Stalemate is the most senseless rule ever

Excellent! But isn't it funny that those who want to change the rules aren't very good at the game? The last World Champion who suggested rule changes was Capablanca - & his main worry was the increasing number of draws between strong masters. He & others feared chess would suffer a "draw death," but it had nothing to do with stalemate.

If it needed changing for the benefit of the game, I'd suppose at least some of the world-class players would have actively campaigned for it. Sure, a few titled players will entertain the idea in an interview, but if they were serious, they'd be louder.

Thanks for the info. Being from Spain I trust you know what you're talking about. I did a quick check, and bullfighting is legal in Texas (the only U.S. state to allow it, but it's not too popular there). Bullfighting also takes place in Mexico, and probably several other countries too.

Luckily in chess we don't have problems with raging angry bulls. And we don't risk our lives either. But I still like winning and losing is no fun.

You could say that the king has found refuge in safe territory so he lives to fight another day.

I believe the original post is correct and the rule should be changed back so there is no such thing as a stalemate, why be so dogmatic about it??? A winning position should be considered winning by all the rules of logic, after all the side that is ahead has outplayed the other.

Again, same problem. 

We are not going to throw out 500 years of endgame theory, because a few noobs were too lazy to pick up a chess book.

A "winning position" in no way equates to a win . . . only checkmate, resignation,  time or, in very special cases, adjudication determine that.

C8=R  bec. if C8=Q, then the rook will move in between, forcing your king to capture with stalemate. I think this position is called, like, the schwanza position(?) or something.

Uhhhh....isn't checkmate just trapping  the King? 

I regard a stalemate as a loss for the stalemated player.

You're in good company, a number of today'shigh ranked players believe stalemate should be a win like it used to be back in the 19th century. 

" Grandmaster Larry Kaufman writes, "In my view, calling stalemate a draw is totally illogical, since it represents the ultimate zugzwang, where any move would get your king taken" (Kaufman 2009)"

The stalemate rule is designed to keep a chess game at least partially exciting even after a huge material imbalance.  It performs this function adequately.  If you don't like stalemates, play better.

That's the case during blitz, or bullet games. If you're playing rapid games and accidentally,  falling into a stalemate trap, then it simple isn't fair.

Making mistakes isn't fair?

1.  Bullet chess isn't really chess

2.  If you can't checkmate, you don't win.  It's that simple.  We don't declare winners when they have a knight or bishop left, because they can't force mate.  The game is not about having more material, or about creating a much better position.  If you trap the king without mating, then the opponent cannot move but you have not won yet, ergo the game is over and drawn.  

Stalemate is a stupid rule! It never should have been changed. If it's my turn and I can't move anywhere but into check with my king, then I should lose! Chess needs to evolve like sports have. People hate ties. That's why rule changes have been made in nearly all sports, to avoid ties! Chess needs to get a clue and do the same thing. The less draws chess has, the more popular it will become. In fact most games don't have ties. In my opinion the latest World Championship was an embarrassment for chess. After each draw less and less people were interested. Is that the way we want chess to continue? Grandmasters are so good they almost always draw! If FIDE or the USCF ever wants chess to become more popular and make more money (which you know they do) then chess will have to evolve. I don't think you have to have more or different pieces but a few simple rule changes could probably fix the problem.

1. No stalemate! If it's your turn and the only move you can make, is with your king into check, you lose!

2. This next idea needs a little work (maybe somebody smarter than me can figure it out) but it goes something like this. 

If one player only has a King left (they have no other pieces) then the other player that has pieces, may change a knight or a bishop into a pawn, with the right to promote the pawn on the back row.

The number 2 idea needs some clarification or improvement but you get the idea.

This would make draws very rare, chess would become more popular, chess would make more money, world championships would probably be televised like sporting events etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

Another point of view:

Unevolved people hate ties.  Unevolved people like dividing everything into winners and losers, because it's simplistic.  Unevolved people like sports and competitive spectator events they don't participate in, because they like to identify themselves with winners.  Money is flowing into such sports because of celebrity culture and an inability of people to act or think for themselves, and Chess needs that like a hole in the head.

I'm perfectly happy with Draws in chess or any other game.

UP - To say that "rule changes have been made in nearly all sports to avoid ties", is an absolutely ridiculous statement and completely untrue.

Which 19th century was that?

Must be BC.

When was it changed...and from what to what?