What if chess didn't have draws?

Stalemate = checkmate = win.
Legal move that causes repeat position = illegal. (At least, certainly if three-fold).
Rendered without sufficient checkmating material = loss.

So, by capturing the last of (a piece comprising part of) this list of your opponent's; a queen, a rook, a bishop pair, a knight triad (lol), a knight+bishop duo, or a pawn; you win the same as if you checkmated (or stalemated) your opponent. By being reduced to only a bare king (plus possibly either a(nti-paired) bishop(s) or 1 or 2 knights), you lose the same as if checkmated.

I suppose if it comes down to being impossible to move without causing a repeat position, that *could* end up having to be a draw; if move parity would favor one side too strongly over the other as a result of this in particular being a loss condition.

Would these changes necessarily make white's advantage any stronger than it currently is (or I suppose, as much as I doubt it; tip the balance too far in black's favor)? Are there any undefined game state conditions I didn't think of that could arise under these changes?

For as many times as the subject question has surely been asked, has anyone else come up with (these) specifics for how to potentially remove the draws from chess?

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

In the scheme of things stalemate is relatively new, Wikipedia lists is first use only about 250 years ago.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalemate

The rules were thought out hundreds of years ago, and they work. All sports have ties.

@OzzieTezz said in #3:
> In the scheme of things stalemate is relatively new, Wikipedia lists is first use only about 250 years ago.
That's false. You are referencing etymology of the word not the rule itself. Read further and the rule's history goes as far as chaturanga. Even if we only talk about chess we have records about it from 9th century.

- A win for the stalemating player in 10th century Arabia[52] and parts of medieval Europe.[53][54]
- A half-win for the stalemating player. In a game played for stakes, they would win half the stake (18th century Spain).[55]
- A win for the stalemated player in 9th century India,[56] 17th century Russia,[57] on the Central Plain of Europe in the 17th century,[58] and 17th–18th century England.[59][60] This rule continued to be published in Hoyle's Games Improved as late as 1866.[61][62]
- Illegal. If White made a move that would stalemate Black, he had to retract it and make a different move (Eastern Asia until the early 20th century). Murray likewise wrote that in Hindustani chess and Parsi chess, two of the three principal forms of chess played in India as of 1913,[63] a player was not allowed to play a move that would stalemate the opponent.[64] The same was true of Burmese chess, another chess variant, at the time of writing.[65] Stalemate was not permitted in most of the Eastern Asiatic forms of the game (specifically in Burma, India, Japan, and Siam) until early in the 20th century.[66]
- The forfeiture of the stalemated player's turn to move (medieval France),[67][68] although other medieval French sources treat stalemate as a draw.[69]
- A draw. This was the rule in 13th-century Italy[70] and also stated in the German Cracow Poem (1422), that noted, however, that some players treated stalemate as equivalent to checkmate.[71] This rule was ultimately adopted throughout Europe, but not in England until the 19th century, after being introduced there by Jacob Sarratt.[72][73][74]

What about 50 move rule

@James_86 said in #2:
> If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

I don't like draws. Neither as spectator or even as a player. Spectating a game that fizzles out into a mere draw is a letdown. When I'm playing; if I'm lost I'm lost and don't need drawing chances to make myself feel better, if I'm winning I feel I'd best prove my win if I don't want to lose. Though as it currently is, if I'm winning and fail to prove the win it's more likely I'll draw than lose by that failure... although, I dunno; I guess making stalemate be a loss instead of win for the stalemating player would serve that purpose better? That would also work for me, as long as it isn't a draw.

I'd mistakenly reckoned the fact I posted this topic to begin with would imply I felt draws were broke, and needed fixing; though that was an error on my part, my reasoning for not liking draws was something I should've included in my original post to help foster fruitful conversation. That said....

@James_86 said in #4:
> The rules were thought out hundreds of years ago, and they work. All sports have ties.

I don't appreciate innovation being summarily dismissed under the precedent of tradition. While I'm sure most traditions became so indeed because they work reasonably well, if any change is treated with scorn purely because it differs from tradition; then the opportunity to fine-tune it to work even better is lost. Of course not every change would be for the better, but ideas are worth considering; so their likely effects can be identified through said consideration, changes that would be bad in the long run can be left by the wayside *after having been properly thought about*, and changes for the better can be implemented *after having been properly thought about* (no haphazard changes either).

I posted this topic because I think there's a possibility chess doesn't *have* to have draws, though I know there's no way my thinking alone can reasonably conclude whether it would be all-around better that way; I don't have quite extensive enough theoretical knowledge about or skill at chess. That's why I posted my idea where people with more extensive theoretical knowledge of chess and skill at chess than me could possibly see it and hopefully properly evaluate it. Maybe somewhat low chance here (or honestly anywhere else through any other venue either), but higher than zero chance as there would be if I hadn't posted it anywhere at all.

If some people just aren't interested in drawless chess, that's fine; I don't think current chess is ever going to fade. If someone is able to show that the drawless chess I'm putting forward would make the variant patently unfair, and explain how and why; I'll accept that. My hope, of course, is that it turns out the modifications I put forward are at least reasonably fair; and that the drawless variant gains at least some players.

@Autofill said in #6:
> What about 50 move rule

That one... it could be potentially be extended to maybe 75 or 100; but for games between human players, it's plenty understandable if even with no position repeats and requirement to sustain checkmate-sufficient material, past a certain point y'know what?- they're on reasonably equal footing for one to go ahead and call it a draw. Human players (and even spectators) would likely only mutually find a single game of chess fun for so many moves, after all.

@i-bex said in #5:
> That's false. You are referencing etymology of the word not the rule itself. Read further and the rule's history goes as far as chaturanga. Even if we only talk about chess we have records about it from 9th century.

I was actually referring to a stalemate being declared a draw, I'm aware that what result a stalemate constitutes has changed over time. The only real change from that list over the past couple of centuries is the removal of the illegal move of putting your opponent into stalemate and then having to retract that move, which to be completely honest is a silly rule to have anyway.

@RadiantDarkBlaze said in #7:
> I don't like draws. Neither as spectator or even as a player. Spectating a game that fizzles out into a mere draw is a letdown.

I don't agree. The game is exciting because of the moves, not the result. There are boring wins and exciting draws. We shouldn't cater to spectators that are attracted to big numbers and not the game itself. There's plenty of alternatives for that.
I can get behind point change (e.g. 3 win, 1 draw, 0 loss) to encourage fighting and there are a lot of tournaments trying just that but if the game is objectively drawn we shouldn't force some arbitrary rules. That's why I hate Armageddon. At least betting time gave some control back to players.