They should just change the rules to say: whoever has no time left, loses.
#10 Would anyone care to help me test and fix my Stockfish helpmate solver? It would cover the corner cases such as "dead positions":
github.com/ddugovic/Stockfish/tree/helpmate
github.com/ddugovic/Stockfish/tree/helpmate
#10 we are not having this discussion again.
By the way, lichess is using it, playchess, FIDE. Only the US and their clubs/servers cook their own soup. Welcome to the rest of the world, we don’t care about your home-made rules.
@Sarg0n it all comes down to what's enjoyable and logical. And I think few people would call it fun or logical to declare e.g. a single bishop sufficient mating material because of some helpmate that literally would never occur in normal practice. For instance I learned from a friend that chess.com actually used to do this as well. It confused players and sucked for the games, so they changed it.
If you think the rule adds fun or enjoyment to the game, then I think that's a good argument. I would strongly disagree, but it's at least a coherent position. By contrast thinking the rule is good because FIDE said so, while ignoring the whole plethora of other FIDE guidelines that no online site (including Lichess) implements - precisely because they're not fun or enjoyable, is just hypocritical and illogical.
If you think the rule adds fun or enjoyment to the game, then I think that's a good argument. I would strongly disagree, but it's at least a coherent position. By contrast thinking the rule is good because FIDE said so, while ignoring the whole plethora of other FIDE guidelines that no online site (including Lichess) implements - precisely because they're not fun or enjoyable, is just hypocritical and illogical.
Loads of those helpmates do occur daily. I've even seen some of them in OTB tourneys. You are of course free to voice your opinion. You are also free to make up facts as you see fit. However, in a public debate it is essential that all parties are able to listen to each other without being insulting or rude. Just because you don't like what someone is saying does not make it incoherent. Until you are able to listen to the other side this discussion is dead.
Maybe there should be 2 sets of rules... rule 1 for beginners, say up to 1400 or 1500 and rule 2 for everybody over the limit ... for beginners in any case when time is up it's a win ... no draw possible ... even if a sophisticated machine can find a complicated checkmate it does not mean that a beginner can be anywhere near that checkmate, especially so in a timelimit... and rule 2 for top players...
@lovlas Can you clarify your comment? I'm certain you're not saying positions similar to the one posted in this thread where one side had a pawn, the other side had a bishop, ever end up with the side with the pawn losing unless he is actively and extensively trying to do so. Not as in playing bad but by playing the extremely precise moves required to lose. It's fairly safe to say that has literally never happened in the history of chess.
No. I am done with you.
I am sure Mr. Spock would have liked the logic and consistency of the regular FIDE rules.
Those strange compilation of non-existent USCF rules...
You agreed to play with a clock and time is over:
-if a mate is possible it is a win. Why do you distinguish between a remaining pawn, a minor piece, mate, helpmate? What’s the fuzz about winning probabilities? The opponent has to be awarded with the maximum. No time, no points, no proof of nothing
-no sequence to mate: draw
Those strange compilation of non-existent USCF rules...
You agreed to play with a clock and time is over:
-if a mate is possible it is a win. Why do you distinguish between a remaining pawn, a minor piece, mate, helpmate? What’s the fuzz about winning probabilities? The opponent has to be awarded with the maximum. No time, no points, no proof of nothing
-no sequence to mate: draw
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.