Stalemates need to be removed

I am a beginner, I'll say that right off, since probably the first comment on this post will be about how i am,which is true.   

Second thing is,yes stalemates helped me not lose sometimes,which is not a good thing even though I didn't lose because i know how it feels to be in a winning situation yet i still didn't lose.

And now for the arguemnt,in a game that is designed to be war like with the king the pawns the knight etc it is very peculiar that there exists a move that complicates the game,BOTH for us and the PROS,and a move that stops either side from winning

First arguemnt,if you know anything about war,or better said battles,they are bloody,they are ruthless,and there are winners and losers,chess depicts that in many ways but one,which is a stalemate

How can a game based around war make such a rule that when you are close to death,inches before death,that if you "can't move" you're somehow safe,that doesn't make sense even for a turn based game, you've gotten yourself in that situation,and yet you're given a get out of jail card because no moves can be made,if it was only that simple in real battles my friends but i guess you're arguemnts are gonna be "it's just a game" but it's a badly designed game played my thousands who hate this rule

Second arguemnt, it's a complicated rule, especially for beginners,now that chess is popular why not modernize and think of something else in that situation even if it involves a loss for whichever side "doesn't have moves", imagine how much brain power you need to see them,it would not only make the game easier to play,there would be many new strategies that can finally be utilized after it's removal,

I heard a big complain is that some gambits will die out,but many other new midgames/endgames will arise which will make it a even exchange

And third and last thing i had to say is that in chess draws happen often,maybe too ofter, especially in the pro scene even in 1000-2000 elo ratings,stalemates basically count as a draw so it'll cut a significant amount of draws which would make chess a little bit more fun and better designed.

Thanks for listening to my rant,i don't think FIDE will do anything since they are lazy to change anything about Chess,but a very huge and growing minority of people hate stalemates and think that the rule is very bad for chess. 

Great. A new stalemate topic from another guy who failed to mate with 3 queens.

I know you said you are low rated but. If you become better stalemates become rare and you dont see them often at all. So I don't see why you would remove it bc it  would remove some some insane studies

Study all K+P Vs K endgames, and those that potentially lead to them. After that, there's a chance of you conceding that the rule might have a point.

It'd make endgames far less interesting. Why just randomly change the rules of a game? The only argument you made was "It will make it more like war" which chess is not like anyway. Making a game worse to make it more realistic is absurd when it is just moving pieces on a board. To my knowledge, knights don't move in an L shape in real life, so should they not in chess? War isn't turn based, so let's fix that as well! Maybe instead of making posting forums about it, you should learn how to avoid stalemating your opponent: 

https://www.chess.com/game/live/70575782781?username=igorlion69

https://www.chess.com/game/live/70408408535?username=igorlion69

https://www.chess.com/game/live/70229809445?username=igorlion69

https://www.chess.com/game/live/68736891721?username=igorlion69

https://www.chess.com/game/live/68493931231?username=igorlion69

Really, the amount of times you make the same mistake with plenty of time on your clock is just sad. Maybe get better instead of asking for a rule change to make the game easier for you.

The only argument you made was "It will make it more like war" 

thing is, there are some wars ended in stalemate. I watched a movie recently "All quiet on the Western Front" they fight and fight but neither sides could ever make any progress.. they eventually give up and go home.. It's based on a real story from WW1.

Not "Removed", Disallowed!

You have to Win by "Checkmating' The King!"

If you cannot Check, you cannot win.

Here's the most "extreme example" of why "Stalemate, is tie" that I concocted.

Who Loses? The One who cannot make a Move?

NO.

This is a good argument but it would cause a major change to chess. Most games in higher ranks would greatly change and in my opinion for the worse. Everyone can have a opinion but I believe that they should stay.

Now imagine, the King you are trying to Checkmate holds a certain key, which you could only get a hold of by checkmating that King, but because that King with the Key is safe and can't be checkmated, wouldn't the other side say something like: I can't get that King , so call it a neutral ending?

Real Wars don't always work the way you described it.

That double-stalemate position was concocted by someone named Gustavus Reichhelm in 1882.

See the last diagram in this blog: Shortest games to stalemate and ‘Mr. Robot’ chess scene.

I still concocted it, without reading about it.

He just concocted it First.

How about this, Art?

I think "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!"

I concocted both Arts in 8th Grade.

I also beat a Master 2 times in a row, that same year.