@Sarg0n > So basically it‘s an US-driven problem.
No, it is not. Say, I never played OTB under the rules of USCF and never played in US.
#51, so he wins sometimes because TB says so? :D
Way too complicated and rather not consistent.
@Jacob531 > where is the line drawn?
Please cite, because I can not understand what my post you are commenting on.
@Sarg0n > Way too complicated and rather not consistent.
No, very simple and very consistent, if you switch on your brain. Hint: try to paraphrase EGTB result in human language.
Keeping the FIDE rules seems much easier.
@Sandstad > Keeping the FIDE rules seems much easier.
And keeping no changes at all (lichess had USCF rules, AFAIK) was even more easier. And better (although not perfect, of course).
The FIDE rules are the official rules of chess. They are easy to state and easy to understand, and never give anyone points for letting their time run out in a lost positition.
@Sarg0n > so he wins sometimes because TB says so?
He wins because his opponent is sitting and not moving just to escape defeat.
Generally, "EGTB win" is not "obvious win". But in KN+KP "EGTB win" is "obvious win". (Is it 1-move-win too?)
As has been discussed ad nauseum in other threads on the same subject, all rule sets around flagging will have some "silly" results where the flagging side is given a loss in a position they could only lose if they tried really hard to lose.
As others have pointed out in this thread, there's nothing intrinsically sillier about losing with KP vs KN when you flag than there is losing with KQQQQQQ vs KP when you flag.
Both cases would require an absurd level of cooperation for the flagged side to actually lose.
Ultimately, if you agree to play a game with a sudden death time control, you know there's a possibility your opponent will be able to flag you in some such "silly" position and get a win.
If this is not to your liking, play with some small increment.
The current rules only seem sillier to many people because many people were accustomed to the silliness of the USCF/ICC/chess.com rules, since they've been in use for a very long time on the major chess servers (as pointed out earlier in the thread also).
Also, both lichess' current rules and the old USCF-style rules award wins in positions where it's literally impossible to win, even with both sides cooperating, so they're equally silly on that front.
If you want trivial positions to have their "just" result and not be adjudicated by some specific flagging rules, then play with a small increment.
One can't really justifiably agree to play with some time limit, overstep that time limit, and then complain that they wouldn't lose that position if allowed to play on. If you want to be allowed to play on and justify such a claim, then don't overstep the time limit you agreed to.
"But officer, if I weren't drunk I wouldn't have run that light..."
Great :)
@Sandstad > and never give anyone points for letting their time run out in a lost positition.
This is a merit.
The rule "4-man EGTB result for KN+KP should be result of the game when KP-player timeouts" has this merit too.
At the same time, FIDE rules has a flaw in blitz play: a possibility to win for KN side of KN+KP by stretching the game to cut flag of KP side. The rule "4-man EGTB result for KN+KP should be result of the game when KP-player timeouts" do not have this flaw in blitz play.
Also, the rule "4-man EGTB result for KN+KP should be result of the game when KP-player timeouts" has the following merit: it is USCF rule in all the cases where USCF rule is sane, and is FIDE rule in all the cases where FIDE rule is sane.
