Stalemate is not logical to me

First of all, I would like you to not use ad hominem attacks on me, like for example statement: "You must be frustrated with stalemates, because of your bad play", cause it is not true.

I have played some great puzzles involving stalemates and I loved it.

But, stalemate is not logical.

Checkmate is a state, when opponents king cant move anywhere without being captured/killed in the next move.

Isnt the stalemate basicaly the same thing?

Of course, if king cannot move at all, that is OK. That is a draw.

Also, if opponents king can only move next to other king, I think that is also OK to be a draw, although, that would also be ilogical.

But I dont understand who made this rule that stalemate is a draw and why. You have surrounded enemy king and whatever move he makes next, he will be killed (same as in checkmate). That does not look like a draw to me.

Stalemate as a draw is a construct similar to rules that many games have to keep a game, that is otherwise already effectively finished, fresh.  It gives the losing player in an otherwise overwhelmed and boring situation a chance to salvage something.  It also forces the winning player to pay attention until the end.

It's more fun for players, and spectators, for there to be a "swindling" mechanism in the game.

It's not "logical" for a queen to be more powerful than a knight in armor on horseback, yet, there it is.  Find something worthwhile to complain about ;)...

It's not logical because of the IQ of the person who created this thread.  Thats all we need is another useless "lets get rid of stalemate" thread.

And while we're on it, I don't think jellyfish should be allowed to play Twister. It's not fair!

Oh please God no, not another "abolish stalemate" forum...

if you do not know then you are very stupid!!!!!!!!!! and dumb!!!!!!!!

^.-

Stalemates are fair to the guy stuck without a move; completely unfair to the guy with the preponderence of power.  I get a huge laugh out of stalemates when I sneak into one, and am furious when someone weasels out of a won game.  Balance here is of course necessary, so if your ultimate conclusion is that stalemates are unfair then yippee, chess does indeed reflect life in that life is also terribly unfair. 

oldfart, excellent argument!

btickler, I am not mentioning logic outside of chessboard. I am looking at a rules of chess and I see that stalemate and checkmate are usualy the same thing.

Stalemate is perfectly logical.

Chess is a game for professionals so you need to be polite enough to allow your opponent a move.

They're completely different things.

They aren't the same thing.  They're different.  Thats why one is called checkmate, and the other is  called stalemate.  It's been that way for hundreds of years.  Get over yourself.

No they're not the same thing.

Checkmate is when the king IS in check AND there is NO legal move to get out of check.

Stalemate is when the king is NOT in check AND there is NO legal move to make.

Percentage of games ending  with stalemate....possibly 0.003 %

Percentage of threads on Discussion forum about stalemate....possibly 3%

I even made a thread myself recently !

(http://www.chess.com/forum/view/off-topic/stalemate2)

Conclusion.  We talk about stalemate 1000 times more than we realise it in games !

I guess if you're thinking of chess as a battlefield simulation stalemate is illogical, if you have the enemy king cornered to where he cannot escape then he's in trouble.

But, in the end chess is a board game. Dems the rules. Without stalemate it wouldn't be chess, it would be some other game.

That sums it up! And I agree totally with the OP, stalemate doesn't make sense.....but we should keep it because endings are more beautiful.

I had figured the purpose of stalemate was simply to keep a lost game going, though I'm not sure if it truly makes it more interesting or just drags the game out longer than it should. Stalemate is not logical because chess is supposed to represent war and the outcome of war. People say the object is to kill the king, but the object of war was typically more to invade and take the opponent's land. Dethroning the king was required, and that is what would occur if the opponent's king was locked in a closet, unable to come out or he would be killed. If you've invaded the land and trapped the king, you have his kingdom. In war, that would mean you had won.

Admittedly, though, saying "check" doesn't fit the war symbolism either, but prevents chess games being quickly lost merely because somebody wasn't paying attention.

I agree that it is illogical, and it's a shame because everything else in chess reflects real war (e.g. conquering territory, invasions of the enemy camp, shifting troops to have a numeric superiority in one area, etc.).

However, stalemate is actually what makes chess great because it guarantees a beautiful balance between material and position. At its core, it's because K+P vs K is a draw (if the defender is in a good position). This allows you to sac a pawn for initiative, or play with a IQP knowing that you still have chances to draw even if you lose it.

To the poster that says it happens in 0.003% of games: stalemates affects the whole dynamic of the game even without appearing on the board.

The reason stalemate is a draw is because of two very important rules:

Rule 1 - Kings are not allowed to move to a square where there's an opponent piece attacking it

Rule 2 - When a King is in check, he must move, in stalemate he is not obliged to move.

leave the rules alone but change how stalemate is scored and people will stop questioning why it seems illogical.