Why stalemate should be a win.

Are you from the south?

What?  So, if I don't love everything about America, I should leave?  I understand the arguments for keeping the rules exactly as they are, but i just find the reasons for a rule change to be more compelling.

Easy now fellow doggy... he's the kind that'll shoot you, skin and gut you, eat your flesh in a stew, and wear your pelt for a cap.

WRONG

Thanks.  That's actually a constructive comment.

Just wondering if his name was Johnny Reb

LOL!!!

Glad someone here has a sense of humor

I personally like being able to draw against a black queen with a white pawn on c7 and a white king on b8. Stuff like that adds flare to the game in my opinion.

Is chess honestly a game that you want to change the rules of? Checkmating,  flagging on time, and the resignation of your opponent are the only ways to "win" in chess.  The king cannot move into check, ie. "If your opponent cannot move any piece, and is not checkmated, but still has material or at the very least the king itself, they have not lost through one of those 3 parameters.  Therefore it should be a draw in my own opinion."

Yes,  I am from the South , born and raised .  To change the stalemate rule would completely change too much endgame theory that I have spent years learning ... NO THANKS  !  

But is your name Johnny Reb? ;)

Chess has 1500 years of history where almost every aspect - from the definition of victory, the number/abilities of pieces to the patterns or dimensions of the board, etc has been changed. Even deciding if pieces should sit on the intersections or in the squares has been argued. There is no reason to not at least consider different options in the event they might make the game better.

The stalemate rule is perfectly logical, and boils down to this: One cannot be compelled to play an illegal move.

Sure, but the same logic applies; one cannot be compelled to end the game when they can continue to play.

they can´t continue, it´s not their turn (if we are talking about the strong side).

Logic fail.

Correct, because the other side has put themselves into a position where they can't make a legal move. They have prevented the game from continuing and are the offending party, not the Stalemater who has kept making legal moves every turn and has material to mate.

Doggy style, please demonstrate the failed logic. Stating so doesn't mean anything nor prove anything.

Incorrect, the weaker side didn't move last. It's a position executed by the stronger side (usually), who moved last.

Players that complain about undesireable stalemates should grow up, they are positions of their own making.