Lichess is an AI evolutionary learning experience. It is not chess.

@Firegoat7 said in #60:
> I would suggest that the players who are running their kings around like headless chickens at a speed of 0.2 moves per second without walking into check are not thinking about the position at all.

That's just part of bullet. It's a race against time, which sometimes means making moves without thinking. Also, premoves don't take any time at all. But maybe you will be interested in this game, where I actually did set up a stalemate(still required a massive blunder by my opponent, but I was proud of it). It turns out I am capable of such things like thinking about the position with only a few seconds left.

@pj_diesel said in #61:
> That's just part of bullet. It's a race against time, which sometimes means making moves without thinking.

I will agree that is now the experience on Lichess when playing bullet. Having played bullet on many different internet servers through the years, I would say the games are imbalanced and other bullet servers favored different conditions. Some were much worse, others much better.

@ungewichtet
"Stalemate as a draw rewards the defenders for their troubles..."
Rewards for what? Being 2 queens or 2 rooks down was just a horrible play and there is no defense. Only a missclick or playing too fast can give him hope for a stalemate once in a 100 of such games.

"So I think it's okay."
I do not.

I can tolerate a stalemate as a draw only because stalemates happen less than in a half per cent of my games. That proves that a stalemate draw is meaningless.

@pointlesswindows said in #63:
> @ungewichtet
> "Stalemate as a draw rewards the defenders for their troubles..."
> Rewards for what? Being 2 queens or 2 rooks down was just a horrible play and there is no defense. Only a missclick or playing too fast can give him hope for a stalemate once in a 100 of such games.
>
> "So I think it's okay."
> I do not.

The rules are for all time controls. If you stalemate with lots of material up, it is an accident. In normal games, though, the stalemate factor is 'can I hold a certain position because stalemate counts as a draw'.
So thanks to/owing to stalemate a lot more of positions are playable. That means the winner gets more credit in form of applause and distinction for converting what little draw range surmounting advantage he or she had to mate, while the defender gets more credit in form of recognition and points, for the tough job of trying to keep a game alive in a worse position to the end.
I see it as a twofold motivation. "So I think it's okay."

And now to my stalemate captcha.

@ungewichtet said in #64:
>... In normal games, though, the stalemate factor is 'can I hold a certain position because stalemate counts as a draw'.

It's true, but in reality such games are extremely rare. I can imagine that happen in the endgame, but usually the draw is achieved by lack of material or by repetition.

@pointlesswindows said in #65:
> It's true, but in reality such games are extremely rare. I can imagine that happen in the endgame, but usually the draw is achieved by lack of material or by repetition.

It needs to be remembered that losing all material the stalemate is not the only result. The other common scenarios in such games are 1. A win because they have an extra pawn or more on the board 2. A draw because the opponent runs out of time. Basically it applies a lot more pressure to the person with extra material.

On other servers, I used to enjoy bullet a lot because it gave you the opportunity to improve your endgame technique and I found it improved my overall OTB game because of the practical nature of the task. On Lichess, however the games are a little manic and it is clear the emphasis at Lichess is speed. In my opinion emphasising speed over skill makes the form less instructive.

The problem (and not only in chess) is that too many people are speed obsessed. Their attention span is very short at the same time. Humans are not designed for speed. If you want to calculate quickly use a computer. If you want to travel quickly use a car. Wild animals are faster than humans. They move faster, react faster, live faster. Humans are for the intellect. Science and inventions take a lot of time and resources. Animals are not capable of that. It's weird that so many people is trying to be like animals.

3. Not all pre-moves are equal.

In some of my bullet games I eventually play someone who plays the opening at light speed. This game is one such example...


Now count them, that is 10 opening moves without using any time. So after 20 ply I am already 8 seconds behind in the game. And it is not as if my speed is slow with a pace number of 62, its just my opponent is quicker with a pace speed of 70. Now we are constantly told that only 1 premove is possible at a time. So how do we explain what we have just witnessed? Well...at a guess, for want of a better explanation, it must be some combination of the right amount of lag with constant pre moving. Neverthless it does tend to unbalance the games.

Of course others might suggest that moving without using time may be further proof of an ai experiment. A 3rd category to add to our collection. But, I am certain there will be naysayers, who will easily dismiss these claims as "conspiracy theory".
Just as I am equally sure, that they won't show the same example happening in their own games!

Continuing with the theme...

3. Not all pre-moves are equal......

Played in the bullets shield against this player who is under 2100.



That is a pace of 84 which is about 25 % faster then the speed that Magnus Carlsen plays, not bad for an untitled amateur!
42 seconds left on the clock, are the games balanced?

@pointlesswindows said in #65:
> It's true, but in reality such games are extremely rare. I can imagine that happen in the endgame, but usually the draw is achieved by lack of material or by repetition.

Stalemate is important in pawn endings, therefore in rook endings, too. Rarer stuff matters the more when it does occur: Desperado rooks.. outside pawns and wrong bishops.. can you guard your last pawn in 2N vs. N.. who can deliver checkmate with N+B? And of course swindling your way into stalemate is also great, a truly funny human vs. human resource- to be more aware of the powers of the pieces and divert the stronger side. It is also legitimate to hope for an accidental stalemate in a basic endgame.. what is plausible for N+B can be true for Q or R.
I think stalemate as a draw is a factor half of the time, really, and I like it because it rewards defending and accentuates attacking. While I know it could be seen as oversimplifying defending and frustrating attacking, but that is not my bleak view at all.
You know, in most other games, when you score, the other side can score as well, while in chess there is only the final score. But being up or down a pawn, an exchange or a position makes so much more of a difference in chess than being up a goal in football, a set in volleyball or a throw in wrestling. But playing chess should learn us not to give up or take it easy, too. So, defending a worse position needs cheering up, that's what stalemate as a draw brings in, and being better can use the challenge to overcome stalemate, as well. Totally win-win in every single game and the more so, as you are going to play both sides of this again and again in your chess life.