Your point about the majority is a poor argument. I give you 2 quotes on that, not for you (I doubt you will understand them), but for the others:
“An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it.” – Mahatma Gandhi
“Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.” – Mahatma Gandhi
(and your argument of the chances of 300 moves in a real club --> Well, I suppose the arbiter would end the game before that and decide it based on the position - in this case a win for the winning side - or what else would you expect? )
The only truth in your arguments is that there should be a warning about the 300 move rule. That I agree with. But the 300 move rule itself is reasonable, playing games longer than that is not only a big waste of time for both players but also a waste of Lichess storage space. So you want the 300 move rule abolished? Go see how many people you can gather that have the same views as you, and then maybe you can petition the Lichess developers. But I doubt you will get more than a few.
"So you want the 300 move rule abolished?"
No, not really. It can end at move 301. I dont think it is good to end the game in a rated draw. No troll gets punished like that except here. Alternatives: temporary ban? Unrated draw? There should not be any incentive to play for that long. (The way it is now, it gives an incentive for the losing side, resulting in more such games being played in the future).
There should be no fiddling with the rating, as that affects the rating pool in an unfair manner. The next player who gets one of these trolls faces someone who is either slightly over- or underrated. Ok, it is not much of a rating change, but by principle, trolls should not be punished by rating adjustments. Similar like you argue about storage space (such games hardly happen, but ok, it is about a principle what kind of punishments are available without hurting indirectly the community).
Anyway, in a real situation, a 300 move game would be ended by an arbiter, or (if it is a team match) maybe by the own team captain who resigns on behalf of the weaker side. Thus, it would end in a declared win for the stronger side.
Plus, as you agreed yourself, there should be a warning like "last 50 moves before a draw is declared".
NO, IT WOULD NOT BE DECLARED A WIN. What is wrong with you?
And there is always an incentive for the losing side to play on: He hasn't been checkmated yet, why would he resign?
You know, people up to GM (Dr. Hübner) who hopped around solely with the knights have been nullified, one player or both. This happened in a local tournament as well, score 0:0. No draw, both zero.
Go ahead, try to diss the referee. It can be at your expense though.
"This happened in a local tournament as well, score 0:0. No draw, both zero."
First - can you back up this? Otherwise I think that is made up by you.
2nd - and even if: how was the 0:0 rated?
Well, it happened at the Palatine „Schachkongress“ about 30 years ago. Every once in a while there‘s 0:0 when the arbiter is dissed. Of course the arbiter can do this, see the beginning of the FIDE rules.
There are many versions of the Huebner story, just search Hübner, forfeit, Rogoff.
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1543378&kpage=1Edit: „The Russians pressed for a double forfeit but Huebner insisted that he alone bore responsibility.“
and how was it rated? Where is the fide elo formular for a 0:0?
I don’t know. But of course all decent programs like „Swiss chess“ can handle such scores like 0:0.5 and stuff.
0:0, if both refuse to play a chess game in the spirit of the rules and mess with the arbiter. Rare, but it can happen. 0:0.5 if one of them gets forfeited and the other one has no „mating potential“ left for example.
Actually, this is not my business. I try to play chess and rest my case for the time being.
Edit: I was looking at the game. Not really a 300 game or anything close. and the rating - I think it is impossible to calculate a 0:0 in terms of rating (Huebner game), so dont bother looking. It is like a division by zero - impossible. But first point - ok, I believe it now. Still, what has that to do with a rated draw after 301 moves? I didnt even made the point that an arbiter can not interrupt a game or make decisions about the outcome of game. Instead I exactly wrote that an arbiter would probably end a game, so dont put a "strawman argument" here, disproving something I never said.
I dont mind that a game ends after 300 moves. It can. But I do mind that it is a rated draw.
(
@chillkroete77: your quote: "He hasn't been checkmated yet, why would he resign?" - my answer: cause he is likely to lose? The only realistic incentive to keep on playing for him is the 301 rule which gives him the prospect of a draw. Actually, even the prospect of an unrated game is better than a loss, so I am not too happy with that solution, too, but it would be better than it is now.)
