Simple answer: Stalemate is a draw because that's the rule that became popular. As Wikipedia reports, lots of different stalemate rules have been tried.
But why should that rule have become popular? Well I think it is because it adds interest to the game. The attacker, having gained material in the middlegame, must work harder to turn that into a win. The defender has a chance to snatch victory - well, a draw at least - from the jaws of defeat. The endgame is made more complex, with implications for how a player transitions from middlegame to endgame, with stalemate as a draw.
Yes I agree that making it a challenge even winning won positiions adds some excitement to the game. In time trouble the advantageous player really have to watch up for stalemates.
I agree that stalemate should be a win rather than a draw – but it should be a win for the person whose king is stalemated, not the person who places the enemy king in stalemate.
If you allow your opponent to be stalemated, and are therefore unable to checkmate them, that is incompetence on your part and should, as such, be recognised as a loss. Similarly, if you are in a losing position and end up tricking your opponent into stalemating you then you deserve a win.
heh, I've seem a funny puzzle on chessnetwork's most recent stream. Does anyone know of a variant of which a stalemate would be considered a win?
#23
With all respect, but that's the dumbest thing I've ever read.
I share the same opinion of Larry Kaufman: "Calling stalemate a draw is totally illogical, since it represents the ultimate zugzwang, where any move would get your king taken."
#25
It depends how you look at it. You could call it the ultimate zugzwang, sure, but if you're in a winning position it becomes the ultimate blunder; you have sacrificed all hopes of checkmate and end up drawing when, by rights, you should have won.
#25 If there's no legal move, it's not zugwang.
If black gets stalemated, he has 0 moves, BUT, the king isn't in danger. It's like a black king is in bunker, and he can't do anything, but neither is white attacking it. It's pretty logical actually when you think about it.
When I was playing chess with my dad, back in the day when I didn't know what a pin or fork or anything like that was, stalemate was actually a win, but for the stalemated side (imagine the shock, as a child, to go through that at such a tender age).
It was even funnier when he heard of this "en passant" rule, because now, if you moved a piece through where another piece (any piece) moved, you'd take it.
I think we invented some interesting chess variants without knowing.
Of course, then I discovered real chess and after about 10 consecutive losses for him, we suddenly decided to move towards other games :)
I remember reading that at some point in ancient chess stalemate was a win. That really made me think. That's why I remember it.