How can black be victorious? It was a draw

@Tenakel said in #7:

@excelvbasql

As a supplement to #3:

Of course, to make things even crazier, it's even possible for you to promote your pawn into a rook and even then lose, since mate by the knight is theoretically possible.

Such are the rules of online chess!

I have always gotten a draw when in such a position on lichess and chess.com. Something really wrong is going on.

The official rules of chess. If you run out of time, and your opponent can mate you with the material on the board, then victory goes to your opponent. No more, no less.

If they keep your pawn alive you can still win thus they can win on timeout...

Example thread about the same problem from chess.com - "https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/black-kight-amp-king-wins-vs-king-and-pawn".

@excelvbasql

@excelvbasql
According to poor chess rules like this one, they consider 'possible checkmate' scenario instead of 'forced checkmate' scenario.
It's logical and obvious to humans that no one would play that bad to get checkmated by single minor piece.
Even a complete newbie doesn't falter like that.
It's easy for humans to understand but not for computers, what an irony! After all, humans made computers.
Computers would definitely be programmed some day to understand obvious moves.
Till then we have to agree with these stupid rules as these are not in our control.

I proposed a system on such draws before where I had conversations with @)Sarg0n in public threads.
See what I am talking about from my previous posts. Or wait, let me share the links:
lichess.org/forum/lichess-feedback/this-is-absurd-bug-report?page=2#13
lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/is-this-a-mistake?page=3#30

In short:
'Lichess can't measure your dumbness/intelligence'

@MsBlackBear said in #15:

@excelvbasql

Is that really the FIDE/USCF rule? If so, they've clearly dewshed

sadly yes... It's a basic chess rule.

@Akbar2thegreat said in #16:

@excelvbasql
According to poor chess rules like this one, they consider 'possible checkmate' scenario instead of 'forced checkmate' scenario.
It's logical and obvious to humans that no one would play that bad to get checkmated by single minor piece.
Even a complete newbie doesn't falter like that.
It's easy for humans to understand but not for computers, what an irony! After all, humans made computers.
Computers would definitely be programmed some day to understand obvious moves.
Till then we have to agree with these stupid rules as these are not in our control.

I proposed a system on such draws before where I had conversations with @)Sarg0n in public threads.
See what I am talking about from my previous posts. Or wait, let me share the links:
lichess.org/forum/lichess-feedback/this-is-absurd-bug-report?page=2#13
lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/is-this-a-mistake?page=3#30

In short:
'Lichess can't measure your dumbness/intelligence'

Yeah, lichess seems set in their awful ways. "It's free so just stop complaining" is their only retort.

@MsBlackBear said in #18:

sadly yes... It's a basic chess rule.

But I had the winning position! I could have had two queens and allowed each to be captured by the king in that inversion of logic.