1 centipawn loss during 300 moves in a 1-1 bullet game.....
Computer assisted in some way for sure. Russian troll factory escape?
Computer assisted in some way for sure. Russian troll factory escape?
@Munich once again: Why is it silly to play on? If you're opponent was too dumb to mate you in the last 250 moves why should you resign? Either he is a disrespectful troll who can't believe that someone doesn't resign in a lost position and wants to see the mate or he is too bad to mate you. In both cases you should play on.
About the 300-move limit: Lichess doesn't have to use every FIDE rule. If you play for 300 moves at least one player is trolling. Therefore ruling it a draw is a really good idea since only the player that is trolling is getting punished. Giving him the win would be ridicolous since he clearly isn't able to or doesn't want to win.
About the 300-move limit: Lichess doesn't have to use every FIDE rule. If you play for 300 moves at least one player is trolling. Therefore ruling it a draw is a really good idea since only the player that is trolling is getting punished. Giving him the win would be ridicolous since he clearly isn't able to or doesn't want to win.
You are right about the silly part of the winning side.
But you dont seem to agree the lost side is lost and the ratings should display the players skill.
If you think of punishments, then there are things like a ban of 10 minutes.
But you should not lose or win rating points due to moral reasons.
Think about ratings as a rating pool.
The trolling part is there on both parts, if you ask me. The one side could check mate, the other could resign.
But if lichess is ending a game even though it is not fide rules, then lichess is actually misusing its role as arbiter. Lichess could easily evaluate a position and decide which side is lost or if it is a draw.
I'd say, the way it is now handled, it is a bug.
Also (though it hardly happens) imagine this: what if the winning side has knight and bishop and a few pawns, but would like to check mate with knight and bishop and trys hard. The losing side plays along. That would not be trolling but rather a game in a game.
And then there is the theoretical possibility that a game could really last long. It is difficult and a bullet game, so in between the winning side is accumulating time for 100 moves, before new winning attempts are made. 300 moves hardly happens, but you can not be sure if it was reasonable to play for so long or not.
Lichess should only do something about such cases if intervention was needed. Here it was clearly not: both players could have ended the game sooner: one by resigning, the other by check mating.
But back to the real issue: lichess should not adjust ratings as punishment. And I think lichess should map fide rules as close as technically possible.
But you dont seem to agree the lost side is lost and the ratings should display the players skill.
If you think of punishments, then there are things like a ban of 10 minutes.
But you should not lose or win rating points due to moral reasons.
Think about ratings as a rating pool.
The trolling part is there on both parts, if you ask me. The one side could check mate, the other could resign.
But if lichess is ending a game even though it is not fide rules, then lichess is actually misusing its role as arbiter. Lichess could easily evaluate a position and decide which side is lost or if it is a draw.
I'd say, the way it is now handled, it is a bug.
Also (though it hardly happens) imagine this: what if the winning side has knight and bishop and a few pawns, but would like to check mate with knight and bishop and trys hard. The losing side plays along. That would not be trolling but rather a game in a game.
And then there is the theoretical possibility that a game could really last long. It is difficult and a bullet game, so in between the winning side is accumulating time for 100 moves, before new winning attempts are made. 300 moves hardly happens, but you can not be sure if it was reasonable to play for so long or not.
Lichess should only do something about such cases if intervention was needed. Here it was clearly not: both players could have ended the game sooner: one by resigning, the other by check mating.
But back to the real issue: lichess should not adjust ratings as punishment. And I think lichess should map fide rules as close as technically possible.
"But you dont seem to agree the lost side is lost and the ratings should display the players skill." I've never said that I disagree with that. Of course the lost side is lost. But that doesn't mean he has to resign because his opponent is going to mate him anyway. Ratings should display the players skill. I don't understand what the point behind that statement is.
Lichess can't abuse the FIDE rules because games on lichess are not FIDE rated.
If someone has knight, bishop and pawns he can queen the pawns and mate his opponent. If he wants to train knight and bishop mate he can do that against stockfish.
There is a theoretical possibility of a game lasting more than 300 moves. There is even the possibility of a game lasting longer than 5000 moves. But there are millions of otb games in databases. The longest one is Nikolić–Arsović, Belgrad 1989 which lasted 269 moves and even that required neglecting the 50-move rule. That means 300 move long games are a product of trolling.
"Here it was clearly not: both players could have ended the game sooner: one by resigning, the other by check mating." NO: I've explained three times that these two actions are NOT equivalent to each other. Trolling should NOT be rewarded. Just because you have the right to troll your opponent doesn't mean you should. Just mate him. Your precious FIDE rules by the way don't demand that you have to resign if you have a lost position. The game ends with checkmate. That can be achieved by force which means that not resigning is NOT a form of trolling your opponent.
Lichess can't abuse the FIDE rules because games on lichess are not FIDE rated.
If someone has knight, bishop and pawns he can queen the pawns and mate his opponent. If he wants to train knight and bishop mate he can do that against stockfish.
There is a theoretical possibility of a game lasting more than 300 moves. There is even the possibility of a game lasting longer than 5000 moves. But there are millions of otb games in databases. The longest one is Nikolić–Arsović, Belgrad 1989 which lasted 269 moves and even that required neglecting the 50-move rule. That means 300 move long games are a product of trolling.
"Here it was clearly not: both players could have ended the game sooner: one by resigning, the other by check mating." NO: I've explained three times that these two actions are NOT equivalent to each other. Trolling should NOT be rewarded. Just because you have the right to troll your opponent doesn't mean you should. Just mate him. Your precious FIDE rules by the way don't demand that you have to resign if you have a lost position. The game ends with checkmate. That can be achieved by force which means that not resigning is NOT a form of trolling your opponent.
If you have a knight and bishop and you do not mate within 300 moves that SHOULD be considered a stalemate
yeah he might as well have died if he dosent checkmate for that long ^^
Thinking about it, I guess I report the bug.
It is against fide rules. The game ends with check mate, a draw agreement, or a resignation. All 3 endings are valid.
There is no rule that forces you to resign, and there is no rule that forces you to check mate.
If a game takes too long (and the building where the game takes place closes), an arbiter can end the game by evaluating the position.
Such a decision can be difficult to make. However, in above case (see game) the arbiter made a clear misjudgement. It rather looks like lichess punished the winning side by not check mating his opponent. This is not the right action to be taken, and it looks to me that some programmer of lichess implemented this as kind of self-justice.
2 steps needed:
a) correct the bug
b) I'd say, lichess should apologize and correct its wrong judgement. But well, the world isnt fair, is it? Point a should be addressed though. Or lichess did a freak-chess-variant where the game end at move 301 in a draw.
Then a classic-rules chess can not be played at lichess.
It is against fide rules. The game ends with check mate, a draw agreement, or a resignation. All 3 endings are valid.
There is no rule that forces you to resign, and there is no rule that forces you to check mate.
If a game takes too long (and the building where the game takes place closes), an arbiter can end the game by evaluating the position.
Such a decision can be difficult to make. However, in above case (see game) the arbiter made a clear misjudgement. It rather looks like lichess punished the winning side by not check mating his opponent. This is not the right action to be taken, and it looks to me that some programmer of lichess implemented this as kind of self-justice.
2 steps needed:
a) correct the bug
b) I'd say, lichess should apologize and correct its wrong judgement. But well, the world isnt fair, is it? Point a should be addressed though. Or lichess did a freak-chess-variant where the game end at move 301 in a draw.
Then a classic-rules chess can not be played at lichess.
Here my report of the bug;
there is a seldom bug:
If a game takes long, an arbiter can end the game by evaluating the position.
Such a decision can be difficult to make. However, and that is a bug, lichess.org ends a game at move 301 and gives it a draw, even if the position is clearly won for one side.
If that is thought as a punishment, then lichess misuses its role as an arbiter.
The weaker side could resign any time, and probably the stronger side could win.
There is no need to intervene unless the game is a clear draw. The stockfish-engine could evaluate the position at move 301, and if the eval is a checkmate in (for instance) #12 moves or so, then it must be given a win for the winning side. If the eval is below 5.0 pawn units, then a draw could be assumed.
there is a seldom bug:
If a game takes long, an arbiter can end the game by evaluating the position.
Such a decision can be difficult to make. However, and that is a bug, lichess.org ends a game at move 301 and gives it a draw, even if the position is clearly won for one side.
If that is thought as a punishment, then lichess misuses its role as an arbiter.
The weaker side could resign any time, and probably the stronger side could win.
There is no need to intervene unless the game is a clear draw. The stockfish-engine could evaluate the position at move 301, and if the eval is a checkmate in (for instance) #12 moves or so, then it must be given a win for the winning side. If the eval is below 5.0 pawn units, then a draw could be assumed.
Actually this is a proper implementation of FIDE Quickplay rule G.5. Perhaps a repeat offender should be subject to penalties.
'G.3.
This Appendix shall only apply to standard play and rapidplay games without increment and not to blitz games. '
not according to G.3.
The game had an increment and G.2 says It must be stated that this appendix applies before the start of an event, and to my knowledge this is not explicitly mentioned by lichess but do correct me if I am wrong.
I still agree with this because no normal game should last over 300 moves, but it is not the proper implementation of G.5
This Appendix shall only apply to standard play and rapidplay games without increment and not to blitz games. '
not according to G.3.
The game had an increment and G.2 says It must be stated that this appendix applies before the start of an event, and to my knowledge this is not explicitly mentioned by lichess but do correct me if I am wrong.
I still agree with this because no normal game should last over 300 moves, but it is not the proper implementation of G.5
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.