost.

im with you, my opponent has now no chance to checkmate my king, as i have him cornerd and unable to move, but i could still move and capture his. a draw is morally wrong.

If stalemate didn't exist then a ton of endgame theory would have do be redone....

Why should the rules of chess be changed for people's incompetence.

Well, in war, do you wait for your opponent to have their turn before attacking them again? Of course not, but it's a chess rule.

War analogies are irrelevant, stalemate makes absolute sense based on the other rules of chess, and the aims of the game.

If you think a draw by stalemate is morally wrong, you're obviously not with me here.

How the pieces move has changed. The ability of the pawn to move two spaces initially instead of one has changed.

Why would someone assume that the rules would never change in any game? Rules change in professional sports all the time.

i find it quite interesting and quite strange how we all have such a different view on this subject. even tho i am right haha

it just feels wrong to get a draw when you have been outplayed and you can not move to complete your task of winning, it should be a forced resignation.

Do you want there to be no stalemates to make endgames easier?  You could just study endgames more.

I wsh I had link to ChessCafe Q&A session on rules of Chess. A unique answer I remember seeing about Stalemate when Chess was compared with life. It can teach the new player that >against< odds you can force the opponent to draw. While it teachs the opponent that >with< advantage nothing is handed to you on a silver platter.

Really, how does Black avoid stalemate in the following position?

Qxf8

I had a good laugh there. Add a black rook on a5 and you get the point across. Anyway, then black could have avoided the stalemate on the move before. Unless chess is a forced stalemate from move 1, but that's a whole other discussion.

How does White avoid Stalemate?  Black just captured White's rook with check.

Well black *is* on the verge of being checkmated himself, maybe that counts for something. 

Because Black just captured a piece with his Queen.  If I'm not very good than you are terrible.

you seem to be missing my point. in order for me to capture all my opponents pieces, and manouver him into a position where he is unable to move without commiting an offence, i must have had some level of skill which has given me the advantage of the force. he has no pieces and no chance of getting me in checkmate, he has nowhere to go. we both start the game with the aim of getting a checkmate, he can no longer achieve this, and a rule that allows him to now claim a draw with a slice of luck, seems crazy, he does not want to admit defeat so uses a rule that allows him to sneak away untarnished, thats why i think it should be a forced resignation. its the sporting thing to do.

What he meant was with perfect play it could be avoidable.