No checkmating material left on the board still it was declared win to whom, has the Bishop,

#60 If you really want to know which "dead positions" are detected, the test suite is publicly available:
github.com/ornicar/scalachess/blob/master/src/test/scala/AutodrawTest.scala

I think FIDE could do one better: make increment mandatory for all rated games.

It does indeed know that on timeout. The problematic positions are where there are number of pieces left, but there is no legal way to make progress. Fex: lichess.org/analysis/standard/2k5/8/8/1p1p1p1p/1P1P1P1P/8/3K4/8_w_KQkq_-

#62 Oh man, I had never considered that. Chess is complex.

One might argue that the 50-move rule covers inert positions like this by eventually indicating a draw. But we all know that would be deluded because time is a major factor in chess. I've had many such positions and I've rarely been able to pad 50 extra moves onto the game before flagging -- and I play hyper-bullet! 🖱 I think I've seen it *once* in OTB play, on another player's board.

It would seem that there really is room for improvement here. And I have a few ideas:

* Keep a database of inert positions and permit players to stop the clock to claim it's a draw by inertness. If the player is correct and the position on the board is in the inertness database the game is a draw. But if the player is wrong -- which they'd almost certainly be if they abused this right -- the plaintiff forfeits. This I think is a great way to play modern chess with modern tools like databases. But what if you're playing a pickup game is jail?

* If the inertness database cannot be used, for whatever reason, then the plaintiff and defendant shall cooperate to prove/disprove that the position is unwinnable for either side. The method is just like proving two knights alone cannot mate the lone king except we split the process to ensure fairness. That method is as follows:
- The defendant arranges a checkmate or stalemate position using only the pieces left on the board. If they cannot do this the plaintiff gets the draw. If they can we move to step two.
- Working from the defendants constructed position, the plaintiff retraces each move that could of been last played, looking at the position before that piece moved, if it moved from an illegal position or a position requiring "help" from the enemy, the plaintiff gets their draw.

This is a sort of "you cut and I choose" except it's "you mate and I disprove." It seems balanced and practical: if an opponent abuses the right in a clearly not-a-darn-draw position all you have to do is arrange their king right into a Queen Mate or something. For example, if black claims an inertness draw after 1. e4 without even making a move:

lichess.org/editor/rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR_w_KQkq_-

That's all for now,
Melissa

The more proposals I read the better becomes the clean FIDE rule. You mess things up with your exception-based solutions. Exception here, exception there, oh wait, not with h-pawn...

Mate possible: win!

Remedy: play without clock (use increment)

PS: quoting lichess.org/forum/lichess-feedback/incorrect-detection-of-material-at-the-end-of-the-game?page=2#20

@Sarg0n hourglass time format is underated. I was suggested on lichess github page few years ago. Shredder quest feature support 1 minute hourglass.

Each player's clock starts with a specified time (e.g. 1 minute, 10 min etc.). While Player 1 is deciding a move, player 1's clock time is decreasing and Player 2's clock time is increasing. This is similar to how an hourglass works; sand empties from one container and fills into the other. Moving slowly gives your opponent extra time. The sum of both clocks will always remain the same. There is no maximum amount of time allotted for a game with this timing method; as long as both players play quickly, the game will continue until its natural end. When time runs out on one player's clock the game is over and that player loses. Use of this time control is uncommon.

#64 Sure, let's just store every possible draw in a database. Surely someone has a hard drive which can store the first googol positions.

Personally, I like the idea of giving the winning player control of all the pieces and asking them to demonstrate checkmate while their clock is running. But I don't think the average player would understand it.

#65 When this matter first arose between developers, it took a year of consideration for me to realize FIDE rules are actually quite good and that the problem is the clock, not the rules.

Black plays quickly on time, his fag falls. Should he be awardee the coveted draw? Or 1-0? Has he demonstrated something?

Exception? Exception from the exception? What does the USCF do?

The white King approached h6 whereas Black has been repeating Bg8-f7 meanwhile.

Sometimes it's just better to follow a rule, knowing that you're just following a rule, for the sake of sanity.

Sargon - You're about to be de-platformed for advocating the use of gay proxy wood movers.