stalemate

Considering you were lower ranked than he was, I believe that your rating would have gone up by drawing and his would have lowered...essentially a win for you!

yes I got +2. I guess I will go back to playing live chess now.

Reminds me of something else I read recently...

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-players/players-who-refuse-to-win-won-games

Stalemate is an essential rule in chess. It is used by some players to avoid losing. See this:

Here black has a huge material advantage but white can save himself. See the moves. The Bishop and the Queen both pin the black Queen to her King, so black must take them, finally stalemating white. (If black chooses to defend the Queen with the rook, then I think perpetual check is available for white, but not sure about this). So stalemate is important. Imagine that you play white, after cancelling this rule. How would you feel?

EDIT: The position is wrong, because white can take the queen on the second move. But it still illustrates stalemate well.

Honestly I would of taken the queen with my queen. but still if I was white and only had a king left I would know I would be defeated. but if the material advanatage is equal then I would be quite mad.

You have yet to provide a reason for this change. You had a material advatage and drew the game, but that's not because of the stalemate rule, it's because of your ignorance of it. Another poster pointed out how you could have forced mate.

So why does the rule clearly need changing? If you don't know how to play chess, you don't know how to win. Period.

If those are the rules they taught you at your school, you should be mad at them for teaching you a different game and calling it chess.

Having only a king doesn't mean that you lost. This is what stalemate is for. But using this rule AGAINST your opponent, forcing him to stalemate you, is the prettiest weapon in chess. You only have a king, but it worths exactly as much as your opponent's pieces, because the game is drawn.

wow....just ......wow    

typical of rated 1000's to say something like that.

hehe..wish there were most threads like this..hehe

Here's another example of how the stalemate can be used effectively. I had certainly played a bad game, but didn't want to resign if I had a chance to draw: 

Too many beginners believe that already.

Omg groanups and their stupid rules! Obviously the stalemate rule should be thrown away--

                                OBVIOUSLY

And the King should be the most powerful piece -- duh! -- so he should move like all the pieces combined. Everyone knows this. It's so stupid how it is now. Only an idiot clearly misunderstands this. Several of you must be one. And all the pieces should be shown holding swords! How else do they kill each other? This whole game is confused.

*Edit* Before I get accused of trolling -- Parody alert! Parody alert! Not to be taken seriously....

Powder_Scientist- I know you did achieve the draw, however if black hadn't taken the rook he could have played Qg1#. Therefore I think the correct option is to continually check the opponents king until he captures your rook (starting with Rb6+). Admittedly, your way worked too, but it wouldn't have done with correct play.

lolololololol you're actually pushing to change the rules OF CHESS.  good luck, man.  i guess chess changes its rules every thousand years or so, so it's due....but yeah, still pretty doubtful.

you guys cearly are not listening to the kid.

his school said its not a draw. This kid knows what hes doing.

I'd like a rule change on how many times you get to move per turn, I propose 2 times, that's how my school thought me.

How immature. The school didn't teach me. Thats how I played at my school because it seemed logical to not be a tie. Also im sorry that I didn't know the chess rule.

Stalemate makes chess more of a challenge. Stop complaining about it and play!