Why is stalemate a draw instead of a win?

Checkmate is a win because if the goal was to capture the king then there would be no way for a checkmated player from loosing the king on the next move. While a stalemated player isn't in check if the goal of chess was to take the king and moving into check was allowed a stalemated player would be in the ultimate zugzwang as any move would put the king in check. So why isn't stalemate a win when it implies the ultimate zugzwang?

It gives the losing player a chance to draw.

many of my stalemates should really be 'losses' -- i let time pressure get to me and didn't assemble a precise attack

So you're saying that this should be a win for me?
zh.lichess.org/2rqHjPXY

I agree that many stalemates should be a win. Many times I drew a completely won game due to this stupid rule.

There are many unfair things in chess. A lone king against two knights getting a draw is another example.

it is simple. can black move no so is the king in check? no well you did force himso he can not move so it is a draw

#7
The discussion is not about what is a Stalemate.
The OP is questioning chess rules regarding Stalemate.

If white has no legal moves, then black can never put white in checkmate.

It doesn't matter if black "should" win, there is no sequence of moves where there's a win, because there ARE no sequences of moves. And there's nearly as much skill involved in arranging a stalemate as a checkmate, probably more imagination too.

"...So why isn't stalemate a win..."

IMHO this is yet another useless debate. Because it is like it is. But please see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalemate#History_of_the_stalemate_rule