I prefer objectivity and clear rules. Time out is always lost, however, no mate is possible then it's draw. No 99% rules but 100%!
I doubt that this happens even 1% of the time, since there was no single forum report: "hey, I got a draw in won position with a single knight!" - during last several years. 1/1000000 seems more reasonable.
Though people like to show as argument a few really weird ending digged out of the database: "You see!!! Haha! That HAPPENS!!!"
Is it what chess about?
Though people like to show as argument a few really weird ending digged out of the database: "You see!!! Haha! That HAPPENS!!!"
Is it what chess about?
Like Dr_King_Schultz says: No one ever complained about "the stupid FIDE rules" when they lost on time with their opponent having 1 pawn left and them having 2 queens, 1 rook and a bishop left.
Such positions are equally improbable to lose. We need consistent rules.
Such positions are equally improbable to lose. We need consistent rules.
Single knight positions are rare in general, whether they're winnable by forced mate, winnable only by helpmate, or not winnable at all.
I have just gone through all of my 600 drawn games in order to find those where one side, having at least one piece or pawn, ran out of time, but the opponent had no material besides one minor piece. With the old, non-FIDE rules, such games were considered drawn, whereas with the newly adopted rules, the side running out of time would have lost (because they could technically get mated).
I found 0 games that met those criteria.
The closest I got were these 2 games, which meet all of the above criteria except for someone timing out:
lichess.org/ XOMwXFcC/black#93
lichess.org/ 9PcIM1jX/black#75
(Added a space in each game link to avoid auto-embedding of the games.)
In the former example, we got to a K&N vs K&B position (with no pawns), which was of course objectively drawn, but technically losable for either side through helpmate. In the game, we simply agreed to a draw.
In the latter example, my opponent had a completely winning king, rook & 2 pawns vs king & knight position and managed to first lose his rook and 1 pawn and then walk into a forced mate in 3. (As I was in severe time trouble, I blundered in return, though...)
These are of course way too few examples to draw any relevant statistical conclusions from, but they tell us 2 things:
1. Timeouts with the opponent having only a minor piece left are very rare in general, regardless of whether there's a forced mate, a possible helpmate or no possible mate at all.
2. Even the most ridiculous-looking helpmates are possible, and not even neccessarily intentional.
I have just gone through all of my 600 drawn games in order to find those where one side, having at least one piece or pawn, ran out of time, but the opponent had no material besides one minor piece. With the old, non-FIDE rules, such games were considered drawn, whereas with the newly adopted rules, the side running out of time would have lost (because they could technically get mated).
I found 0 games that met those criteria.
The closest I got were these 2 games, which meet all of the above criteria except for someone timing out:
lichess.org/ XOMwXFcC/black#93
lichess.org/ 9PcIM1jX/black#75
(Added a space in each game link to avoid auto-embedding of the games.)
In the former example, we got to a K&N vs K&B position (with no pawns), which was of course objectively drawn, but technically losable for either side through helpmate. In the game, we simply agreed to a draw.
In the latter example, my opponent had a completely winning king, rook & 2 pawns vs king & knight position and managed to first lose his rook and 1 pawn and then walk into a forced mate in 3. (As I was in severe time trouble, I blundered in return, though...)
These are of course way too few examples to draw any relevant statistical conclusions from, but they tell us 2 things:
1. Timeouts with the opponent having only a minor piece left are very rare in general, regardless of whether there's a forced mate, a possible helpmate or no possible mate at all.
2. Even the most ridiculous-looking helpmates are possible, and not even neccessarily intentional.
@Toadofsky
It seems that you are trying to implement FIDE rules:
> The rule is the same for everyone:
"if a player does not complete the prescribed number of moves in the allotted time, the game is lost by the player. However, the game is drawn, if the position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the player’s king by any possible series of legal moves."
According to FIDE rules the following game is NOT lost by me, but is considered to be lost by lichess:
en.lichess.org/ksnOJRBc
It seems to me that you can not implement FIDE rules correctly without big complications (i.e. delaying determination of game result and pointing out a way to mate for one of players).
While FIDE KN+KP and KB+KP rules are dumb and bureaucratic, they are still tolerable in slow play, supported by arbiter. But they are not tolerable on quick game site.
It seems that you are trying to implement FIDE rules:
> The rule is the same for everyone:
"if a player does not complete the prescribed number of moves in the allotted time, the game is lost by the player. However, the game is drawn, if the position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the player’s king by any possible series of legal moves."
According to FIDE rules the following game is NOT lost by me, but is considered to be lost by lichess:
en.lichess.org/ksnOJRBc
It seems to me that you can not implement FIDE rules correctly without big complications (i.e. delaying determination of game result and pointing out a way to mate for one of players).
While FIDE KN+KP and KB+KP rules are dumb and bureaucratic, they are still tolerable in slow play, supported by arbiter. But they are not tolerable on quick game site.
@game_spectator Thanks for the feedback. I am not claiming to implement the FIDE rules (which incidentally would make it illegal for either player to move in that start position).
> (which incidentally would make it illegal for either player to move in that start position).
I do not understand this.
> I am not claiming to implement the FIDE rules
Then please say what you are trying to implement.
It seems that you are citing FIDE rules; is it so?
I do not understand this.
> I am not claiming to implement the FIDE rules
Then please say what you are trying to implement.
It seems that you are citing FIDE rules; is it so?
@Toadofsky Also please say -- should be the game lost or draw?
@game_spectator I already advised what rule I'm trying to implement:
"If a player does not complete the prescribed number of moves in the allotted time, the game is lost by the player. However, the game is drawn, if the position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the player’s king by any possible series of legal moves."
This is not 100% the same as the FIDE rules, which are significantly more complicated and require a human arbiter to be present and require the formation of an appeals committee.
"If a player does not complete the prescribed number of moves in the allotted time, the game is lost by the player. However, the game is drawn, if the position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the player’s king by any possible series of legal moves."
This is not 100% the same as the FIDE rules, which are significantly more complicated and require a human arbiter to be present and require the formation of an appeals committee.
@Toadofsky
> I already advised what rule I'm trying to implement: "If a player does not complete the prescribed number of moves in the allotted time, the game is lost by the player. However, the game is drawn, if the position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the player’s king by any possible series of legal moves."
So, according to your rule, the game should be draw, should't it?
en.lichess.org/ksnOJRBc
> I already advised what rule I'm trying to implement: "If a player does not complete the prescribed number of moves in the allotted time, the game is lost by the player. However, the game is drawn, if the position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the player’s king by any possible series of legal moves."
So, according to your rule, the game should be draw, should't it?
en.lichess.org/ksnOJRBc
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.