- Blind mode tutorial
lichess.org
Donate

защита ничьи при недостаточном у соперника материале

#1

Пару раз сталкивался с ситуацией, когда соперник играл на время при наличии только одного слона. Время заканчивалось и ему присуждалась победа. В таких ситуациях должна присуждаться ничья. Либо в целом как только остается одна легкая фигура игра должна автоматически фиксировать ничью

Пару раз сталкивался с ситуацией, когда соперник играл на время при наличии только одного слона. Время заканчивалось и ему присуждалась победа. В таких ситуациях должна присуждаться ничья. Либо в целом как только остается одна легкая фигура игра должна автоматически фиксировать ничью
#2

@aislpa said in #1:

Пару раз сталкивался с ситуацией, когда соперник играл на время при наличии только одного слона. Время заканчивалось и ему присуждалась победа. В таких ситуациях должна присуждаться ничья. Либо в целом как только остается одна легкая фигура игра должна автоматически фиксировать ничью

I absolutely agree! Lichess follows FIDE rules, so it seems like there's no room for complaint.

But the fact is that all FIDE-ruled tournaments have a time control with a minimum increment of 2 seconds.

And flag-cutting with a bishop is simply impossible there.
This fact must be taken into account, as is done on Chess.com.
Provoking chess players to such outrageous behavior is hardly a good idea.

@aislpa said in #1: > Пару раз сталкивался с ситуацией, когда соперник играл на время при наличии только одного слона. Время заканчивалось и ему присуждалась победа. В таких ситуациях должна присуждаться ничья. Либо в целом как только остается одна легкая фигура игра должна автоматически фиксировать ничью I absolutely agree! Lichess follows FIDE rules, so it seems like there's no room for complaint. But the fact is that all FIDE-ruled tournaments have a time control with a minimum increment of 2 seconds. And flag-cutting with a bishop is simply impossible there. This fact must be taken into account, as is done on Chess.com. Provoking chess players to such outrageous behavior is hardly a good idea.
#3

Интернет шахматы — это киберспорт. На Личессе просто эта составляющая шахмат как киберспорта ярче выражена. Ну и в каком-то смысле это уже стало фишкой этой платформы.

Это так же как с патом. По логике победа должна отдаваться стороне, у которой преимущество, но выбрали такую механику, которая есть сейчас, и присуждается ничья.

Интернет шахматы — это киберспорт. На Личессе просто эта составляющая шахмат как киберспорта ярче выражена. Ну и в каком-то смысле это уже стало фишкой этой платформы. Это так же как с патом. По логике победа должна отдаваться стороне, у которой преимущество, но выбрали такую механику, которая есть сейчас, и присуждается ничья.
#4

@Italiya said in #2:

But the fact is that all FIDE-ruled tournaments have a time control with a minimum increment of 2 seconds.

Not true. There are still events played without an increment. (But, thankfully, the popularity of time controls without an increment keeps declining.) Usually there is Guidelines section III as a defense but even most OTB players are not aware of it and it would be essentially impossible to apply to lichess environment.

@Italiya said in #2: > But the fact is that all FIDE-ruled tournaments have a time control with a minimum increment of 2 seconds. Not true. There are still events played without an increment. (But, thankfully, the popularity of time controls without an increment keeps declining.) Usually there is Guidelines section III as a defense but even most OTB players are not aware of it and it would be essentially impossible to apply to lichess environment.
#5

@mkubecek said in #4:

But the fact is that all FIDE-ruled tournaments have a time control with a minimum increment of 2 seconds.

Not true. There are still events played without an increment. (But, thankfully, the popularity of time controls without an increment keeps declining.) Usually there is Guidelines section III as a defense but even most OTB players are not aware of it and it would be essentially impossible to apply to lichess environment.

Really? Okay, but all SERIOUS tournaments, such as the World Blitz, Rapid, and Classic Championships, are held with incremental time.

At Lichess, most major arenas have no incremental time. And, accordingly, flag-cutting with a bishop is also a given. Even in the prize arena for titled players.

@mkubecek said in #4: > > But the fact is that all FIDE-ruled tournaments have a time control with a minimum increment of 2 seconds. > > Not true. There are still events played without an increment. (But, thankfully, the popularity of time controls without an increment keeps declining.) Usually there is Guidelines section III as a defense but even most OTB players are not aware of it and it would be essentially impossible to apply to lichess environment. Really? Okay, but all SERIOUS tournaments, such as the World Blitz, Rapid, and Classic Championships, are held with incremental time. At Lichess, most major arenas have no incremental time. And, accordingly, flag-cutting with a bishop is also a given. Even in the prize arena for titled players.
#6

Okay, but all SERIOUS tournaments, such as the World Blitz, Rapid, and Classic Championships, are held with time control.

Is the World Championship match serious enough? The last one in 2024 used time control with increment only after 40 moves.

> Okay, but all SERIOUS tournaments, such as the World Blitz, Rapid, and Classic Championships, are held with time control. Is the World Championship match serious enough? The last one in 2024 used time control with increment only after 40 moves.
#7

@mkubecek said in #6:

Okay, but all SERIOUS tournaments, such as the World Blitz, Rapid, and Classic Championships, are held with time control.

Is the World Championship match serious enough? The last one in 2024 used time control with increment only after 40 moves.

Ahh, is that what you mean?? I thought there was NO addition at all. That's how it counts. How do you imagine chopping down a flag with a bishop, Lichess-style, with that kind of control?

@mkubecek said in #6: > > Okay, but all SERIOUS tournaments, such as the World Blitz, Rapid, and Classic Championships, are held with time control. > > Is the World Championship match serious enough? The last one in 2024 used time control with increment only after 40 moves. Ahh, is that what you mean?? I thought there was NO addition at all. That's how it counts. How do you imagine chopping down a flag with a bishop, Lichess-style, with that kind of control?
#8

@Italiya said in #7:

I thought there was NO addition at all. That's how it counts.

OK, then e.g. Global Chess League 2024: pure 20+0 for the whole game.

@Italiya said in #7: > I thought there was NO addition at all. That's how it counts. OK, then e.g. [Global Chess League 2024](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Chess_League_2024): pure 20+0 for the whole game.
#9

@mkubecek said in #8:

I thought there was NO addition at all. That's how it counts.

OK, then e.g. Global Chess League 2024: pure 20+0 for the whole game.

In some cases, and with a fairly good amount of time.
The difference is that online, the most popular time controls are up to 10+0.

In particular, on Lichess, not just some tournaments, but most major tournaments, including prize tournaments for titled players, are held with short time controls and without increments. I'm probably not wrong if I assume that
3+0 and 1+0 are the most popular.
This is poor chess in itself, and it's compounded by elements like flag-cutting with one bishop or knight.
So, here, the problem is much more acute.
I think Chess.com did the right thing by not taking into account the theoretical possibility of checkmate with one bishop, because it only happens once in a thousand, if not a million times.
It's clear that in 99.9% of cases, it's simply an attempt to flag.
These are the conditions, and we accept them when we choose this mode, but is it right?

The FIDE regulations are used, but for controls that FIDE doesn't stipulate. Like 3+0, that's what I'm saying.

@mkubecek said in #8: > > I thought there was NO addition at all. That's how it counts. > > OK, then e.g. [Global Chess League 2024](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Chess_League_2024): pure 20+0 for the whole game. In some cases, and with a fairly good amount of time. The difference is that online, the most popular time controls are up to 10+0. In particular, on Lichess, not just some tournaments, but most major tournaments, including prize tournaments for titled players, are held with short time controls and without increments. I'm probably not wrong if I assume that 3+0 and 1+0 are the most popular. This is poor chess in itself, and it's compounded by elements like flag-cutting with one bishop or knight. So, here, the problem is much more acute. I think Chess.com did the right thing by not taking into account the theoretical possibility of checkmate with one bishop, because it only happens once in a thousand, if not a million times. It's clear that in 99.9% of cases, it's simply an attempt to flag. These are the conditions, and we accept them when we choose this mode, but is it right? The FIDE regulations are used, but for controls that FIDE doesn't stipulate. Like 3+0, that's what I'm saying.
#10

@Italiya said in #9:

In some cases, and with a fairly good amount of time.
The difference is that online, the most popular time controls are up to 10+0.

There are still quite a few OTB blitz tournament played with 5+0 time control. (Not on the elite level, though, 3+2 seems to be the new de facto standard for blitz.) Generally, OTB uses a bit longer time controls as there is some overhead for handling the pieces and clock.

I'm probably not wrong if I assume that 3+0 and 1+0 are the most popular.
This is poor chess in itself, and it's compounded by elements like flag-cutting with one bishop or knight.

I have no interest in such time controls and after some frustrating experiences with 30+0 I decided not to play any time control without at least 10 seconds of increment on Lichess. Apparently many others do like such time controls so I don't see any problem with them playing it. If you don't like blitz without increment, there is an easy solution: just don't play it.

I think Chess.com did the right thing by not taking into account the theoretical possibility of checkmate with one bishop, because it only happens once in a thousand, if not a million times.

What chess-com actually did is that they cherry picked few specific cases where the game is a dead draw but a checkmate is still theoretically possible with sufficient time and made them exceptions. (They probably use the same exception set as USCF.) I certainly wouldn't call it "the right thing" as the vast majority of positions with exactly the same problem is still there and they just made the rules inconsistent.

Once you deviate from the FIDE rule and its clear and unambiguous logic, you always have to draw an artificial and arbitrarily chosen line betweeen "nobody would ever lose this" and "perhaps somebody might". And people will keep arguing which case should belong on which side.

@Italiya said in #9: > In some cases, and with a fairly good amount of time. > The difference is that online, the most popular time controls are up to 10+0. There are still quite a few OTB blitz tournament played with 5+0 time control. (Not on the elite level, though, 3+2 seems to be the new de facto standard for blitz.) Generally, OTB uses a bit longer time controls as there is some overhead for handling the pieces and clock. > I'm probably not wrong if I assume that 3+0 and 1+0 are the most popular. > This is poor chess in itself, and it's compounded by elements like flag-cutting with one bishop or knight. I have no interest in such time controls and after some frustrating experiences with 30+0 I decided not to play any time control without at least 10 seconds of increment on Lichess. Apparently many others do like such time controls so I don't see any problem with them playing it. If you don't like blitz without increment, there is an easy solution: just don't play it. > I think Chess.com did the right thing by not taking into account the theoretical possibility of checkmate with one bishop, because it only happens once in a thousand, if not a million times. What chess-com actually did is that they cherry picked few specific cases where the game is a dead draw but a checkmate is still theoretically possible with sufficient time and made them exceptions. (They probably use the same exception set as USCF.) I certainly wouldn't call it "the right thing" as the vast majority of positions with exactly the same problem is still there and they just made the rules inconsistent. Once you deviate from the FIDE rule and its clear and unambiguous logic, you always have to draw an artificial and arbitrarily chosen line betweeen "nobody would ever lose this" and "perhaps somebody might". And people will keep arguing which case should belong on which side.