2 queries about Lichess chess rules

Hate losing in time scrambles? Play with increment, play longer time controls, or manage your time better. Don't try to change the system to fit your needs.

Why doesn't the recognition of a draw work in a situation where each of the opponents has only one light figure in different variations? I think this would be the same as in real chess.

@slaavka No, it works the same.
FIDE LAW 6.9 Except where one of Articles 5.1.1, 5.1.2, 5.2.1, 5.2.2, 5.2.3 applies, if a player does not complete the prescribed number of moves in the allotted time, the game is lost by that player. However, the game is drawn if the position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the player’s king by any possible series of legal moves.

There is no rule that the game must not be counted as won for a player with only a minor piece. And the king + minor piece usually can checkmate the king + something else if the opponent's moves are stupid enough.

Personally I find premoving quite good since it grants the simp`le and decisive material advantage a win regardless of the clock and it also makes everything in the middle (hugely lost but complex/simple but technical loss) holdable if you try.
An from a couple thousand games here didn't get any 50 mover (maybe 1 or 2), so it's good that it's there but doesn't reflect pretty much on anything.

Say in blitz and bullet clock >>> board, and premove tries to fill the gap.

@abigail:
"Here I am, thinking the skills of a real chess game are about finding the best moves. But it turns out, the skills of a real chess game are about who can move their hands the quickest."

There are three confusions here. First, we were talking primarily about blitz, where rapidity is always a factor. (Mind you, time can become factor even in longer games if one is not careful). Secondly, the rapidity is not merely in hand movement; it is primarily in choosing precisely the "best move", that is in thinking or deciding (or knowing). That's the whole point of blitz. Thirdly, "best move" precisely has a different meaning in blitz, because sometimes the "best move" is to complicate matters and force the opponent to think, even if the move may not be entirely sound. That's all part of standard blitz strategy, which gets nullified by premoving.

@ Botvinik This is a forum to discuss chess topics, just as there are forums to discuss politics. You could flippantly intervene on the latter to tell anyone who criticises their government to move to another country, just as you tell me to leave this site if I don't like something. Neither helpfully contributes to discussion. We are currently discussing the merits or lack thereof of premoving. If you have any opinion I would be happy to hear it.

@ Kenzaburo
I appreciate your comment, though precisely for the reason you like premoving I don't. Regarding the 50 move rule, it would be relevant in, say, a N and B ending against a lone king (though not only that). I sometimes practice that ending against stockfish, and when I'm tired or careless I get called on the 50! Weaker players may have a challenge with two bishops vs. king. It's a nice test of technique.
@ wolfram
Sorry but I can't agree that being allowed to click on a piece before the opponent moves "radically changes" blitz strategy the way premoving does, for the simple reason that some time still elapses in the former but not the latter. That's the very point. Clicking without moving is like holding your hand close to the piece on a board, very much in keeping with standard blitz. As for Carlsen preferring premoving, whoopee for him. But I agree that different rules require different skills.

@Sargon, Toadofsky, and Paco: Thanks for comments!

Btw, I knew a dude who used to keep his hand over the clock so that you couldn't see when he had moved. By the time you noticed your clock is ticking, minutes may have elapsed. At least online no one can do that, although you sometimes fail to notice your opponent has moved.

"You seem to have the strange presumption that one has to either mention all of them or none at all."

Nope, this is you putting words in my mouth. I asked a question - I asked if you hover your pieces while it is your opponent's turn. I asked if you also have a problem with this other practice which also completely changes the strategy of blitz and which also is not possible over the board. Notice that wasn't your first defense, your first defense was to deny it's even a difference between over the board and the computer. But of course hovering with a piece is a difference, and if you are being honest in your reasoning then you must have a problem with one if you have a problem with the other. If one is fine, and the other is not, then you are lying about your reason for disliking premoves.

"I'm talking about this one, as it happens, not out of arbitrariness"

I'm not sure you know what arbitrary means. Applying your criticism selectively whenever it suits you, rather than all the time, is arbitrary. If you personally touch your pieces at all while it is your opponents turn while playing on the computer and do not consider yourself to be violating the spirit of online chess, then it is completely arbitrary to say premoves are a violation of the same. That's what the word means.

If hovering your pieces is also against the spirit of the game, then fine, but you refuse to actually say that. You defend the practice, despite your criticism of premoves also being true of hovering. You can blatantly contradict yourself if you wish, it's your account and voice, but I just don't know how you expect to be taken seriously when you do.

You still haven't offered a citation for your assertion that over the board chess and computer chess are supposed to be identical, even though they clearly never can possibly be that.

Your whiny defensive tone is also off-putting.

"Nope, this is you putting words in my mouth." Well, charitably then, as I'm attributing a semblance of coherence to your ongoing presupposition that one may not object to the premoving difference between online and board chess unless one objects to the rest of the differences.

"I asked a question - I asked if you hover your pieces while it is your opponent's turn." As any first year logic student can tell you, ad hominem argument is invalid. Whether I do or do not hover my pieces is irrelevant to whether premoving is a good feature of Lichess, the topic under discussion.

"I asked if you also have a problem with this other practice which also completely changes the strategy of blitz and which also is not possible over the board."

I don't have a problem with it, as I explained in my previous posting to Wolfrom, precisely because I deny your false premise that it "also completely changes the strategy of blitz". As I explained, since time elapses when you "hover", it does NOT "completely change the strategy of blitz" (unlike premoving, the very point of the discussion). Moreover I also deny that it "also is not possible over the board", or at least I am not prepared to accept that claim. It is arguably analogous to putting your hand near the piece OTB. Both save time, although some time still elapses, the primary relevant features of the analogy. I therefore also deny the relevance of hovering to my premove objection.

"If one is fine, and the other is not, then you are lying about your reason for disliking premoves."

Lol, ok, I confess, I'm "lying". Actually I murdered and robbed someone by hovering, but got caught by cops using premoves. And you talk about my "off-putting" and "whiny defense tone"? Look up Freudian projection (and thanks for explaining the meaning of arbitrariness.)

"You still haven't offered a citation for your assertion that over the board chess and computer chess are supposed to be identical"

Lol, was I supposed to offer a citation? I still haven't offered a citation for my belief that part of the aim of walking is not to fall down on the ground, but rather to get to where you're going. Yet I still make that assertion.

Let's agree on one thing: this is getting tedious. Put the blame on me if you like.