stalemates and other draws aren't always because you opponent screwed up. Even down in major material it is easy to force a draw.

It's better than losing, for sure!

please comment i need comments

then it would have to be draw but i am not talking about that i am talking a bout when the king is by itself and the other player has more pieces than the player who has one king.

that always happens to me when i push the king to the conner.

i hate stalemates! they seem to happen to me when I have the upper hand and I rush, trying to coerce the opposition king into a corner!

In many games in the chess 'tree of life', stalemate is a victory for the stalemating side.  For instance, in both xiangqi and shogi (Chinese chess and Japanese chess, respectively), stalemate is as good as checkmate.  In other words, the object of the game is a little more straightforward: "leave the opponent with no legal moves", rather than "leave the opponent with no legal moves AND in check".  In Korean chess (janggi) you simply lose your turn if you're stalemated!  I'm not sure about chaturanga's rules, but modern chess's nearest ancestor, shatranj, can be won by either checkmating or stalemating the opponent. At some point someone just decided that stalemate was a draw (this is also true in makruk, Thai chess).  As strange as this is, I think it spices up the game quite a bit, so I like it.

Checkmate you win, stalemate you draw, end of story. The're the rules of chess.If you wish to beat your opponent avoid the game ending in stalemate.

that is right

If you have the upper hand you need to look out for stalemates and make sure you play the right moves so your opponent does not manage get the draw.

well then it is a draw but that hardly ever happens to me

u make a really good point other wise.

i agree somewhat, but what if there were just 2 kings the game could go on 4 ever no it would an who u think should win then!?