Why is stalemate a draw instead of a win?

The one who invented chess is not here and can't answer this question I think. :)

"It gives the losing player a chance to draw."

While normally it is the side that gets stalemated that is the loosing side sometimes it can be the loosing side that stalemates the winning side meaning that in some cases the loosing side would be able to force a win if stalemate were a win.

As an extreme example while a player with only a king can never force an opponent into checkmate a player with only king can force an opponent that has lots of pieces into stalemate by always maintaining opposition to the enemy king given the right position.

For example even though white only has a king while black has a king, queen two rooks, and eight pawns, white can force black into stalemate in 21 moves with best play from both players by moving the king between E1 and E2 and so would be winning against blacks entire army if stalemate counted as a win.

en.lichess.org/study/VR0EeVco

So? you think stalemate happens really often? and you know what happens if it is a win. well guess endgames are stupid. an H pawn is a win opposition is dumb stalemates are ment to make it interesting.

Just dont make forums like this. this is just you raging at a draw when you were winning. it is not hard to not stalemate. just give checks and nothing can go wrong

Because it makes chess sometimes very funny ;-)

example: the first two games in this video:
GM Speed Chess! #121 Stalemate is the name of the game
www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-I2OMvCftQ

Yes, I had already seen that video. Simon's reactions makes it even funnier. I challenge anyone to watch the video without laughing his head off.

Stalemate is a draw because as per the rules of chess, none of you have any more moves that would "advance" the game to completion.

A case of almost, but not quite.

Result begging the question(s): "Did you checkmate the king?" and "Can you still checkmate the king?"

IF the answer is no, then it should be a draw (i.e. no progress left)

BTW: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chesscollection?cid=1008242

1. c4 h5 2. h4 a5 3. Qa4 Ra6 4. Qa5 Rah6 5. Qc7 f6 6. Qd7 Kf7 7. Qb7 Qd3 8. Qb8 Qh7 9. Qc8 Kg6 10. Qe6

Is this really the shortest?

No chessbase on my Mac ;-)

It's just a definition and of course any other definition could be used as well. For example in soccer there was always 2 points for a win and 1 for a draw. Then they changed it to 3 points for a win. So now just by definition 2 draws are worse than a win and a loss.
What about zugzwang? If chess is a copy of a war, why can't you just sit and wait and refuse to move? I think even with king plus rook against king you couldn't give mate, if each side was allowed to refuse to move whenever they wish.

I am a huge proponent of stalemates. I think it adds some whimsy to chess and that making a stalemate a win would really change the game for the worse.

I almost enjoy turning a loss into a stalemate as much as winning outright, almost.