What stupid rules Lichess uses regarding draws on timeout

@drbeco said in #30:
> You are missing the point: what YOU feel, what other users in this thread feel, what I feel, that is not important, unless you are a sitting vote in a FIDE conference to change chess rules. This discussion is moote. Learn the rules. Play by the rules. Stop whining.

Stop whining = Just let them do what they want and lets not question anything or challenge it.

We must question everything and try to find understanding and mutual agreement especially in a game like Chess.

But I get what you're saying, I just don't agree with it.

Being a sheep and letting anyone do whatever they want is half the reason of what has leaded us the world into bad positions.

I really think the rules need to be changed and we should vote on them somewhere.

Clock dies you die. No exceptions.

Thank you for your feedback though.

@JesusIsLord906 said in #31:
> I really think the rules need to be changed and we should vote on them somewhere.

Great! Please bring your complaint to your national chess federation, and ask for FIDE to change its rules. This is an international chess server, and FIDE's rules reflect the will of the international chess community, so please petition there. I'm sure FIDE would love to hear your vote.

@Akbar2thegreat said in #25:
> In the end, top engines fail in analysing the iconic puzzle.
This is a bit of an overstatement. Modern engines designed for studies have no problem. All tests on 28 threads, AMD 7950x, 16GB hash, TB6.

Huntsman: evaluation of +60 in <30s (~1B nodes)
Crystal 5: evaluation of +3 in 0.85s (~30M nodes), +7 in 4s (~160M nodes)

Engines which aren't designed to solve studies of course are less effective, because they're optimized to win chess games instead. Even still, SF 15.1 finds the solution without much trouble: +87 in 218s (~8B nodes).

@pointlesswindows said in #27:
> or like making an unboxing video, when suddenly there is an alarm clock with a few sticks of dynamite taped to it. And the alarm clock wents off. Very convincing!

Great! I'm happy if I convinced you, the OP is too deep in his feelings to see how relevant my comparison was but if you did it makes me writing it worth it.

Joking aside it's not that off-topic because in a way the pieces are the fuel (the dynamite), while time is just an expression on what you can do with the fuel.

FIDE decided that if the fuel is theoretically sufficient to mate then the issue of the game is a win just like if your opponent still has pieces the issue of the match is an explosion of the bomb.
Yeah it's arbitrary, but it does favor the better chess player coz you have to not lose your pieces.

Indeed, the game is "chess", not "clock".

@corvusmellori said in #33:
> This is a bit of an overstatement. Modern engines designed for studies have no problem. All tests on 28 threads, AMD 7950x, 16GB hash, TB6.
> Huntsman: evaluation of +60 in <30s (~1B nodes)
> Crystal 5: evaluation of +3 in 0.85s (~30M nodes), +7 in 4s (~160M nodes)
> Engines which aren't designed to solve studies of course are less effective, because they're optimized to win chess games instead. Even still, SF 15.1 finds the solution without much trouble: +87 in 218s (~8B nodes).

Stockfish is engine to analyse chess with standard rules and it isn't made for variants. But SF is indeed made to analyse chess fully.
And I am talking about SF only cause it is the strongest engine among all.
It failed Plaskett's puzzle. But only recently, few months back SF 15 finally correctly evaluated the position. Earlier (till few months back) it used to evaluate the position as -14.7 in favour of Black.

Another example:
lichess.org/editor/8/3n1k2/1p1q1p2/1p4p1/pPpNPpPp/P1P4P/2P1KP2/3R4_w_-_-_0_1?color=white
Conposed by GM Vasily Smyslov
Number one engine SF fails in solving it!

Idk

@JesusIsLord906 you literally can’t complain when you were completely losing.
If you could win on time without any pieces left then when your opponent has for example a clump of pawns you could just stretch out the game to win. Also, some moves would make chess stupid. For example, say your opponent can force a threefold repetition. However, you can give up your queen (say your last piece) to keep the game going. Your opponent wouldn’t be able to mate in time and you win for being a toxic flagger. Also, in this situation the rule could also save you because if you’re playing someone who can actually play extremely fast then you could lose because of it (they’ll mate you despite a small amount on the clock). Also, you would feel very hard done by if the roles were reversed - no one would be happy if they’re completely winning and lose because of time. Overall, this rule has more benefits than disadvantages so you shouldn’t really complain about a game. Again, if it was the other way round you’d probably make a thread about how this rule is useful.

@JesusIsLord906 said in #31:

> I really think the rules need to be changed and we should vote on them somewhere.
>
Rules of chess are governed by FIDE. You want to change that rule just contact you national federation and propose on their annual meeting that they shall start driving this towards FIDE on some future rules update. And that is the only way it could happen.

@Akbar2thegreat said in #36:
> Another example:
> lichess.org/editor/8/3n1k2/1p1q1p2/1p4p1/pPpNPpPp/P1P4P/2P1KP2/3R4_w_-_-_0_1?color=white
> Conposed by GM Vasily Smyslov
> Number one engine SF fails in solving it!
Stockfish solves this just fine. Testing on my setup, Stockfish finds 1. Nf3! in just 15 billion nodes (about 284 seconds) and plays the continuation perfectly.