Stalemate rule needs to go!

I agree with you on one part, not to offend Be_Patient, but you were crushing him badly. However, I have to be practical in saying, if there were no stalemate rule, where do you suppose he should move? Should he not move? Should he have to resign? Chess was invented during viking times in the 6th century. Even though the rules were not decided on yet, are you saying that over 1400 years, they didn't think it through?

Anyways, I don't see the stalemate rule changing, considering it is a popular drawing technique sometimes. So all you can do is sit back, relax, improve, and try not to stalemate somebody when you have a winning position. If I could give you a tip, it would be, you're playing a 5 minute game, and you still had 2:30 left. You could have spent that time deciding your moves before you play them.

PSS: Congrats on your rating increase from 500 to 1000 :)

if you stalemated your opponent in the position you showed, then u made an error. pure and simple. there was no reason why you shouldnt have won.

the rule is not wrong, and absolutely serves a purpose. chess is a two-player game and if you draw bcz your opponent cant move, then too bad. it's your job to look out for this, and your fault for not considering your opponent options.

like chessman says, congrats on gaining almost 500 ELO.

conversely, 1000-rated players aren't really in a position to criticize chess rules.

hopefully you learned a valuable lesson and won't let such golden opportunities slip by again!

If you don't know how to checkmate with that kind of material advantage, you do not deserve to win.

There are some valid and logical reasons why the stalemate rule should be changed.  However, your game is not an example of why it  should be changed. 

A king against a full army and I got a draw haha (I did it on purpose btw :P)

If you stop playing only blitz and bullet then you can win and not stalemate

LOL congrats, you draw with a king full of army, you play like Chuck Norris hehe.

Oh halleluia!!!!

thank god this topic is back!!  let's break out the bubbly and this moved to off-topic.  mods!  let's go.

I don't think that's the problem-he had about 3 minutes left when he stalemated. It wasn't the stalemate rule that ruined white's position here, it was white's move. We all screw up, so let's not blame the rules of chess for our mistakes.

I've had a word with FIDE and they agreed to abolish the stalemate rule with immediate effect. They also plan to ban en passant as it is clearly cheating. From 2014 you will be able to make up your own castling rules as you go along. Common sense at last.

if there was no stalemate, then where could the king go exactly?

The 3 move repitition draw rule is too draconian, because sometimes I don't pay attention. it should be 10 moves, so it has time to sink in.

Looks like it was clearly a draw to me.

Part of chess is being able to CHECKMATE your opponent, not stalemating him or her.  You could have done...

You had the game, but you just threw it away.

Since most of the people are saying where can the king go?

Here's my opinion:

The king was completely dead. If this was a medival 'war' his king would be completely tortured and get killed.  Maybe this could end as a checkmate?

Point of order, you did not completely destroy your opponent. It takes a checkmate or his resignation for that. 

Sure, it could have, had you checkmated him.  It's not medieval--not really sure what medival is, guess it's better then midevil--war.  It's a board game with a clear set of rules.

White deserved to lose in the OP, no doubt.

They should both be banned for colluding too.