What stupid rules Lichess uses regarding draws on timeout

@Akbar2thegreat said in #68:

Stockfish is made for analysis of standard games. Analysis includes study though (I reckon!)
The stockdish devs would disagree - they would say Stockfish is not made for analysis, but rather for playing chess matches. It's certainly a pretty good tool for analysis, but the devs, for example, don't care very much if SF reports a "wrong" evaluation if it still plays the best moves.

Anyways, I just wanna know from where (source) do you use SF for analysis. I would love to do in depth analysis for positions personally.
I'm not sure I really understand the question but I downloaded the official Stockfish 15.1 binaries for Windows. I use Scid as my GUI for analysis. I also installed the 6-piece syzygy tablebases though they aren't super relevant for these positions.

@corvusmellori said in #71:

The stockdish devs would disagree - they would say Stockfish is not made for analysis, but rather for playing chess matches. It's certainly a pretty good tool for analysis, but the devs, for example, don't care very much if SF reports a "wrong" evaluation if it still plays the best moves.
Well, engines were actually made for the purpose of understanding chess better by analysis of game to help humans solve positions the better way.

I'm not sure I really understand the question but I downloaded the official Stockfish 15.1 binaries for Windows. I use Scid as my GUI for analysis. I also installed the 6-piece syzygy tablebases though they aren't super relevant for these positions.
Yes, I wanted to just know that only. I will download the latest version from official source.

@JesusIsLord906 said in #58:

I mean think about this logically, I'm in a war, with my enemy, I've planted a bomb with a timer, but all my men in my squad/army get killed but me, and finally the timer/clock on the bomb goes off, but the bomb just decides, Hey man, nah I'm cool, I'm not going off, because that guy only has 1 man/1-piece left, lets call this a draw.

Utter nonsense.

The clock/timer runs out, the bomb goes off and in this case it is big enough to destroy the enemies king/army.

Point is, Clock dies, You die.
Not this fairy tale rubbish where oh well the clock went off but uhm, yeah the guy is safe with a draw.
No, clock dies, you die, it's like oxygen, what are you going to do when you've reached absolute 0? You'd die.

Anyway this is where I'm resting my case, we should be more logical and consistent, clock dies, you die, period, no exceptions.

That's my opinion and I feel it is much more sensible and it is observed in nature so to speak.

I mean imagine telling someone, now don't run out of men/pieces or when his clock dies, he's saved! It becomes a draw!

Like what the..
Your own example is excellent in showing why your opinion is ridiculous XD If your opponent doesn't find the timer in time, but he has ALSO killed all your guys, then you can't find the bomb under you either, and you BOTH lose, i.e. a draw. Your bomb's timer doesn't magically stop when his bomb goes off. Your timer is ticking but you have no guys to defuse it ;) Thank you for proving my point.

I'll repeat my comment because clearly nobody read it last time:

I've had friends IRL play a game using a chess clock but without any board or pieces; they attempt to mash the clock so the opponent loses on time. This rule was something the Lichess team discussed and after a year of meditating on it I aggressively lobbied for a FIDE-like rule because we're here to play Chess, not Clock.

The problem you're seeking to solve is this: players agree to a time control without an increment, one of the players loses enough material that it's easily proven that a checkmate is no longer possible, and the opponent's clock elapses. A FIDE-like rule discourages "dirty flagging" attempts and encourages players to either study endgames (thereby not losing on time) or to play with a +1 or longer increment.

The only factor in favor of a USCF-like rule (flag = loss) is that it would be simple to understand. And that's why over the course of a year I repeatedly considered which rule I wanted to advocate for, did my research of FIDE and USCF rules, ran some thought-experiments about possible scenarios under each rule set, considered positive and negative aspects of each rule set, and advocated for an informed albeit surprising-to-me position. At first, being a USCF member I thought rules I've seen on so many platforms (flag = loss) would be the best, being simple to implement and simple to explain & understand; but the added complexity brought by a nuanced rule actually promotes deepening an understanding of endgames (being able to convert won positions and put up resistance in bad positions), of time management (not trying to "dirty flag" without having any pieces), and an appreciation for just how absurd 5+0 and slower "+0" time controls are (having frequently won OTB blitz, rapid, and even classical games by "dirty flags" before USCF popularized delay clocks). Rules which promote players learning rather than randomly shuffling pieces for an unearned win are good rules.

@Toadofsky said in #53:

What a circular argument... "I don't like the rule, therefore it isn't being followed."
You're wrong twice. That's not what I said, and that's not what circular reasoning is.

@Buttercup22 said in #42:

I agree, it's like they have a rule but they don't enforce it. Running out of time in a timed game means you lose. Except it doesn't because we don't take our own rule seriously.

It's not every day that I see someone contradict themselves by definition; software is composed of rules. Just because you don't like or fail to understand the rules doesn't mean they don't exist.

@Quantum_Immortal said in #73:

Your own example is excellent in showing why your opinion is ridiculous XD If your opponent doesn't find the timer in time, but he has ALSO killed all your guys, then you can't find the bomb under you either, and you BOTH lose, i.e. a draw. Your bomb's timer doesn't magically stop when his bomb goes off. Your timer is ticking but you have no guys to defuse it ;) Thank you for proving my point.

My bomb went off on them, theirs hasn't gone off on me, I'll be long gone by then.

But just look at the rules as it is.

I'll say it one more time.

Clock runs dry, you die. Period.
Not.
Clock runs dry, but if your enemy has no pieces you're saved! Your loss becomes a draw lucky you!

Like can you not see how that is twisting the rule?

@JesusIsLord906 said in #77:

My bomb went off on them, theirs hasn't gone off on me, I'll be long gone by then.

But just look at the rules as it is.

I'll say it one more time.

Clock runs dry, you die. Period.
Not.
Clock runs dry, but if your enemy has no pieces you're saved! Your loss becomes a draw lucky you!

Like can you not see how that is twisting the rule?
Just say you don't know the rules of the game, it's easier than bandying these words about.

@Quantum_Immortal said in #78:

Just say you don't know the rules of the game, it's easier than bandying these words about.

It's because I know the rules that I want this inconsistent rule changed.

If you want it to remain inconsistent and illogical then you go do you bud.

Much love.

@JesusIsLord906 said in #79:

It's because I know the rules that I want this inconsistent rule changed.

Lichess' rule is consistent with FIDE rules. Please ask FIDE to change their rules.