"But legit the enemy is basically given a draw because you had no pieces to mate with."
Exactly.
Exactly.
Reducing the enemies clock to nothing? You must be the real @JesusIsLord906
@corvusmellori said in #10:
> As it happens, the rule in the US chess federation is different, oddly enough.
>
But on this particular case would not matter. With FIDE rules you could win with just bishop/knight sometimes but USCF rules require material that could force the mate
Finnish chess assocition has similar rule for certain Blitz tournaments - why I do not know.
So it is different to other direction. You need more material to win on time than FIDE rules.
> As it happens, the rule in the US chess federation is different, oddly enough.
>
But on this particular case would not matter. With FIDE rules you could win with just bishop/knight sometimes but USCF rules require material that could force the mate
Finnish chess assocition has similar rule for certain Blitz tournaments - why I do not know.
So it is different to other direction. You need more material to win on time than FIDE rules.
The title of the thread is wrong.
It should be *'What stupid users are calling the lichess rules stupid'
It should be *'What stupid users are calling the lichess rules stupid'
@WassimBerbar said in #3:
>
> Your username is wrong. There's only one God, and it's not Jesus.
Please do not bring in religion.I could say ther is more than one god for example but we won't go anywhere with that.
>
> Your username is wrong. There's only one God, and it's not Jesus.
Please do not bring in religion.I could say ther is more than one god for example but we won't go anywhere with that.
@Bishop1964 said in #4:
> I wished Lichess would add something about this issue in the "learn section" of this site.
>
> This would save a lot of time for a lot of people.
> I guess that e.g. CM Sarg0n has replied to questions like this one at least 1 million times. :-)
faq(lichess.org/faq#timeout) am i a joke to you?
lichess players: what i didnt read does not apply to me
> I wished Lichess would add something about this issue in the "learn section" of this site.
>
> This would save a lot of time for a lot of people.
> I guess that e.g. CM Sarg0n has replied to questions like this one at least 1 million times. :-)
faq(lichess.org/faq#timeout) am i a joke to you?
lichess players: what i didnt read does not apply to me
@JesusIsLord906 said in #1:
>
> Convince me otherwise :P
You asked, and I shall answer. Enjoy!
youtu.be/-sVV1cHmJKU
>
> Convince me otherwise :P
You asked, and I shall answer. Enjoy!
youtu.be/-sVV1cHmJKU
@HighlyRadioactive said in #7:
> Why do you think you should be awarded a win in a dead lost position? What would you think if your opponent flagged you when he only have a lone king?
>
> imho it's much more unfair to award someone a win for his unsportsmanship.
That's not really an argument. If it's K+p vs K+QQQQ and the K+QQQQ players flag falls, the K+p wins, even if it's a dead lost position.
It's not a draw because it's a dead lost position, it's a draw because there is not even a possible way to win, how absurd.
I kind of agree with the OP, in the sense this feels arbitrary. "Flag falls loses" is a much simpler rule [1] than "Flag falls loses unless there is not even an absolute absurd way of winning". But the rules are what they are, and it's not LiChess who defined them.
[1] Not only is it simpler to understand, it would also avoid not giving draws in highly complicated positions where the computer fails to determine there's no way to win.
> Why do you think you should be awarded a win in a dead lost position? What would you think if your opponent flagged you when he only have a lone king?
>
> imho it's much more unfair to award someone a win for his unsportsmanship.
That's not really an argument. If it's K+p vs K+QQQQ and the K+QQQQ players flag falls, the K+p wins, even if it's a dead lost position.
It's not a draw because it's a dead lost position, it's a draw because there is not even a possible way to win, how absurd.
I kind of agree with the OP, in the sense this feels arbitrary. "Flag falls loses" is a much simpler rule [1] than "Flag falls loses unless there is not even an absolute absurd way of winning". But the rules are what they are, and it's not LiChess who defined them.
[1] Not only is it simpler to understand, it would also avoid not giving draws in highly complicated positions where the computer fails to determine there's no way to win.
Well, time is the constancy and it is something that governs life. Time is a medium that lets life moving. If there was no time, no one would be alive. Sorry for being off topic, but it's actually true. Just ask Einstein!
@Abigail-III said in #18:
> it would also avoid not giving draws in highly complicated positions where the computer fails to determine there's no way to win.
Please clarify further; I've played tens of thousands of games, and only once have I encountered such a "dead position", which I easily and comfortably drew by repetition; but also if players use an increment clock, all "dead positions" are easily drawn.
> it would also avoid not giving draws in highly complicated positions where the computer fails to determine there's no way to win.
Please clarify further; I've played tens of thousands of games, and only once have I encountered such a "dead position", which I easily and comfortably drew by repetition; but also if players use an increment clock, all "dead positions" are easily drawn.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.