Chess.com Called a False Stalemate

It called stalemate because it was stalemate. Seriously.

uh that isn't a stalemate if there are only two kings. that's a draw by insufficent material.

everyone knows the rules, the thing people are questioning is whether those rules make any logical sense or not

It is a stalemate. only two kings on the board is a draw for neither side can win since there is no piece to checkmate with for either side. on your position the black king has nowhere to move, the queen can capture any place the king goes to except the pawn, and black cannot capture his own pieces, also he has nothing else to move since the pawn is blocked by the rook and therefore is a stalemate. draw is when the same position is repeated three times or there is not enough material for either side to win, a bishop and a king cannot checkmate. a knight and king cannot checkmate. these are examples or insufficient material. a pawn and king however CAN win because it might promote to a queen or rook and a queen and king can checkmate and so can king and rook.

White's last was probably a mouseslip.

REEEEE i hate this hack

WhAt A dIsGrAcE!

YEAH DIDNT THAT DUDE @EVY USE THAT HACK ON YOU AND THEN CHANGE HIS NAME TO @HIKARU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111

SO UMCH HACKXZS!!!!!!!!!!

I’ve just started playing the game and found this thread because this stalemate rule made no sense to me. The OP had the same frustration that I did, but I now understand the rule. Like the OP, I think the rule makes no sense as the *logical* objective of the game is to kill the opponent’s king...even if that is to force him to check himself. Let’s not not flame each other for pointing out a logical flaw, even if the rules are the rules.

Stalemate follows logically from the rules.

• Players must take turns
• Kings can't move into check
• If a player has no legal moves and isn't in check, it's Stalemate.

The only argument is whether or not it should be a draw, but it makes the game more interesting and allows some very nice opportunity to save games by being a draw.

I've played in a school tournaments where King Capture is the rule. Essentially there's no stalemate rule since you can actually capture your opponent's king. I don't mind having the stalemate rule nor having the King capture rule. 

I am, for the first time, now understanding stalemate. A considerable number of my games end this way. I'm new to learning chess, but this seems counter-intuitive. Can anyone explain why this rule exists? How does it improve the game? The entire point of the game is to capture the king. Leaving the opponent's King with no where to run seems like it should be the point. I'm good at finding ways to box them in but apparently bad so far at finding the checkmate scenario. I'm not gonna argue with a billion years worth of chess playing by experts but this just doesn't make any sense to me.

It is the present rule. and has been a;; my life.