I'll add this post of mine from another forum:
I haven't read more than 20% of this thread, but, has it been explained why I should be responsible for my opponent's legal moves? In no other game/sport that I know of is this a player's responsibility. It seems if you've let yourself out of legal moves, you should be punished in some form. This is why when explaining stalemate to first-timers, they ALWAYS have the "smelling onions" face. Every other game/sport they're familiar with has the logical implication that *I* am not responsible for *your* ability to continue. It's anti-competetive, or, cooperative. The entire game we are at competetive odds, but then, for a moment, it's possible for us to be on the same side, as I now must consider your ability to continue. So, yes, it currently results in a different result, as it is a different situation than mate, but it's just bunk for competitors to ever be cooperative.
To me, it all seems to stem from the currently immutable rule of a player never moving twice in a row. That is why you don't actually take the King when the opponent is unable to remove check; you just win. What you have done is put the opponent in a position where she no longer has any legal moves (remove check or nothing). The only way this is different from Stalemate is that the King is not in check. The player still has no legal moves, but the King isn't in danger. So, they are different situations and the players should have their scores ajudicated differently. This is why I've changed my mind from stalemate-giver getting a full point to getting something less, but still getting more than stalemate-receiver.
If they changed the rule so that you took the King when check can not be removed, and the opponent therefore can't make ANY move, thereby moving twice in a row, now the stalemate-giver would simply move twice in a row and the game would not end due to the stalemate, though I believe many, many games would end on the next 2 or so moves, as many, many times the King would be checked & then mated. I fully believe very few would want this to be included in our holy pursuit of Caissa.
The other currently immutable rule, that if done away with, would also remove a portion of our stalemate problems is the King never being able to move into/through check. I also fully believe very few would want this in our game.
So, instead of changing those 2 rules, why don't we just change the adjudication of the outcome, and make it something like .75-.25 in favor of the giver? The game will still be played in almost wholly the same fashion, but rewards would be changed. It all just seems logical to this patzer.