Why stalemate should be a win.

I disagree with the title above, "Why stalemate should be a win".

It's stalemate that keeps the winning side on their toes and gives hope to the losing side. When stalemate is actually a tactic, it can create a magnifcent masterpiece.

Anyway, just for all to know, stalemate IS a win in Chinese Chess (I play chinese chess, too).

Do you mean allowing it as being checked?
Because that's exactly why we block it or move out of it.
It just seem so logical to me:
The king gets attacked - you move out of it.
It basically makes no difference in the gameplay whether the aim is to trap the king or to capture; you'd still do the same to avoid it. 

My point is that if the aim is simply to capture, then if you move into check or fail to move out of check, it shouldn't be illegal you should simply lose provided your opponent sees it and takes the king.

Ah, I see.

I know in OTB blitz often it is played this way.

The debate is starting to become somewhat rational, thank you for your effort guys, I appreciate seeing the two sides of the argument.

See, that's why I wrote "probably". I could not draw the conclusion, so I had to make a conjecture. No problem if it's wrong.

Before proceeding, please look up the notion of logic in a dictionary.

People using war historically as a metaphor for chess seem to overlook one crucial point. Chess is a game. Specifically a turn-based game. Checkmate is just a move that is not played. In essence, if you play it out, the king can be taken from the board on your next move.

If on your turn you force your opponent to the point where they cannot move, how are they supposed to complete their turn, therefore allowing you to move again? For this reason, I think stalemate is fine and should remain as a draw.

Stalemate should never be mutual (technically mutual stalemate is covered as a draw by threefold repetition and the 50 move rule).

What about blundered stalemates? If you make such an erroneous blunder and you are in a winning position then you deserve at best a draw. If it's "mutual" stalemate, then you were never in a winning position in the first place.

First of all, I am in the opinion that the rules are well as they are.

But regarding this particular comment, I'm sorry but your logic is incorrect. Because it can be applied to both stalemates AND checkmates. So according to your reasoning, you'd believe stalemates should be a win for the delivering side.

Oh ok.  I guess you *probably* enjoy making stuff about opponents.\

As for logic, I thought i stated fairly clearly why stalemate would logically be a win if not for the concept of 'check'.

lets forget it no rules will be changed for now

!Tracking Comments

Let me try to rephrase it for him:  Barring an agreed draw or resignation, the game progresses with each person making a move until one person is checkmated.  Since a stalemate prevents the opponent from making a move, and because he is not checkmated, the game cannot progress, and is therefore considered a draw, as the first person did not defeat his opponent by the rules of checkmating.  Basically, you cannot win because you were unable to "defeat" your opponent using the rules provided.

Now that is a proper argument which I can absolutely agree with.

Checkmate is arbitrary. The real goal is to capture the king.

You could just as easily say that you win when you capture the king in the next 2 moves , and when your opponent does not have a move that does not allow you to capture the king in 2 moves, except not moving, it's a draw.

This game will take a lot more skill to win.

a stalemate should be a loss for the stalemate-giver.

Why? Because he or she forces the opponent to make an illegal move which is bad manners.

it is a win for the spectators

Why is that position a draw?

It's not.