No. But that’s irrelevant when you lose on time.
theoretically yes, that is why itis a loss.
King A1, Pawn A2.
In that position you can checkmate with the king and knight.
IMO the software should recognize certain types of endgames and declare them a draw in cases as this, when the side pushing for a win loses on time.
In that position you can checkmate with the king and knight.
IMO the software should recognize certain types of endgames and declare them a draw in cases as this, when the side pushing for a win loses on time.
Somewhat interesting how this topics comes up each and every week. A possibility to solve this issue would be to create a big pop up every time someone logs into lichess reading that
- Time ran out -> You use (unless the opponent has no pieces left)
- There is no obligation to rematch
- Cheating is not a problem (not as big at least)
@Sarg0n would probably approve since I see you all the time explaining basic rules :P
- Time ran out -> You use (unless the opponent has no pieces left)
- There is no obligation to rematch
- Cheating is not a problem (not as big at least)
@Sarg0n would probably approve since I see you all the time explaining basic rules :P
Neither side can force mate. However, mate being "forced" is not the issue. Mate being "possible" is the issue. I agree that such dead drawn positions should be called a draw, but the rules state otherwise. Any strong player with white is taking the a4 pawn to draw the moment it is capturable. This particular flagging method is poor sportsmanship in my opinion. It's on the same level as if I was playing with someone and got it down to just both of us having 1 rook and a king on the board and because my connection is a little faster I make 45 more moves real fast flagging them before they can call draw on 50 move rule.
@lurarose
Not capturing the pawn may result in a promotion though, and White losing.
This particular flagging "strategy" only works without increment, and whoever decides to play without increment implicitly accepts that as an occupational hazard (or rather, they queue up increment-less to get a chance to flag their opponent themselves).
Not capturing the pawn may result in a promotion though, and White losing.
This particular flagging "strategy" only works without increment, and whoever decides to play without increment implicitly accepts that as an occupational hazard (or rather, they queue up increment-less to get a chance to flag their opponent themselves).
You won‘t learn it that the lone Knight sometimes wins against a corner pawn? There are forced mate in 14 (with two pawns vs lone knight)
We have a knight, we have corner pawn and the bishop can be easily forked...
Your splendid suggestions will draw cases like: lichess.org/forum/game-analysis/unfair-loss?page=3#26
If you lose on time and there is a mate you’ll lose on time. Period.
We have a knight, we have corner pawn and the bishop can be easily forked...
Your splendid suggestions will draw cases like: lichess.org/forum/game-analysis/unfair-loss?page=3#26
If you lose on time and there is a mate you’ll lose on time. Period.
@Sarg0n that is not precise, it should better be: "If on lichess you lose on time and there is no mate theoretically possible then sometimes you will get a draw, but sometimes not. This is due to some unrelated FIDE rules, impossible to implement correctly, and lies at the discretion of the Chief programmer. Period."
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.