Stalemate was invented by a loser

Only a loser would come up with the dumb rule that is stalemate because only a loser would have this logic. It probably grew out of one player dominating the London chess club so they needed something to give losing players hope and keep playing.

Give me one example of any other real sport in the world that gives a life line to a player in heavily losing position. The only thing I can think of is potting the black in pool or snooker, but you can only do that with the intention of doing it.

I saw a comment here yesterday that summed it up perfectly - imagine the pieces exist in real life on the battlefield, the two armies fight and one dominates the other, only the king is left, surrounded by enemy units, he then says "ok guys, its a draw".

The creator of that rule was probably a pretty stale mate.

“What makes you think that there should always be a win if you are ahead in material? If you can’t checkmate, you can’t checkmate. End of story. The game would be much more sloppily played if stalemate were a win.”

“Stalemate adds so much to the subtlety of the game . I understand your frustration , but as your understanding of the game grows you will appreciate this . I don’t mean this at all in a condescending way . Once you study many master games and the history of great chess games then you will find examples of incredible escapes through stalemate which can spring from nowhere occasionally . I was held to a draw in the British Rapidplay in Leeds many years ago . Three pawns up and I wondered why my opponent was playing on …. I soon found out … he sacrificed his rook and my full point turned to a dusty half point in an Instant . Stalemate will come to your rescue as much as it frustrates you . So don’t worry and learn to love the complexities of our shared game . All the best , Simon”

(2 previous messages not by me and next is also not but I can’t find the original so I will say it slightly differently)

I totaly agree

Imagine an army surrounding a castle, the king is trapped inside, but no matter how much the army swings there swords, they’re not getting the king. They’re stuck. Draw.

#6 With me or the dumdums?

wow, that was you who made it?

White is losing here?

#9 The army cant move. It’s not they’re turn dumdum.

Stalemate can take many forms:

1. Where the side doing the stalemating is winning:

2. Where the side doing the stalemating is losing and does it deliberately to save the game:

3. Mutual Stalemate/dead drawn position (unless you are gonna argue that the person who moved last should win or something).

4. Stalemate on-the-move where the game ends simultaneously for another reason (e.g. insufficient mating material)

So stalemate can mean either side is winning or neither is, or that the game is already over so stalemate is irrelevant, so that's why stalemate has to be a draw in all cases, otherwise you'd have stalemate being a different result depending on the position with would be absurd.

Stalemate and insufficient material are 2 different things #13

Well one could argue that insufficient mating material no longer applies if stalemate was a win, since checkmate wouldn't even have to be possible. What if kxg3 was the last move of that game for example? What takes priority? Stalemate or insufficient checkmating material? Does this change depending on whether insufficient material occurs at the same time as Stalemate or if it occurs several moves before? For example that "stalemate" could be forced from a few moves prior:

If stalemate was a win, would white get to play those moves out since he can forcibly stalemate the black king? Or would insufficient mating material immediately end the game at the initial position? These are the kind of questions changing the stalemate rule raises.

Just a note.

That's my point. The huge fallacy with arguing stalemating should be a win (or loss) is the assumption that the side doing it is always winning or losing. It can be either, or neither.

Stalemate and draws generally are a positive thing in the game.
The existence of stalemate means that players with an advantage have to continue to be careful.
Tension continues.
And in clock scrambles the winning player can easily blunder into stalemating.
Adds to the game.
Note that in most levels of the game and in games between most players - most games are wins or losses. Not draws.

But at the GM level - is there a big shift?
If you look at online openings databases of master games - most games are still wins or losses.
But if its two GM's and they're about evenly matched - there's a bigger percentage of draws.
Especially In GM match play like the world championship final round - there's usually a preponderance of draws apparently.
Does that mean they played perfect games?
No.
And suggest: The level of play needed to completely avoid crass losing blunders and clearly inferior play - although a very high level of play - is less than the level of play needed to refute and punish 'deep' inferior play.

If you don’t like rules, don’t play chess

If you saw my post, you would realize that sacrificing pieces or pawns in a losing position to get stalemated is good. Because, you can shock your opponent and save your elo which is probably 200. The guy who made this post probably has an elo of 200. If you don't like rules, play overwatch. not chess.

That's nice and simple! Clearcut.

Stalemate is not dull.
It puts extra spice into a game that's designed to be complicated.
In tactics puzzles here you'll often see most of the people getting a puzzle wrong where at the end they had to underpromote to win in order to avoid stalemating their opponent.
You'll even see people complaining that puzzles should be not allowed that have high failure rates by those attempting them !