No-stalemate format

So does anybody else find 'Stalemates' annoying? I was thinking of a format where Stalemate are simply counted as checkmate; Often there's a over-complication of the end game, even with a clear winning advantage, in the form of Stalemate - Putting the king in a position of no legal moves. Personally, I've often come into an endgame where I might have a queen or rook, a clear winning advantage while the opponent might only have his/her king left. Some of these games turned into draws, which frustrates me. So, with that said. Does anybody have their own experiences of this over-complication or just sheer frustration from the forceful format?

I mostly agree. Also this would make it much harder to draw by insufficient material, since for example you can stalemate with just K + P vs K or K+N vs K, K + B vs K, etc (no idea if it can be forced).

Technicality here: you don't necessarily need the king to be under any sort of threat for a stalemate to occur, just that you have no legal moves. In principle this can occur even when the board is full of pieces but they're all blocking each other. For example: black to move and force a draw:

Of course, if someone sensible had made the rules of the game, the stalemate would have been a win, and there probably wouldn't even have been a castling rule. The rules of chess were created spontaneously and other versions of chess (Chinese, Japanese, Korean, original Arabic and Indian) consider stalemate a win. The same is true for checkers, for example.

The post is dumb

Draw is the balance