Silly idiotic rule: K+N vs. K+p is 1-0 when timeout

4 men EGBT only for KN vs KP? Also KN vs KN? KR vs KR? KQ vs KR... Then others come and ask why this and not that.
I could live with 6 men EGBT for all positions, like ICCF.
Meanwhile we live by the Laws of Chess as they are.
It is simple and it is plain why should you complain?
Play with increment solves everything.

Ehm what...? You want us to check every game that ends with a timeout with a tablebase? That sound like a really complicated and expensive solution to a non existent problem.

@lovlas

> Ehm what...? You want us to check every game that ends with a timeout with a tablebase?

Just try to read what I am writing. I did not wrote "every game". (KN vs KP only)

And I reserve the right not to answer to those who can not even read me.

No in ICCF correspondence and also in computer chess they adjudicate when they reach 6 men, regardless of time. It seems far fetched, but we do no capture the king either.
This would be more logical than the 4 men EGBT for some special subset and only in case of timeout.

Most realistic is to keep the present Laws of Chess and to play more with increment.

The existent problem is that now people play on to flag their opponent in K+N vs K+N or K+R vs K+R which has nothing to do with chess, only dexterity.

Even if we did do that we would still not catch every position where a draw would be the wrong result. Take this position fex: lichess.org/analysis/k7/p1K5/3p4/4p3/5p2/8/6B1/8_b_-_-.

Or this: lichess.org/analysis/k1K5/p7/N7/n7/q7/qbbqqq2/5ppp/8_w_-_-

There is countless other possibilities.

The only ruleset that is consistent is the one we have now. Which also happens to be the fide ruleset.

@Toadofsky

btw, the position



still is incorrectly considered a lost.

What I want to say: if you are trying to implement FIDE rules, implement it correctly, or, if you can not do this correctly, do not try.

Yeah, that makes sense. You should never try to do something better, if you can't do it perfectly.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ambXDKFZhN8

@lovlas How to insert a picture?

No. I do not think that white is lost in that position. But that position and other variations of it, and this: lichess.org/analysis/2k5/8/8/p1p1p1p1/P1P1P1P1/2K5/8/8_w_-_- are the only positions where the the current ruleset isn't working.

So it narrows it down from a huge amount of positions to two. I'd call that more consistent.

This kind of artificial position is less likely to occur in a real game than a checkmate in the position of the original post.

What do you think of the proposition to play with increment? Both players in the original post are strong, but they played the endgame as if they were beginners because both were short on time. With increment this would be more like chess.