lichess.org
Donate

time out versus insufficient material?

You got credited with a "helpmate" win here:


and another here:


and another here, down a rook:


I don't see why your loss is any different; the opponent, with some help from you, can checkmate you.
Thanks for the interest in this topic. I am new to this concept of 'helpmate'. I think there is a difference though. However i can see that it is a special case and would require some effort on behalf of (a) lichess arbitrators and (b) FIDE before this became accepted. The argument then is that 'helpmate' examples given by Toadofsky all involve situations where the winner won on time but was down in pieces. The reason I support the argument is that if the opponent has no time, then i assume the reason the other player is granted the win is because he can still move but his opponent cannot but in fact it is more like those pieces can arguably then be moved by his opponent wherever he likes and thus it is not sandbagging but is loss of control in a situation where the opponent could use those pieces to effect a win. I can accept that. What would be interesting would be to trial a optional version (variant) whereby the player with time remaining on his/her clock then has to use his remaining time to effect the win he/she desires by making those moves. This would make for a more realistic situation, because otherwise the rules of the game are arguing something that makes little sense in any world other than the strange time rules that have been considered acceptable by people who choose to accept such nonsense. I agree that I have won many a game using these time rules to my advantage but if one accepts that the best quality chess does not involve mindless loss of pieces in an attempt to win on time then we would see more reward of caring considerate play and this would manifest as better players of the longer versions of the game where such things are surely the most important aspect of the games existence as a worthy educational game.
Well, it‘s the official rules. Consistent and logic. Asking the arbiter for a verdict / assessing millions of exceptions is a no-go so it‘s best to have crystal-clear rules.
Rules change when people realise that they are bad for the good of the game. Bullet chess, working the same rules to a very short clock makes a mockery of the strategic logic that is the very basis of chess. By attempting to attract people to the game, Bullet chess may have succeeded but essentially it is no gauge of a good chess player. Therefore it is easy to masquerade as a good player and a fast player by the corruption of the original principles of the game by inventing Bullet chess. However, it rewards those who learn a lot of chess and play a lot of chess? No, it rewards those at the top of a pyramid of power who can buy the supercomputers that control humans in todays world. Of course, many of the top players are good players as well, but how many competitions take place where the players sit in Faraday cages? My point is simple, as all good rules should be: a player should only be able to claim a win if there is a clear case that he could get that win, otherwise we create a situation where so-called grandmasters turn out to be those who have a faster broadband connection and better kit. I find it odd that a game rooted in intelligence has become one that lauds fast but stupid moves. Thus i have made a constructive request that there is a new rule to all chess that could be trialled on lichess; I have explained it in crystal clear way and I think your comments are not constructive and are missing the point of my comment, with all due respect. This rule is only likely to be invoked in shorter time versions of the game, and would make for enormous excitement as we witness a player take control of both pieces; if he can't effect the win by checkmate in that time, then the match is declared a draw, otherwise it actually makes very little sense for one player to be judged by time, but the 'winner' is not requested to prove that he can also achieve a win (including avoiding the draw!) in the time. We could also have 3 points for a checkmate, 2 for a win on time where the win was unproven, 1 for any kind of draw, 0 for a loss. Whether we use that scoring system or not, This rule change/variant would finally make my point that it would be impossible for a king and a horse to win a game without help, and I think this matters; claiming that their opponent has a pawn and this is all the help they need to win makes me think the rules to this intelligent game are still only partially-baked.
You are certainly living up to your username. There are several positions where a knight is sufficient.
My eyes hurt when I see this guy's long post, Imo Lichess should implement a 500 word limit, lol people write crazy without grammer.
I didn't even read the thing. But to be a little nice @radicalnonsense, I see your side of it. But you've got to know that those are just the rules. Yes, rules can be changed, but a lot of effort is going to be needed to change a rule, and a of of support, which I think you lack based on the comments in this forum against your opinion.

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.