Stalemate was invented by a loser

If the word Stale Mate offends you, you don’t have to use such terminology.

You can just say the word Draw instead.

Than you can be happy again!

@252 it's dumb because it completely changes the game...it would no longer be chess...

Out of the 200 comments or so, no one was able to show me any other serious sport that has a rule comparable to stalemate where someone in a heavily losing position is given a life line. Please name one, I am curious.

It’s basically like having a game of football where you are 3-0 up then you take a fourth shot, it hits the post and the score is then 3-3 xD

Apparently you didn't actually read the two hundred comments. Also, does it matter? Chess is unique from pretty much any other sport. So why do you still feel the need to make that comparison? It's the definition of the apple and orange fallacy.

Your example is off. In chess there's only 1-0 / 0-1 / 0-0 if you want to compare it to football. Being up material is the equivalent of the opposing team being down some players [red cards / injuries over substitution-limits / etc.] where the score is still 0-0 -- and even in such cases there are games that end in a draw in football. I'm sure you're seeing it in a different light now

Chess games are not decided by some sort of point system. You must checkmate your opponent to win. (Resignations are your opponent's recognition of the inevitability of checkmate. Time and other forfeits are set by individual tournament organizers, not part of the rules of play.)

If you have such an overwhelming advantage and still can't checkmate your opponent, you haven't played well enough to deserve a win.

100% correct.

However, recognizing that it was your own fault requires a certain level of maturity. It's so much easier to blame it on a rule (or something else).

It is a whim and illogical and leads to paradoxical action. But see it as an act of bounty towards the defender. We are not bound by war logics, we can rule in a gift. That's freedom! Adds lots of humour to the game. Much more motivating to win, draw or lose a game of this kind! Makes chess stand out, quite as the original poster suggests, but in a good way.

And it should not come as a surprise, as we all accepted that in strict chess, where takebacks are sacrilegious, suddenly, in this very minor case of putting your king en prise (missing to move out of check or mistakenly moving into check) it's obligatory to take your move back. This may have been invented to protect the king piece from carelessness. But it contained the seed to separate mate and stalemate into won and drawn, which is now our liberating well of laughs and smiles.

In German, "matt" means 'mate' but also 'tired'. "Patt" means 'stalemate' and nothing else. It's just an ingenious invention, and it is the dot on the "i" in a "remis" (German term for draw). It's just a funny rhyme, invoking one of chess's nicest motives.

I literally did. I missed a comment?

Apparently.

A draw is 1/2-1/2. Also, I don't know all of the rules of football (soccer, whatever) isn't there overage time and goal kicks to decide tiebreaks?

Because again a stalemate does not guarantee either side had some material advantage, I've posted like 6 different examples of this! It also doesn't guarantee either king would be taken next move, with again examples to explain. Both of those assumptions are erroneous fallacies. Not that arguing stalemate should be a win would be correct even if that wasn't the case, but it is.

Yep because he didn't want to lose lol

It's surprising how other chess rules more palletable for discussion are never touched on, it's always straight to stalemate. I had a whole thread about whether pawns should be able to be left as pawns on the back rank, with people posting examples of why that would be useful. Other things such as Castling through check and the 50 move rule are much more interesting to contemplate. Stalemate seems like an open and shut case from a logical standpoint.

If you hate stalemate, play 4 player chess

Oh, I know it looks as though I overlooked the 1/2-1/2; I was comparing it to football like he did (also still both sides receive 1 point upon a draw in group matches). A tiebreaker will come into the picture if it's an elimination system, yes.

I was just showing him how being material up compares to a football situation -- he wanted to think of it as having scored a lot and leading like so which isn't directly applicable to chess

This is of course true. In the original rules, stalemate was a win and also a position where the opponent is without any piece. For example K+N vs K.

The current rules were created chaotically and should be simplified to increase popularity:
- stalemate is a win
- cancelling the castling
- pawn changes to queen only