My opponent only had a knight left on the board (not enough material to checkmate) though successfully moved his piece 55 times in 15 seconds to run out my clock.
Lichess declares my opponent victorious by timeout?? This is not a correct result, is it? Game should be a draw.
This is second time I have seen a minor piece win by timeout and am now wondering who is confused by the rule
do you had a pawn? if so, it may be won, so you lose by time. can you post the game?
I have a pawn left and winning chances, but I time out so no win for me. But certainly my opponent doesn’t gain winning chances back in this game .. he only has a knight left. Best possible result for him is a half point, result should be a draw.
Am I wrong?
He moved his knight 13 times and you had 30 seconds that's just you being slow.
The official ruling is that only if checkmate is impossible from a series of legal moves is the game a draw. In your game you could accidentally move your bishop and king into the corner and he can checkmate you.
Someone else probably has the link to the official wording.
Since you can still get mated you lost on time.
This is exactly how Firouzja lost on time against Magnus in the World Blitz Championship.
Yes my lethargy is the real culprit here, though beside the point.
Your description of the rule that theoretical mistakes are sufficient enough to award victories is news to me. Can anyone provide a link to this rule? Or perhaps to a any modern GM game where a full point was awarded to a player who did not have enough material to checkmate.
You lost on time. That is the rule of the FIDE. Don’t know to what hobby-player rules you refer to.
PS: the world Blitz ch was decided similarly. Carlsen won with B vs BPPP
Here you will find a full answer : similar situation, explanation of the rule. Carlsen vs Firouzja : youtu.be/YPysTEW0YZU
Amazing video, thanks very much denislemouton.
Seeing the same confusion on the world stage makes me feel better about the gaps in my hobby-player rule book
I appreciate everyone's help
The official rule is that a loss on time is always a loss, it's not called a "loss" on time without a reason. Even if it were the checkmating rule this totally natural sequence of moves would result in a checkmate by black lichess.org/study/rPnOKDbf (There could be a faster sequence, this is just an example) <iframe width=600 height=371 src="lichess.org/study/embed/rPnOKDbf/an8esnNI" frameborder=0></iframe>