Answers.Body: <p>With black to move, he is not in check but he also has no legal moves. There is no square where his king can go without putting himself in check, and that would be an illegal move.</p>
  
  <p>That situation is called <strong>stalemate</strong> (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalemate" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Wikipedia</a>), and it is an immediate draw by the rules of the game. You've boxed him in too well.</p>
  
  <p>As to why stalemate is a draw see <a href="https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/1412/why-is-stalemate-a-draw">Why is stalemate a draw?</a> , and there are also a lot of further questions if you search the site for "stalemate".</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-01-23T18:21:49.020Z
Answers.Text: @TechnoSam Think about it this way: the game is only won when one king is *checkmated*. Now in a situation, where one side is to turn, but doesn't have any legal moves left, and their king is **not** under check, there's no way to pass the turn so the game reaches a definite halt and no side can be announced winner (because neither king is checkmated yet). Therefore, it can only be considered a draw. From your end, it is your fault for messing up the checkmate combination and allowing a stalemate, so it's not the rules cheating you. Material difference doesn't win the game, checkmate does!
Answers.UserDisplayName: user929304
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-01-23T18:34:21.793Z
Answers.Text: I agree that if you put a king into stalemate it should be considered a draw.  I must say that it should almost never happen especially with how many pieces white has left.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Joe
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-01-23T19:29:30.123Z
Answers.Text: @TechnoSam: this sounds like not being "totally sold" on how the knight moves. It's just a simple rule of the game.
Answers.UserDisplayName: RemcoGerlich
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-01-23T19:58:59.393Z
Answers.Text: @TechnoSam It's sort of game balance related as well. Stalemate being a win for the stronger side would probably increase the first-player advantage, since smaller advantages can be more readily converted into a win.
Answers.UserDisplayName: eyeballfrog
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-01-23T22:31:13.703Z
Answers.Text: @user929304 Definitely, now that I know the rule it will be my fault if I screw it up in the future. It makes sense if you want to hold the singular win condition.
Answers.UserDisplayName: TechnoSam
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-01-23T22:33:58.830Z
Answers.Text: @RemcoGerlich I'm not really sure the two are comparable. For example, in the linked question, it's specifically mentioned that this rule is actually debated a lot as has been considered for removal, while the same has not been done for how the Knight moves (as far as I know). Sure, the rule is the rule, but it appears that not everyone agrees that it *should* be, and I don't know where I fall yet.
Answers.UserDisplayName: TechnoSam
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-01-23T22:35:06.487Z
Answers.Text: @eyeballfrog I think this actually makes sense. This is the first argument I've seen in this thread that actually argues for the rule rather than simply saying "it is what it is". Thank you!
Answers.UserDisplayName: TechnoSam
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-01-24T02:15:02.283Z
Answers.Text: @Joe Even though stalemate does not appear on the board in practical games of advanced players often, it does affect the outcome of many games. For instance king+pawn vs king would always be winning as long as the king can support the pawn, while if stalemate=draw, it is (roughly speaking) only won if the king can get in front of his pawn or if the defending king is too far away.
Answers.UserDisplayName: user1583209
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-01-24T04:49:18.903Z
Answers.Text: Probably worth noting more strongly that this is only a stalemate if it's black's move.  With white to move it's mate in 1, ofc.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Please stop being evil
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-01-24T06:28:37.190Z
Answers.Text: At one time in the early history of chess, a stalemate  was (oddly) a win for the stalemated player. In checkers a stalemate is called a block, and if you are blocked you have lost.
Answers.UserDisplayName: DanielWainfleet
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-01-27T04:59:24.293Z
Answers.Text: I've had quite a few times where I was way behind in power, and decided to try to get a stalemate instead of a loss.  It gives the losing player a goal to try to achieve.  Typically the ahead player should be able to get a checkmate, so if a stalemate occurs, that can be seen as an achievement of the player who was behind (although a less significant achievement than the fact that the player got thoroughly behind in the first place).  I've impressed a lot of almost-victors when they realized I baited them into causing a stalemate that they know they should avoid causing.
Answers.UserDisplayName: TOOGAM
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-01-23T15:23:19.637Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2018-01-24T08:40:17.223Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2018-01-24T08:40:17.223Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: RemcoGerlich
Body: <p>Firstly, I'm very very bad at chess. I've known <em>how</em> to play for most of my life, but I've never been good, so I'm trying to get good by playing against easy computers.</p>
  
  <p>I commonly end in draws with situations like the following:</p>
  
  <pre><code>3k4/8/1N6/2P2Q2/4R3/R5B1/P3K1P1/5B2 w - - 0 1
  </code></pre>
  
  <p>I'm <em>really</em> not convinced this is a real draw. I have both Rooks and my Queen left, so I should be able to box the King in easily. But maybe I'm wrong, maybe it's impossible for me to win.</p>
  
  <p>So if I'm wrong, I'd like to know why. If not, why does the computer consider this a draw?</p>
  
Tags: <learning><draw>
Title: How is this scenario a draw?
ThreadText: # How is this scenario a draw?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2018-01-23)
  
  Firstly, I'm very very bad at chess. I've known how to play for most of my life, but I've never been good, so I'm trying to get good by playing against easy computers.
  I commonly end in draws with situations like the following:
  3k4/8/1N6/2P2Q2/4R3/R5B1/P3K1P1/5B2 w - - 0 1
  
  I'm really not convinced this is a real draw. I have both Rooks and my Queen left, so I should be able to box the King in easily. But maybe I'm wrong, maybe it's impossible for me to win.
  So if I'm wrong, I'd like to know why. If not, why does the computer consider this a draw?
  
  **Tags:** learning, draw
  
  
  ---
  
  ## 1 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_1 on 2018-01-23. Score: 15 | Accepted answer
  
  With black to move, he is not in check but he also has no legal moves. There is no square where his king can go without putting himself in check, and that would be an illegal move.
  
  That situation is called **stalemate** ([Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalemate)), and it is an immediate draw by the rules of the game. You've boxed him in too well.
  
  As to why stalemate is a draw see [Why is stalemate a draw?](https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/1412/why-is-stalemate-a-draw) , and there are also a lot of further questions if you search the site for "stalemate".
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_2**: @username_0 Think about it this way: the game is only won when one king is *checkmated*. Now in a situation, where one side is to turn, but doesn't have any legal moves left, and their king is **not** under check, there's no way to pass the turn so the game reaches a definite halt and no side can be announced winner (because neither king is checkmated yet). Therefore, it can only be considered a draw. From your end, it is your fault for messing up the checkmate combination and allowing a stalemate, so it's not the rules cheating you. Material difference doesn't win the game, checkmate does!  
  > **username_3**: I agree that if you put a king into stalemate it should be considered a draw.  I must say that it should almost never happen especially with how many pieces white has left.  
  > **username_1**: @username_0: this sounds like not being "totally sold" on how the knight moves. It's just a simple rule of the game.  
  > **username_4**: @username_0 It's sort of game balance related as well. Stalemate being a win for the stronger side would probably increase the first-player advantage, since smaller advantages can be more readily converted into a win.  
  > **username_0**: @username_2 Definitely, now that I know the rule it will be my fault if I screw it up in the future. It makes sense if you want to hold the singular win condition.  
  > **username_0**: @username_1 I'm not really sure the two are comparable. For example, in the linked question, it's specifically mentioned that this rule is actually debated a lot as has been considered for removal, while the same has not been done for how the Knight moves (as far as I know). Sure, the rule is the rule, but it appears that not everyone agrees that it *should* be, and I don't know where I fall yet.  
  > **username_0**: @username_4 I think this actually makes sense. This is the first argument I've seen in this thread that actually argues for the rule rather than simply saying "it is what it is". Thank you!  
  > **username_5**: @username_3 Even though stalemate does not appear on the board in practical games of advanced players often, it does affect the outcome of many games. For instance king+pawn vs king would always be winning as long as the king can support the pawn, while if stalemate=draw, it is (roughly speaking) only won if the king can get in front of his pawn or if the defending king is too far away.  
  > **username_6**: Probably worth noting more strongly that this is only a stalemate if it's black's move.  With white to move it's mate in 1, ofc.  
  > **username_7**: At one time in the early history of chess, a stalemate  was (oddly) a win for the stalemated player. In checkers a stalemate is called a block, and if you are blocked you have lost.  
  > **username_8**: I've had quite a few times where I was way behind in power, and decided to try to get a stalemate instead of a loss.  It gives the losing player a goal to try to achieve.  Typically the ahead player should be able to get a checkmate, so if a stalemate occurs, that can be seen as an achievement of the player who was behind (although a less significant achievement than the fact that the player got thoroughly behind in the first place).  I've impressed a lot of almost-victors when they realized I baited them into causing a stalemate that they know they should avoid causing.  
  
  ---
  
  