Why stalemate should be a win.

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.

"One cannot be compelled to end the game"... you (the stalemating side) were not compelled... you created the position!

The so-called "stronger" side doesn't even necessarily have to have material to mate, so if they are awarded a win, then that is just horrible.

 I'll be in the minority by saying this, but keeping a potentially flawed rule (I'm not taking a stance one way or the other) purely because it'll change our understanding of endgame and force people to learn new tactics is not a good enough reason to never change the game. If it was, we'd all still be playing Chaturanga and not the arguably improved version we have now.

Why on earth should Black be awarded a win?

As long as we're complaining about the rules...

One rule that's always seemed illogical to me - if you're rook is pinned to your king, why can't I castle my king through that rook's line of fire?

Once the rook is pinned to the king, it technically should only control the square it sits on. If the piece can't legally move to other squares, then why should it have influence over those other squares??? That seems totally illogical.

It's because if you would put your king into its line, then the rook could just take it and the game would be over right then and there.

No, one side has kept making legal moves and can continue to do so while the other side allowed themselves to get into a position where they can't keep making a legal move. Again, I'm not saying Stalemates should be wins, I'm saying the Stalemater should be awarded a high percentage of the point instead of an equal split when the Stalemate has one side with an advantage like King and Pawn against King.

I said "castle through the line of fire", not move into it. Regardless, why should a piece that CAN'T LEGALLY MOVE have influence over other squares? That makes absolutely no sense.

Thank the Cosmos that I cannot be compelled to read any more of this nonsense.

/Out

Zigwurst: 

Because White has only 2 moves - 1.Kg7 and 1.Kg8 . Then the Black king will capture the White king. Game over 0-1

Op you are correct, but just know it will never change. I also think of it as stalemate should naturally end as a loss in time, The same as if a player refused to move in a losing position

Argument against all arguments "the rules don't make sense": Well the rules are the way they are and its the way the game has been played. Chess isn't related to any outside activities or factors so why should the rules be changed to relate?

OK, I agree, changing rules is a crazy decission. But let's at least talk about are these rules better or not.

 Fair point, but isn't arguing "This is the way it is, therefore it is the best" also faulty?

1.Kg7 and 1.Kg8 are both illegal, so where is your point? Go read the laws of chess again to learn what a legal move is.

And I'm only against rule changes because they would take hundreds of years of theory and analysis and just throw them into the trash.

Read the very first comment on this topic