draw by stalemate

Illegal moves - moving  pawn backwards, sideways, or on a diagonal without a capture. Trying to capture a protected piece with a King, or moving the King into check. The fundamental goal of chess is to put the King in checkmate, absolutely not capturing the King. How much material one is up has no bearing on the rules of chess. When the king is not in check, it is unable to make a legal move, and no other piece can make a legal move, and it it's turn to move, it is a stalemate/draw.

Think of it this way, if you've got a massive piece majority and still can't checkmate the enemy King then that's rather embarrassing isn't it? The goal is to position yourself to kill the enemy king, not to give it a cuddle.

Basically, these summarise the difference.

Checkmate - the opposing side has no legal moves AND the king is under check. Win.

Stalemate - the opposing side has no legal moves BUT the king is not under check. Draw.

Note that "king cannot make legal moves" is only applicable if it's the only piece on the board. If there are other mobile pieces on the board, they can be moved, so stalemate would not be applicable in this scenario.

You had one other draw by stalemate, and you were playing as White.

You secured a draw in this case. Should your opponent win since his piece count is worth more than 20 points ahead of you?

Idk

Stalemate being a draw just forces you to be even smarter. If the attacking player wouldn't have to think about avoiding stalemate, it would be much easier. To mate in chess means to both find a checkmating sequence while avoiding stalemate. These two processes should run in parallel in your brain so as to check all the squares in the line. It's just part of chess.

Most whining and complaining comes from the game being too hard for someone. But it being hard is exactly the point of the sport and determines the level of mastery that defines the champion player.

Now you've learnt that it exists, so all is fine.

Well, do you not understand the rule, or do you have difficulty accepting it?
If the former: read up on the rules. It's simply one of the rules of the game.

If the latter: this is almost the definition of stupidity; not accepting established rules. It's like the flat earthers. Once you accept the rules and go with what's already established, you can stand on the shoulders of the proverbial giants and evolve. So yeah, just accept the rules, understand them as in knowing what they mean, and then start playing....

On top of everything said, it would change the game a lot, and made it easier. Some endgame positions would be automatic wins where today you have to ponder if the position is winning after exchange of pieces and how to win it. Here is one example where it would be ridiculous to get a win. 

Pawn up side here can't promote a pawn and can't force a checkmate, but it can force a stalemate. Why would this be a win? It makes no sense. And this simple example shows that endgames would be simplified because 1 pawn up would almost be an automatic win without further considerations, where now you have to make decisions like - should I exchange rooks and get to a pawn endgame or leave them on the board, and so on.

i never stalrmate in chess.com but on tournament.