I still don't understand how this isn't a win for black, literally one more turn and it would have been mate? In what world is this not a terrible rule, It's not a case of stalemate in any actual definition of the word because I am not unable to beat him.
"I made it so that my opponent could do nothing and I have free reign of the board, thereby completely crushing them. This is a draw."
White can not make a move, so there is no way for that "one more turn" to happen. It is a stalemate because the game is unable to proceed. White must move, but white can not move. White is not in checkmate, so they have not formally lost, yet. Therefore, it is a draw.
As you advance in your chess knowledge/skills, you will learn that the stalemate rule brings a rich strategy to the endgame.
White can not make a move, so there is no way for that "one more turn" to happen. It is a stalemate because the game is unable to proceed. White must move, but white can not move. White is not in checkmate, so they have not formally lost, yet. Therefore, it is a draw.
As you advance in your chess knowledge/skills, you will learn that the stalemate rule brings a rich strategy to the endgame.
And that's why there are some grand masters who share my opinion? Now I actually understand why I lost, I also understand that it doesn't add any richness to the endgame but only a method for someone who has lost to feel better about themselves.
" I don't understand how a draw was forced here " - Because the King on e1 was Tired of running all around the board , Slept on e1 and that's why he couldn't move anywhere hence Stalemate happened .
No, stalemate is a pretty standard rule. It was probably born as a technicality, but it's pretty simple and straightforward: Only mate wins the game. If your opponent cannot fulfil their turn and yet is not in checkmate, the game is null & forfeit.
No, stalemate is a pretty standard rule. It was probably born as a technicality, but it's pretty simple and straightforward: Only mate wins the game. If your opponent cannot fulfil their turn and yet is not in checkmate, the game is null & forfeit.
"I was in an mma match, my kick broke my opponents leg and thus because he was unable to move anymore and attack me back It is a draw."
stalemate
It is a rule called stalemate. It is his move but he has no moves. This used to be a win for the stalemater but it is now a draw.
No, stalemate is a pretty standard rule. It was probably born as a technicality, but it's pretty simple and straightforward: Only mate wins the game. If your opponent cannot fulfil their turn and yet is not in checkmate, the game is null & forfeit.
"I was in an mma match, my kick broke my opponents leg and thus because he was unable to move anymore and attack me back It is a draw."
I think you are confusing the rules of one game for the rules of another. In your mma match what if you didn't attack your opponent (and kickbreak his leg)? What if instead you just sat there and did nothing? Would that be a win, lose, or draw?
The rules of chess say that it's a draw depending on HOW you are not able to move anymore. If you are in check (attack) and cant move anymore then you lose. If you are not under attack and can't move, thats a draw. In the chess game you posted, you were not attacking. You did nothing. You opponent was doing nothing also. Both of you were doing nothing when it was his turn. So it was a draw. Imagine your mma match where both sides just sat there and did nothing. That too would probably be a draw.
Keep in mind that in both situations it doesn't matter who has the most power or ability. In the chess game you had much more power, but you did nothing. Just like in the mma match if one side was much bigger and better, but still just sat there and did nothing.
Next time pay attention, ain't no one to blame but you that this ended in a draw.
It is a rule called stalemate. It is his move but he has no moves. This used to be a win for the stalemater but it is now a draw.
The stalemate rule has had a varied history. Between the years 1600 and 1800 in England and Russia (and in 9th century India), it was considered to be a win for the side that had been stalemated... in other words, by those old rules you would have LOST this game.
STALEMATE
Best way to avoid stalemate is to always put your opponent in check. For example, if instead 36. ..Re8+ 37. Kd1 Qd2#, checkmate, game over. It's not uncommon for players who promote multiple pieces to take a rook rather than a second queen, just to make an unforeseen stalemate less likely.
The other option is to checkmate your opponent while he still has a mobile pawn. For example, in your game here, 30. ..Rfe8# would have been checkmate, with the lone white pawn cutting off what would have otherwise been white's escape square.
STALEMATE: No move for white's king (which is the only one left)
" I don't understand how a draw was forced here " - Because the King on e1 was Tired of running all around the board , Slept on e1 and that's why he couldn't move anywhere hence Stalemate happened .
hahaha that's funny but not the answer
I took all of his pieces, had a large amount of pieces myself, Did not make the same consecutive moves, continued to develop my board and had very clearly won, however my opponent some how managed to force the draw on me? I know I made a lot of mistakes in this game but this wasn't one of them and If this is just how chess.com handles pyrrhic victories/stalling I fail to see why anyone would play on it? I was planning on just developing my pawn into another major piece because it seemed like he was stalling and then it drew, I'm very confused.