Whats with these stupid ''draws'' as soon as i trap my opponents King?
Sort:
May 5, 2024
0
#2
For the game to be a win, the opponent’s king must be in check without any way to escape. The scenario you described is called stalemate, which is not technically a win.
May 5, 2024
0
#3
It is called stalemate. This happens when your opponent can't make a legal move but isn't in check. My tip to avoid this is if your opponent only has his king (or king and blocked pawns) left, be careful and either check on every move or make sure the opponents king has a square to go to before making your move.
5.2.1 The game is drawn when the player to move has no legal move and his/her king is not in check. The game is said to end in ‘stalemate’. This immediately ends the game, provided that the move producing the stalemate position was in accordance with Article 3 and Articles 4.2 – 4.7.
May 6, 2024
0
#5
WondersOfTheCosmos wrote:
In xiangqi, it is this way. I don’t understand why it’s different for modern chess…
Because it would make the game much simpler. Many endgames a pawn up would be automatic wins. Some ridiculous things would be a win.
For instance:
Imagine if this was a win. The problem is, most people complaining about stalemate only see the situation where they are a queen, a rook and 2 minor pieces up and they get careless. The thing is, such situations are easily remedied, by getting better at the game.
On the other hand, if they would make a stalemate a win, we would disbalance the game. Many endgames would be easier wins, plus many beautiful defensive resources would evaporate from the game. The game would be worse than it is today, as a result.
Simply because it’s part of the rules. Regarding the opinion that it’s a stupid rule, there are nice gentlemanly justifications for many rules. You cannot capture an opponents king and you cannot put your king in a position it can be captured, because that would just be barbaric violence, outrageous! Similarly, you cannot escape from a fight like a coward, therefore en passant! I think stalemate fits that framing fine.
May 6, 2024
0
#7
Kaon_497 is right, Stalemate is just part of the structure of the game, available for each player to use as they will. It actually adds a lot of interest, especially in fast games, because when you have arrived at a completely lost position, you can still attempt to manipulate the game so that your opponent, under time-pressure, puts you in stalemate instead of winning. And meanwhile the player with the material advantage but only 20 seconds on his/her clock has the excitement of trying to get checkmate without accidentally snatching a draw from the jaws of victory!
May 6, 2024
0
#8
WondersOfTheCosmos wrote:
nklristic wrote:
WondersOfTheCosmos wrote:
In xiangqi, it is this way. I don’t understand why it’s different for modern chess…
Because it would make the game much simpler. Many endgames a pawn up would be automatic wins. Some ridiculous things would be a win.
For instance:
Imagine if this was a win. The problem is, most people complaining about stalemate only see the situation where they are a queen, a rook and 2 minor pieces up and they get careless. The thing is, such situations are easily remedied, by getting better at the game.
On the other hand, if they would make a stalemate a win, we would disbalance the game. Many endgames would be easier wins, plus many beautiful defensive resources would evaporate from the game. The game would be worse than it is today, as a result.
Think about it this way.
In a war, a side’s king is trapped by enemy soldiers, everywhere he looks, he sees their spears. Dare he move an inch would result in his brutal death. Does it seem like it should be a draw? Wars like this don’t make sense to me.
You can view it as if the king slipped through enemy's ranks and now he lives to fight another day, because he wasn't caught as the enemy was careless. 
As for the game, it would make the game worse than it is today.
Imagine if the upper diagram was a win for white. It doesn't make sense, he can't promote to a queen, he is blocked, but if stalemate = win, black could resign long ago. Plus the strategy would be different. White would aim to exchange pieces to have this advantage of a rook pawn because that would be an automatic win.
WondersOfTheCosmos wrote:
Kaon_497 wrote:
Simply because it’s part of the rules. Regarding the opinion that it’s a stupid rule, there are nice gentlemanly justifications for many rules. You cannot capture an opponents king and you cannot put your king in a position it can be captured, because that would just be barbaric violence, outrageous! Similarly, you cannot escape from a fight like a coward, therefore en passant! I think stalemate fits that framing fine.
Wdym? In real wars, technically a king could get killed.
Yeah, but this is a war between two fancy pants. “Oh, I couldn’t possibly move anywhere, too many pointy ends everywhere!” “ Right you are, James! Let’s have another war another day.” Meanwhile all the other remaining pieces and pawns are facepalming.
Chess is chess is a game and not a simulation of any reallife situations.
Like all games chess has to operate well within its rules. Thats all it needs to do, and it does so very well.
The stalemate rule is awesome because it adds the good kind of complexity to the game, making it harder and more interesting, especially in endgames.
Removing the rule wouldnt improve the game, quite on the contrary.
Thus I dont see the point of this argument, because all arguments for this change arent valid, but questions of personal taste and silly analogies about whatever chess may or may not originally be inspired by.
Gotta bring some twist isn't it? Stalemate was introduced to make the game more interesting.
Get good at endgames and you won't run into a stalemate as often bro, simple as that
For the record, Wikipedia has a quite fascinating article on the history of stalemate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalemate#History_of_the_stalemate_rule
Aside from 1. a draw, historically it also has been, in different times and locations:
2. Win for the stalemating player
3. Win for the stalemated player
4. Half-win for the stalemating player
5. The stalemated player could actually skip their move
I dont like the solutions (4) and (5) because I dont want to have some extra rule, just for stalemate.
I find neither (2) nor (3) fair because well, its not really a clear win in either case.
As I said before, I also like how the stalemate rule adds complexity just in those cases when the gameplay can get overly simple and boring, i.e. in the endgame, and that stalemate can be an escape for a player that sees they are losing.
So personally I'm strongly in favor of the current solution.
May 15, 2024
0
#15
I am similarly puzzled. In a recent game my opponent's king could not move in any direction, of three directions because it would have been checkmated by either my rook, bishop or queen. Its only move possible was to take one of my pawns with one of his which altered nothing. After that I could move my rook without it unchecking the king. There was no further move for my opponent. Why was that a draw?
May 15, 2024
0
#16
J0nte98 wrote:
If my move made my opponent unable to save it's king then how isn't it a win for me?
There's something stupid alright but it's not the stalemates.
May 15, 2024
0
#17
AnnIsik wrote:
I am similarly puzzled... Why was that a draw?
This game? Chess: AnnIsik vs april-boomer - 123229971 - Chess.com
It is Black's move, he is NOT in check, but has no legal move. That's stalemate... a draw.
May 15, 2024
0
#18
AnnIsik wrote:
I am similarly puzzled. In a recent game my opponent's king could not move in any direction, of three directions because it would have been checkmated by either my rook, bishop or queen. Its only move possible was to take one of my pawns with one of his which altered nothing. After that I could move my rook without it unchecking the king. There was no further move for my opponent. Why was that a draw?
Do you mean this game?
If my move made my opponent unable to save it's king then how isn't it a win for me?