Stalemate was invented by a loser

And black should lose here as well even though whites the one with only a king?

But chess is not real life. It is an abstract board game. If you remove a stalemate being a draw rule it will be a different game. It will be not be more logical or less logical (because it is an abstract board game). It will just be a different game.

What if I say the offside rule in football is stupid? (Some think it is). Fine, you can make a football variant without the offside rule (do you want to hear what an offside rule relates to in real life?). It will be a different game.

What if I say that forced capturing in checkers is stupid (hello free will)? It will be a different game.

What if I say the rule that forbids throwing the ball forward in rugby is stupid (where in real life is not allowed)? Get rid of it and you'll get a sport that, in North America, is called... wait for it... football (which warrants a forum thread of its own).

What if I said that stalemate in chess being a draw is stupid? It will be... oh well.

All your arguments against the stalemate are irrelevant. This rule is part of what the modern chess is. Live with it or go play checkers where the stalemate is not a draw. It will probably be more up your alley.

This forum is an opinion forum and saying that my arguments are irrelevant? Dang

Yep, that's what I am saying. Opinions can be irrelevant :-)

Wells that your opinion and when it comes to opinion forums I don't have anything to say.

Nah, stalemates are cool. They add flavor to the game

stalemates are only cool if eric rosen does it

OK, ltt,s " imagine the pieces exist in real life on the battlefield". Of course both armies would have the exact same number of identical troops, they would confine themselves to a strictly prescribed, limited area, and the two sides would take turns having one soldier move at a time, in a limited manner. Some (bishops) would be unable to use 1/2 of the field. Some (pawns) could never move backwards, could not engage an opponent directly in front of them, and could magically transform themselves into entirely different kind of troops (but only in prescribed circumstances).

I have played/observed/studied thousands of cess games over 50 years and have never seen the circumstances you cite occur in a game involving players above the beginner level.

Stalemate is essential part of endgame play. If you don't like the rules of chess, maybe you should stick to Chutes and Ladders or Monopoly.

I love how many people think the stalemate rule is arbitrary, it's not. It can only be a draw because otherwise it would lead to logical inconsistencies, different results depending on the position, and contradict other rules like the insufficient mating material example. Making stalemate a win becomes absurd when white would win here:

But lose here:

That would be the ridiculous result if stalemate was a win. The other proposition of making stalemate a loss isn't even worth entertaining. Next people are gonna say perpetual check should be a loss because "it's not fair that I can have a completely winning position and he gets out of it by constantly checking my king", if your position allowed a stalemate tactic to be forced, or your king to be exposed to endless checks, then you weren't winning in the first place. The same way you were never winning if your opponent sacrificed a queen and rook to checkmate you with a knight.

Use my latest example then:

None of blacks pieces can move and white is nowhere near the king to hypothetically "capture" it. Why should white win here?

I hit on that point (hence my username) but that is not the important argument here. It is an emotional response. What we're discussing is whether the rule was logical itself when it was created, regardless of how interesting it ultimately made the game. En passant also makes endgames much more complex, and if pawns didn't capture differently from how they move, then the whole concept of "pawn endgames" wouldn't even exist really. Think about it, opposition, triangulation, locked pawn positions, breakthroughs, corresponding squares..etc, none of that would exist if pawns simply captured the way they moved. I'd imagine the ability to castle through check or not also alters many opening book lines. But none of this is the reason stalemate is a draw, the reason is all those examples I gave would end up being different results in the game. All stalemates should be the same result, whether one side is winning/losing or neither side is and regardless of which side causing the stalemate (which can again be either or both), to be a consistent rule.

I agree the game would be so much better if the person getting stalemated lost

Chess has so many draws that this site can't even detect many of them, such as:

A dead position which doesn't fall under stalemate, repetition (inevitable though), insufficient mating material, and even the 50 move rule would have trouble kicking in as there are pawn moves and captures still possible, but none of them change the position from being drawn (not just drawish).

Why stalemate is a good rule:
a) It drastically improves the endgame tactics, find a stalemate to save this desperately losing position
b) In real battles, it goes like this: If you can't be touched, and you cannot move, you simply just will not move, stand there for ages. "Stale" mate
c) it allows brilliant farming

stalemate is an awareness test result, compadres! 😁

That's actually pretty cool to see.

Also I would like to add that if you abolished stalemate, it would be much more difficult to determine what side should win in a stalemate positions. As Endgame Enthusiast pointed out, there are many examples where one side has a material advantage, but if they move then they would lose instantly (king move into check). So which side wins? The one with a material advantage, or the one who isn't trapped? This situation arises in a good portion of king vs. king and pawn stalemates. It's easier and more logical to just call it a draw at that point, because both sides could technically argue that they should have won.

Also I believe someone was asking how removing stalemate would cause more draws. There are two scenarios here. The first is if when stalemate occurs, the side with more material wins. This would discourage anyone from accepting a material deficit for activity, leading to much more bland and drawish games. Even pawns will be jealously guarded. The second is when the side who cannot move loses when stalemate occurs. You've seen several examples already where one side is up a pawn, yet is trapped in the corner and cannot move. Such a rule in this situation would encourage the side that is up a pawn to simply give it up. Also, in other situations where the losing side is down a pawn, this further discourages loss of material for positional gain, since the player will realize that they could not hold this normally drawn endgame due to the change in rules. This would again lead to relatively boring positions where both players are hesitant to sacrifice material for positional imbalances, increasing draw rates.

That is not a drawn position though, just "drawish". Black can theoretically lose by sacking his rooks. In the position I posted, neither side could ever checkmate the other side by any sequence of legal moves even if both sides cooperated. Checkmate is impossible, not improbable. That is the FIDE definition of a dead position. Such a game is drawn, finished, game over, end of discussion..etc.