Impossible(Practically) to Win Generates a Win on Time Out

@Sarg0n I think you're forgetting that the current implementation of the rules is also inconsistent. There are countless positions where it is impossible, by any sequence of moves, to force a win (blocked positions in particular) that Lichess will count as a loss/win when time runs out.

So it's not like the current decisions can appeal to rule consistency as a strength. It's just a different form of inconsistency. Personally I would prefer for the more natural form of inconsistency. That a bishop vs knight ending is a loss seems to serve no real purpose other than further incentivizing flagging as a style of play in and of itself. And the FIDE rules in any case are primarily (though not exclusively) written with contests in mind that scarcely resemble the current zeitgeist of online play.

Well, the wrong part is wrong, sure.

But the case mate is possible: loss/win is implemented correctly and consistently.

PS: Hunting helpless pawns in order not to lose was easy for the bullet guys - but the lone minor piece shouts: „Catch me if you can!“

I'm talking about obvious situations where there is no forced mate. Clearly, most situations the computer cannot determine whether or not there's a possible checkmate imminent or if a player could figure it out. However, there are some situations that are far clearer. As in the USCF rules: "...king and bishop, king and knight, or king and 2 knights with no pawns on the board is not considered sufficient mating material, unless the opponent has a forced win, even though it's theoretically possible to mate (but extremely unlikely to happen) in situations such as K+B vs. K+N)." Lichess clearly doesn't use USCF rules. Whereas, Freechess.org does or some subset of them.
In most situations encounters of say, King and Knight vs King and Knight, unless at the very end the pieces are in some extremely unique position, it's a draw and it is not possible to force it. Only a serious of idiotic moves within the next 50 would work.
In such case, why does a player get rewarded with a win that is virtually impossible.

@Sarg0n's Holy War :)
I do agree with #11, this is not more then pure flagging which has nothing to do with chess.

Ok, then the war is won. I like it the way it is: at playchess, lichess and FIDE otb.

Bullet is one big flagging business, not my mug of beer.

Holy War is never EVER over!!! :)
How much of your almost 3k posts are devoted to "insufficient material wins"? Yeah, I agree, those topics are produced every couple of days and there is a sacred duty to answer in EVERY of those.
And I remember good old times when there were piece and harmony... Noone created forum threads like "Hey, I still had a single knight and was not awarded a win! WHY????!!!! That is so unfair!"

An interesting one just occurred to me. My opponent had King and Knight against my King and Rook. Practically he can only ever achieve a draw unless I stupidly put my king and rook on an edge or whatever never going to happen position. If I he kills my rook, he suddenly can only get a draw when I run out of time, so he doesn't want to improve his position in that way. However, if my rook survives when I run out of time, I lose. Why? Because there is a miniscule but theoretically possible, though actually virtually impossible, chance he can get checkmate - that would occur if I suddenly became mentally incapacitated and started making random moves, and even that still be like 1 in million chance.

Just one remark: when I started to play at lichess this particular rule was „reversed“ and people were complaining in the forum why they are not awarded a win with a remaining piece.

Well, I propose it's a question of what kind of game do people want. Do they want a game where someone who has no practical chance of winning can get a win, thus be a game based on who can best beat the clock? Or, do you want a game that rewards the good chess side of it by not giving wins to players who clearly could not win except under ridiculously unlikely conditions. USCF chose the chess side of it.

@Sarg0n

"But the case mate is possible: loss/win is implemented correctly and consistently."

What about the opposite, i.e. games with impossible mates?
How good lichess is in recognizing dead draw positions?

Are the players getting a time draw, instead of losing, at least in the simplest of these, like:

lichess.org/editor/8/8/4k3/1p2p1p1/1P2P1P1/8/1K6/8_w_-_-

I mean, positions like this one above should be quite easy to recognize, at least if one time outs in Kings + Pawns ending, right?

When there are only Kings and Pawns, a simple algorithm could quickly exclude the tiles that given king can enter, starting from his own pieces and attacked squares, and if it cuts him out of the part of the board on which the other king is, with the same scenario applying to the both kings, plus there are no pawns to move or being captured immediately (or to be reached by king), then it's a draw.

It looks so simple, but looks like it's not being considered:



Why? :-(

Then, algorithm could even check for some pieces that are blocked at the zone closed by pawns and if there is any piece that can break through, so adding White black-squared bishop here:

lichess.org/editor/8/4k3/p1p1p1p1/PpPpPpPp/1P1P1P1P/8/1K6/8_w_-_-

will still be a dead draw. Why not to implement this?

I mean, it's just fair to give a time draw, if position is completely, absolutely dead, and opponent is flagging you, isn't it? In FIDE rules it's just a draw, but on lichess you lose, while there's quite big subset of dead positions that should be easy to validate quickly :-(