I'm a new player and don't know much about chess rules, but the last game I played (image below) I left the other player only with his king and it was marked as a Draw. Why is that? Wasn't I supposed to be the winner, since I had many forms to Checkmate him?
Stalemate. Your opponent had no legal moves.
Automatic Draw.
But that happened because I left him without any more pieces left rather than the king, shouldn't it count as a Checkmate? It's so unfair to lose with that huge advantage!
But that happened because I left him without any more pieces left rather than the king, shouldn't it count as a Checkmate? It's so unfair to lose with that huge advantage!
It doesn't count as checkmate because it's not checkmate. You opponents king is not being attacked, so he is not in danger. A checkmate (the object of the game) is attacking the opponents king AND making sure he cannot escape. Think of it like any other huge advantage. Just because the opponent has an hour of time left and you have 10 seconds doesn't mean he gets to automatically win. Or as my brother often says, the faster car doesn't always win the race. You have to use your huge advantage to actually win. There are no points for style.
Basically rephrasing/adding on to what Patriot said, the only ways to win in chess are checkmating your opponent, your opponent forfeiting, or your opponent running out of time (assuming you still have sufficient material to mate).
To clarify:
In chess, a checkmate is when a player's king is being attacked (i.e. in check), and the player has no legal way of getting out of check: they can't move the king out of check, they can't capture the piece giving check, and they can't block the check.
A stalemate is when a player has no legal moves, but their king is not in check. This is what happened in your game, and in chess it's considered a draw. Despite your material advantage, you didn't convert it into a checkmate, and so you didn't win. (If you had played Rc6 as your last move instead, you would have won.)
Material doesn't ultimately matter in chess, except as a means to reach checkmate. There are many games where large amounts of material were given up in order to win. There are endgames where one side is up in material, but the game is still theoretically drawn. There's nothing "unfair" about this; the rules say that if you don't win, you don't win.
An interesting stalemate position. 27.Rc6 was checkmate. Remember this and don't let it happen again!
You are not the first one to learn that the hard way so don't feel bad.
Take your time and try and try to relax when in such an important part of the game. Your 'stalemate' happened when you probably 'rushed' your last move without planning!
I understand your point, but if you botch a completely won position with several pieces and pawns vs a lone king how do you deserve to win the game? Additionally the resource of stalemate for the defending side leads to much richer chess. So yeah, I disagree.
And checker players will say that the chess rules are totally unfair. Why have game victory hinge on the fate of one single unit, i.c. the king? Why not demand the destruction of the complete army before you can make that claim? The allies would have lost WW II, had they resigned the day Franklin D. Roosevelt died. Isn't chess weird?
The answer is of course is that most arguments about rules are completely non-sensical. As long as you know what the rules are, as a human being you are presumed capable of managing them properly. If you can't, you are incompetent and you lose. It's well deserved!
As noted above, if your opponent has no legal moves, he cannot move. If he cannot move the game cannot continue. Since you did not checkmate him and the game cannot continue, it is a draw - stalemate.
It may seem unfair not to win with such a larger advantage; however, you have to make sure you always allow your opponent a legal move after each of your moves. You shouldn't need such an advantage to win. If you do, then perhaps it is fair the game ended in a draw.
And checker players will say that the chess rules are totally unfair. Why have game victory hinge on the fate of one single unit, i.c. the king? Why not demand the destruction of the complete army before you can make that claim? The allies would have lost WW II, had they resigned the day Franklin D. Roosevelt died. Isn't chess weird?
The answer is of course is that most arguments about rules are completely non-sensical. As long as you know what the rules are, as a human being you are presumed capable of managing them properly. If you can't, you are incompetent and you lose. It's well deserved!
But yet, when it comes to bees, if you don't kill the queen bee, you achieved nothing because they will reproduce. Kill the queen and the rest die. So chess is like killing a swarm of bees!
I'm a new player and don't know much about chess rules, but the last game I played (image below) I left the other player only with his king and it was marked as a Draw. Why is that? Wasn't I supposed to be the winner, since I had many forms to Checkmate him?
You stalemated your opponent, as he had no legal move to play in the next move, a scenario which prevents the game from going forward. In other words your opponent would have to break the rules of chess for the game to continue(like voluntarily putting king in check), something which we surely do not want. Though the idea of facing a lone king with almost all pieces would make you feel powerful, I'd suggest that you try to start finding ways of checkmating the moment you feel you've got the upper hand!
Stalemate is a draw in classical chess yet there are other chess variants both historical and modern where stalemate is not a draw.
Very early versions of Chess declare the player causing stalemate the winner and even today there are callings to return to that rule.
In a real life war, when a king cannot move because he is stalemate, the opponent kills him with no mercy and so should it be done in the case of a chess play too: the real life in the board.
If it were up to me, the rules would be different, because it seems clearly unfair to me that when a thousand swords are against a solitary king, that is not called a technical victory. There is no reasonable reason, beyond maintaining a tradition that leads to absurd results, why the rules could not be changed to understand that if one player cannot move without committing suicide, that does not prevent movement to the other. Then in this case it should be considered that the threatened player must remain still due to moral imperative but then the attacking player can move and kill him, since he is not impeded.
The question is not what are the rules, here, but are the rules fair or not. And for me, its cristal clear they are not.
You brought up some good points, but using your own example explains why stalemate is a draw. You said in real life war when a king cannot move because he is in stalemate the opponent kills him with no mercy. Well, in chess, if the king is in stalemate (cannot move) and the opponent kills him with no mercy that's called checkmate.
Your other example of an opponent with a thousand swords. What happens if the army of a thousand swords does not kill the lone opposing king? Sure they have the resources, maybe the time, the skill, the talent. They have the firepower, they have everything to kill the enemy king, including a thousand swords. But they dont do it. Why should that be considered a victory? If the enemy had a million swords but still refused to kill the king, why should that be considered a victory?
They don't do it only because the rules do not allow them to do it. The rules could be more fair and establish that if the king cannot move that's game over for the king. Lets imagine the pieces suddenly became real human beings. Would they kill the king? Its just insane to think otherwise. And plus, the odds would be totally against the king. So, how to call a draw is a fair outcome, here? I'm sorry, but it is not.
What do you mean the rules dont allow it? If one side has a huge advantage, a thousand swords (or a big material advantage) what rule prevents them from checkmating the opponent? The rules do not REQUIRE one side to allow the other side to get into a stalemate position. That's just poor play.
Lets imagine the pieces suddenly become real human beings. One side has the ability to kill the opponent, but chooses not to. Instead, they allow a peace treaty. They COULD have killed the enemy, but a peace treaty was signed before they killed the king. That peace treaty was both sides agreeing to the rules of stalemate. Sure it's not good for the side that had the huge advantage. But the rules allowed the side with the advantage to kill the king and win. They chose not to kill the king. They chose not to win. That bad decision, correctly, is what results in the tie.
Just like in your real life example the rules are the rules. A peace treaty (where both sides agree to stop) is a real life rule. That same peace treaty that you agreed to in chess is called a draw. In this case, stalemate. If you dont like it, win before the peace treaty comes into effect.
Again you have given good reasons why a stalemate is fair. You yourself said it's NOT fair because of "a single poor move". Well that single poor move is a great example of why stalemate being a tie IS fair. A single poor move can not only result in a tie, it can also lose an otherwise winning game.
Of course the rules of chess are not sacred. But they are called laws for some strange reason. I agree with you they should be debated and even updated from time to time. But as far as this particular rule goes, you still haven't answer the question. If one side really does have superior forces, more power, more time, more ability, more skill, more talent, more resources and the win is so easy to achieve, why should that side be awarded the win if they refuse to use the resources? Why should the win be awarded to the side that REFUSES to win. If you have the resources to win, then win. Make the checkmate. If you cant or wont do that, then it's not a win (not counting resignation or running out of time, etc). Stalemate being a tie is one of the best examples of a fair rule in all of board games.
And checker players will say that the chess rules are totally unfair. Why have game victory hinge on the fate of one single unit, i.c. the king?
But yet, when it comes to bees, if you don't kill the queen bee, you achieved nothing because they will reproduce. Kill the queen and the rest die. So chess is like killing a swarm of bees!
That's a fair argument. Can't think of an animal species that separates stalemate from checkmate but I'll let you know when I find one. Gotta be one, right?
A simple question: are the rules in chess a sacred thing, like the bible, or is it possible to debate the substance of the matter? Are the laws something we have to obey, as simple slaves with no option to think for ourselves, or can we think them and remake them? That's the question.
Chess rules are indeed not set in stone, and FIDE, the organisation responsible for them, changed the 50-move rule relatively recently. But the 'stalemate = a draw' rule is one of the basic ones that haven't been changed for at least 200 years, and it's safe to assume there are good reasons.
I think one reason is the simple elegance of having checkmate as the only goal. If stalemate is a win too, then that would introduce an inconsistency, in that a stalemated king is not even under attack whereas a checkmated king has to be under attack by definition. That is, two different goals.
There are more practical reasons for why we won't see stalemate becoming a win. Such a rule change would instantly make thousands and thousands of instructional books, articles, and lessons faulty. Endgame theory would also change significantly and so a lot of endgame books, etc. will become obsolete.
I am not sure the "one goal" argument holds, because checkmate and stalemate are rather easy to unify under the header of "anticipated king capture on the next move". Since "passing" is not a concept in chess, the distinction between stalemate and checkmate does not show up under such a definition.
But the practical impact on endgames is indeed immense. For instance, many rook endings and pawn endings become wins. Some will consider increasing the win rate an advantage but my prediction is that these and other endings actually become much less interesting. Just exchange the pieces and win with your remaining plus pawn whatever the king positions.
On a creative level, stalemate represents the "wildcard", the "balancer" and the "naysayer", the rule that goes against the wire of the mainstream thought lines. It makes chess more intricate and more attractive which is way more important than "fairer". I'd hate to lose all the beautiful compositions based on stalemate.
I used to play "Stratego" (in Dutch). They had military ranks like Marshal and General and Captain and each rank beat all ranks below it. With the exception of the lowly spy. He was the wildcard unit, the only one to remove the Marshal, though he could be crushed by all the other ranks. He's the one though that made the game somewhat interesting, the spice in the food, the dissonant, the stalemate of chess.
I'm a new player and don't know much about chess rules, but the last game I played (image below) I left the other player only with his king and it was marked as a Draw. Why is that? Wasn't I supposed to be the winner, since I had many forms to Checkmate him?