Without the stalemate rule then there's not much any point in continuing to play once you're in a poor enough position. You'd literally be wasting both players times waiting in vain for your opponent to irrecoverably blunder hard enough to turn the match, which may be impossible if you're out of enough pieces.

With the stalemate rule although you may no longer be able to win, you can still do something so your final outcome is better than a loss. The losing player still has a reason to keep playing. The game is overall more interesting to play and watch by having the stalemate rule than it would be without.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I don't agree. I think the game is more interesting if it's a new game after the other won

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Ratings matter, though. A stalemate means your rating doesn't decrease as much as it would have if you'd lost, and you get to take some of your opponent's rating in the process.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago

Yes, and a stalemate is not good gameplay. Rating for the stake of finding out who is best as a competition often means sacrificing some of the fun because the rules would be abused. I don't have to change what I think is most fun due to any of those things, and downvoting or explaining why does also not change my opinion. If that is what you want, then explain to me the fun part of spending end game trying to abuse stalemate, and avoiding stalemate versus playing the rest of the game. If the rest is more fun, it's obvious why most give up in this game unless it is a tourney. Because this rule is just not good gameplay in terms of fun and enjoyment. I just think there could be other solutions.