false ideas on draws

I have played against many people, and at one point was one of these people, that mistakenly believed if the only moveable piece left one side had was a king then after X number of moves (ussually 20) the game is a draw even though that is not anywhere in the rules of chess. Does anyone know where people get this idea from?

The game may be drawn earlier if the King happened to land on the same square 3 times for 3 fold repetition. I have caught someone with this when I was losing even.

There are two rules that may fit here -- one is listed above (note the key word "may" -- the draw must be claimed, it is not automatic) and the other applies when the side who has more than just the lone King times-out.  In this case, rather than a win on time being awarded to the side with the lone King, a draw is awarded due to insufficient material.

To be clear, it's not just the king, but the entire board position (including who's move it is and en passant and castling rights I believe) must be repeated three times for this draw option to be available -- note that again it must be claimed.

Absolutely - I was just referring to the actual situation that if the King was the only opponent piece I would try to usher it to land on the same square as indicated by the situation s_gage_martin suggested. You are right of course just omitted the whole detail for arguments sake.

Though I would try to win by checkmate if I had sufficient material.

Incidentally, the traditional Cambodian form of Chess, called Ok, which is very similar to Thai Chess, does have a rule like this: when one side is reduced to a bare king, then the other side, depending on the material it has, has a limited number of turns to win before the game is drawn.

Ok guys, thanks. I understand the rules of drawing. I was more just curious if anyone had ideas about where that misconception may have come from/if you encountered it often. Perhaps it started with someone who also knew Ok and then them telling their friends and etc. lead to people believing it was true for chess as well

Perhaps. But what I'm thinking Ok indicates is something simpler. Since the people in Cambodia thought a rule like this was fair, it's possible other people elsewhere might have had the same idea, and so some of them might have garbled the 50-move rule into that, or simply played chess that way at home.

The "rule" that Pawns can only capture to promoted pieces continued to live on in some countries long after there were official rules that didn't include it. So there are lots of households where Chess has rules that are like the one for putting money under "Free Parking" in Monopoly.

One misconception is that some people think that if they are in a technically drawn position you have to accept it.

A real beauty is the idea that if one side shuffles a piece back and forth 3 times they have forced a draw.

Never had to disabuse any of my opponents of this, thankfully.

Yeah, that one probably makes more sense. I know that is how I had picked up that idea.

3 fold repetition, 50 move rule, en passant, Stalemate etc all controversial rules that evoke much debate, however I believe if the rule is there it's to be absorbed as part of the strategy, chess although a gentlemans game, it has to be ruthless in pursuit to win or at least draw at all costs. I played a much higher rated player sometime ago and managed to trap the game into a drawn position by 3 fold repetition as I had no hope of winning at that point, to me that is a skill too.