How someone wins a match without checkmate?

Hello all,

Please forgive me if this is a naive question (I am sort of a newbie). I have seen many top level games where one of the players win without checkmate. Take some of the games between Vishy and Magnus. After a some moves (a lot of them, actually), Magnus wins the match. But there's no checkmate. Does the value of the pieces count as points to win? Please explain.

Sorry, once again, if this is a dumb question but I simply don't understand how it works.

Thanks,
Mr. N00b.

Their opponents will normally resign.

In high level games you will almost never see a checkmate, they can see it coming or their opponent simply has too much of a material advantage.

One player can resign a game if he's obviously going to lose, or if it's obviously going to be a draw they can agree to that.  That can be confusing to beginners when what's obvious to masters isn't obvious to them.  

There are 2 options.

First, one player resigned. You will see this most, especially as the ELO-rating gets higher. Higher skilled people know their endgames and have no reason to continue a lost game.

The second option is when one player runs out of time. This happens a lot in bullet and blitz for example.

Thanks for the replies. Okay, so how many moves can a GM 'see' beforehand?

Lol, that is a question that is individually. Or to put in the words of Capablanca. '1, the best'.

Wow! That's the best thing I heard today. So deep, yet so simple.

Many amateurs can play blindfold.  Many GMs can play multiple games blindfold.

How many  moves can they "see" ahead?  100s and 100s.  Effectively limitless.

How many moves can they analyze ahead?  I mean analyze as not only visualize the moves, but know they are strong moves and understand what's going on in the position.  Sometimes only 2 or 3.  Sometimes 10 or 20.  It depends on the type of position.  With many forcing moves like checks and captures and mate threats you can analyze many moves ahead reliably.  In strategic positions where ideas are more important than moves it's not useful to analyze many moves ahead.  In fact some moves are made without calculating any moves.

So when they resign it is sometimes because they see 10 moves ahead.  But other times they understand strategically there is no hope, and they will resign without calculating anything.

Is that because of a threat of checkmate? If otherwise, isn't it better to just settle with draw?

Yes, something like checkmate, a pawn promotion, or a big loss of material.  This is when people usually resign.

Yes, a draw is preferable to a loss.

Grandmasters have many patterns stored in their head.  For example if this appeared on the board:

They will know it's a draw without calculating anything, because of their study or experience in this kind of position in the past.  (Black can just play Rc8-a8-c8 and white will never have a threat of promoting).

But something like this appears on the board:

And they will resign immediately because white can promote his pawn.  Again because of their experience there's nothing to calculate.

In your first example if black plays Rb8, white has the brilliancy Rxb8!!

EDIT: You damn editor!

Haha, yeah.

Actually, there's more than two possibilities.

Draw by Mutual Agreement:  It's obvious that the position is dead equal, like Rook and 1 pawn each, one player offers a draw, and the other player accepts the offer.

Draw by 3-fold Repetition:  If the EXACT SAME (NOT "Similar") position, with the same player to move, that player having the same legal options, occurs 3 times, a draw can be claimed, no questions asked, no mutual agreement needed.  Now keep in mind, ALL QUOTA MUST BE MET!  If one pawn moved forward a square, but the rest is the same, doesn't matter, not the same position.  If on the first occurance, a player could legally castle, but he moved his king instead, and then the same position as the original occurs 2 more times, that's NOT 3-fold repetition as the first time, he had the legal option to Castle, and the second and third times, he didn't.  Lastly, if the first two times it's White to move, and the third time, White triangulated his King and it's instead Black to move, that's also NOT 3-fold repetition.  Also, if no pawn moves are made during this stretch, they don't have to occur consecutively.  I remember an over the board tournament game where the 3-fold repetition occured on moves 53, 58, and 62.  You can claim it that way as well.

Draw by Time vs Material:  If one player (let's say White) runs out of time, and the other player (in this case Black, though it could be the opposite as well) has insufficient mating material, it's a draw.  Insufficient mating material is defined as any one of the following four scenarios:  1) Black has a Lone King, 2) Black has only a King and a Knight, 3) Black has only a King and a Bishop, or 4) Black has only a King and Two Knights AND White specifically has no pawns on the board.  ALL OTHER SCENARIOS, other than these four, would be a win for Black because White's time ran out.

Draw by Mutual Insufficient Mating Material - If the position is Insufficient mating material for both players, it's automatically a draw.  Scenarios like K vs K, K+B vs K, K+N vs K, etc.

Nice list, but I think Willbert was responding to the title

It's complicated.
In calm positions, nobody can calculate many moves beforehand as there are no forced moves. And GM don't need to calculate, they rely on strategic notions (pawn structure, activity and so on)
In sharp position GM are able to calculate 5 or 10 moves beforehand as both players possibilities at each move are limited. For exemple when you check your opponent he is obliged to move.
In endgames, there are few pieces, and thus few possibilities. Even average player can calculate 10 moves in advance in some positions. 

+1. And you can't figure out a pawn race by looking at positional factors. You need cold, hard calculation, often 10+ moves ahead.

I was indeed responding to the tittle and as far as I can tell those are the two ways to win. But, I just thought about it, there is a third method. Disqualification for one of the players.