Why all the draw games in chess?

Pardon my ignorance because I am fairly new to chess but I have a Question. I watch a lot of games on chess.com and notice that many, many famous games end in a draw. I click and watch the games and go "huh?" What is the reason for the draw? One person I was playing said that our game was a draw because no one had any real advantage when there were plenty of pieces left on the board. That to me is not a draw.I refused the draw and he won. No big deal. At least, we played the game we started and got to a real finish.   To me a draw is two kings and nothing else left on the board unless they are locked pawns or in several of my own games, an accidental stalemate (don't get me started on the stalemate rule) when I had the games won. Agreeing to a draw because "no one has any real advantage" is sort of like saying that 2 chess players just don't want to play chess anymore.  Before the game starts, no one has an advantage either so why not just quit then?  The last thing I want to see when I go to a sporting event is a tie game. Why is chess so different?  Does a draw mean that both players fear that they might lose and thus the draw?  I have accepted one draw in over 300 games here but only because I was the lower rated and could gain some points and now I am ashamed of myself for doing so! Someone tell me what I am missing?

Oh please, do get started on the stalemate rule.

LOL, whoever created the stalemate rule should be arrested.  The player who cannot move anywhere except into checkmate has been outplayed and defeated! Any objections?

The stalemate rule is a very important one and adds a very big tactical dimension to the game.  If you are easily winning then you should be able to avoid stalemating your opponent so there is nothing to worry about, just concentrate.  Check out the game below, white is clearly down on material but can force at least a draw, see below:

Yes.  The side with more material can often be stalemated.

sometimes you can tell its a draw by obvious positions, sometimes there are locked pawns and no1 can make progress, sometimes people do 3 draw repitition and its a draw, sometimes people are afraid of losing and want to play it safe so its a draw,

but when you look at famous games, they end in a draw because 1.. the grandmasters can see that its a draw 15-20 moves ahead and 2.. because they can play it safe and the draw wont affect the tournament there in and finally 3.. because it looks like a draw and no further progress can be made, it will result in a stalemate with the grandmaster just moving there queen until some1 pushes a pawn to lose..

and lastley, he is talking about draws not stalemates so sthu people.. and start talking about draws

 i guess that is most probably the case for stalemate and I could try and give you a long answer to this question/ theory on my ideas on what will happen if this was to happen but yes this is a model for stalemate

If I may wax theoretical for a moment, the chief reasons for draws at the highest level are two: a) closely matched players, and b) the game of chess is a draw with best play.

Of course, that second point has NEVER been proven but is clearly the odds on favorite to be true, nonetheless.

To argue the obverse (the other side of the coin, so-to-speak), the reasons that any game is NOT a draw are as follows: a) unequal competition, and/or, b)less than best play; i.e., a mistake, however slight.

Ha, figures that the great master of all draws should post here!

There was a point in time where I had drawn in over 12% of all my games, because I was playing people around my skill level up until that point in time.

You make good points, Anthony, but they both collapse into my more fundamental points: a) playing for money sharpens one's focus and reduces the level of risk taken and hence reduces the number of outright mistakes, and b) the common trait of GMs knowing endgames by heart levels the competition. Reduced mistake making and leveled competition lead to draws.

There are five ways to draw in Chess:

1. Stalemate (sorry it's just the rule.)

2. Insufficient material (This is not just K vs. K if you only have one or even two knights on the board against your opponents king you cannot force a checkmate. That also goes for one bishop - you need at least K+N+B, K+2B, K+R or K+Q vs your opponent's King to force a checkmate.)

3. Repetition (this is sometimes refered to as perpetual check as when you can force your opponents king back and forth, however you can claim a draw after the exact same position occurs three times even if no checks are involved.)

4. 50 move rule (you must be able to force checkmate within 50 moves of the last capture or pawn move.)

5.  Agreement - this can be done for various reasons - many positions are known theoretical draws as in many K+R vs. K+R positions.  If both players know how to draw there is no point shuffling peices around on the board until the 50 move rule is met.  Sometimes players agree to draw for other reasons.

a) isn't right I'm afraid. Various scientific experiments have shown financial reward to cause less optimal concentration and results than no financial reward. It might make you try harder, but it won't make you play better.

Perhaps, my point would be that if the game is casual, we care less about the result or our play ... if the game is serious, then we focus more. Money is not really the focal point of my concern, more the seriousness of our effort.

 hey Brett,,  the draw.. hmmmm. well the way i see it is like this... many, situations...here's a few... when i play a higher rated player and the game is hopelessly unwinnable by either person such as king knight/ king knight... no one can win anyway... you have to be happy with your performance shake hands, and walk away or have a rematch...also  i often play live chess with higher rated players...which are timed games  ... i have offered a draw to  higher rated players whom i might be beating on time but not on points... i do that as a sign of respect in the hope to bring sportsmanship and dare i say honor to the game...some take the draw and some dont...and like you, i never take a draw when i know that i've  been beat...points only mean something to me when i've earnd them... but the draw is an important rule of the game...but the rule is you don't have to offer or accept....hope this helps a little,,, have a good one Brett

stalemate refines chess to a different degree without statement there would be an element of sloppyness the stalemate tidies that up :)

Just realised this topic started 10 years ago.

I disagree. There is no so called BEST move if you match two players like Houdini and an engine stronger than Houdini. They find different ways to gain an advantage this is right however for humans. Also yes a draw is usually 99% of the time when its an engine vs equal engine.