Stalemate was invented by a loser

Okay, I name football.

If you kick the ball into the net, it's a goal.

If you kick the ball out of the stadium, it isn't a goal. Sure, it was a mighty fine and powerful kick, but it isn't a goal, and the opposing team gets the ball.

If you then complain that "this rule was invented by a loser", you'll be laughed at. If you say that your opponents "abused some stupid rule written by a loser with a losers mindset", you will be asked to leave with your nonsense.

they probably made it so people who are easily winning have something to watch out for that could make them not lose but draw

Yes..it is very frustrating when u r in very good position or about to win and u get stalemate :[]

and chess is not supposed have realistic features to it, the rook is a castle but small, it doesn't matter what problems it has unless it affects how you play

No, it is your opponent's acknowledgement that check is inevitable. They are conceding that you have outplayed them and they have no chance to hold onto a draw.

That's a good example. In real life, castles don't move. It's quite difficult to move thousands of pounds of stone.

Also bishops are not likely to fight in a pitched battle. Neither are Queens.

EndgameEnthusiast, I'm sure you are aware that the argument about zugzwang and trapping is normally used by the other side! People say 'you know, you are going for the king, cut off his flight squares, bring your pieces closer and all, and when you basically got him, they tell you, it's stalemate. And if you say 'why, cool, okay', they say 'buddy! it's a draw'. When we thought we played chess, chess turned out to be a little different.

First, we learn that we are going for the king, and then we learn that it's not so straightforward, after all. This rule 'stalemate is a draw' was never logical, and even necessary, as you try to construe it. It is really a fun argument what you are doing, though.

If I had to rewrite the rules in order to count stalemate as a win, I would just say 'one side wins if it takes the king or moves in a way that the other side has no more moves.' It seems consistent to me.

If, like in one of your very fine rarities, a lone king stalemates a whole army, he sure deserves that win, paralyzing them all? If a knight and a king corner a king with a stalemate in 5 combination, they sure deserve to take home that scalp? 'Insufficient material- to stalemate' would be the new formula to claim a draw. If a knight 'chess-locks' a smothered side, it cannot harvest the king but has succeeded to take away all moves by the arbitrary means of check mate. If a king gets stalemated in front of his lone a- or h-pawn by that lone king, doesn't he deserve the loss for clinging to his pawn and forgetting about his own safety? -I know putting a king en prise is no option in chess, but if it were, consistency were not a problem, or is it?

I love stalemate as a draw, it's unmissable, because it makes the game more demanding and interesting and motivating and fun, and it's a welcome break in the all encompassing ultra pragmatic logics in chess. These are quick to adapt and adopt, and even merrily so, the complexities coming with the 'stalemate is a draw' rule, but paradox, like turning over options of resistance into trajectories losing your last moveable piece is forever visible, pointing at our freedom we engraved in our rules. Our freedom to give more credit to the defenders than they logically could have, fittingly cashable by means of counterintuitive action. Go into a mating net but send a desperado like a dove. Go down a pawn but have the opposition. Such things are big smiles for me.

Lets take an example

In this position, black king is stalemated. Now if stalemate was a win for white, black king would be the king that got sieged and the white king and the pawn are the army that encircles the black king.

Stalemate means:

-Opponent can't move.

So for a position that the king can't move:

White king is the army that encircles black (it makes sense because there is no way black could move) but black king can't be captured on the next move but he can't make an illegal move. So it would be white king that encircles black and the entire black army is the king that got seiged and the white king will be the army that encircles them.

But black still has no possibility of getting checkmated, despite being positionally "seiged". So the seige means nothing, it would be a stalemate in real life.

He is forced to make an illegal move. Just see it that the king can't move without being captured and its not an illegal move

The king can't move because all the squares are occupied. That is the opposite of "about to be captured", the more accurate analogy would be a king surrounded by a massive army as an overconfident lone king thinks he can take on all of them at once. If anything it is the white king who is about to be seiged. And in a real war they don't "take turns" anyway, so that's a moot point. The goal of chess is to checkmate, not reduce the number of your opponents legal moves to none.

Black's king is not only extremely well protected but it is white who would be obliterated in a few moves if it was his turn, so why on Earth should black lose here?

The lone king isn't overpowering anything.

If the king is suffocated it should die.

if stalemate wasn't invented, the winning side could just go rampaging and making carless moves, if they were given something to watch out for, they would be more catious, helping them overall in the long term

its a board game bruh
if you want, ask chesscom to make a variant that says stalemate is a win and play that
problem solved

Having no legal moves doesn't qualify as that.