I also think that 'draw' is a dumb rule. When you deprive your opponent of all possible moves that should automatically be a victory. You can call it "victory through deprivation" (or whatever) or "victory through checkmate"
You should look up the meaning of these terms: "checkmate", "stalemate", "draw". None of these mean what you think they mean.
You should look up the meaning of these terms: "checkmate", "stalemate", "draw". None of these mean what you think they mean.
I meant 'draw through stalemate' instead when I said it is as a dumb rule. if you both only have kings left then 'draw' is OK.
Draws are not dumb. Some draws are actually quite humorous, like the one I had last night over the board:
Now keep in mind, both players are low on time by move 40 - White under a minute, Black under 2 minutes, with only a 10 second increment, so no claim that this game was clean by any stretch - just humorous.
Not all draws are due to incompetent ones stalemating with 50 extra pieces!
The best games (chess and association football) have three common results:
One player is significantly better, the other is significantly better, or it's a draw, where neither side could be found to be better.
You get more detailed information this way than if one side beat the other by 0.1%. If anything maybe they should rewrite the rules of American sports so that you must win by over 5 points (or whatever) to prove superiority, otherwise it's a draw. It makes much more sense.
Defensive play/turtling can be bad sure, but in a funny kind of way it can also bring great drama. It can set up difficulties for the attacker and give underdogs a fighting chance, instead of every result being known before the match begins. Because if the attacker can't break them down and starts getting desperate, holes are left in their own defence. Nothing like that can happen in NFL or NBA.