This is called a stalemate. The result is a draw. If you have such a massive material advantage, you need to be careful to always allow the opponent a legal move if you're not checking him.
Win without check or checkmate?
Sort:
IMO it's useful to teach beginners not to mindlessly grab all the pieces before trying for checkmate because of situations like this. After you're up a lot of material, time to start the king hunt.
--a wrote:
Who was playing white, you or the nine year old?
Heh, either way the 9 year old technically didn't lose 
Thanks for the speedy response. I was thinking stalemates were based on a set number of moves or repeated moves but in retrospect, it makes sense. Much appreciated.
Jan 2, 2012
0
#6
facUMSL wrote:
Thanks for the speedy response. I was thinking stalemates were based on a set number of moves or repeated moves but in retrospect, it makes sense. Much appreciated.
There are draws based off of that (and those rules are often misunderstood), but "stalemates" are specifically when the player who has the move has no legal moves to make.
Basically, threefold repetition, the 50-move rule, and stalemates are all different types of draws. The end result (no victory for either player) is the same, but the way to achieve it is different.
I was playing with my 9 year old and I encountered something I've never seen before. What happens when a person is not in check, but cannot make any moves that would not put him/her into check? This is the board, it's black's move.