Look at the game that he linked in there. It shows a mate with king and knight. That's proof right there
@Sarg0n oh yeah, the queen can take the knight, thanks
@CubesAndPi i did not see any mate with a king and a knight
ok i see it
Stupidest rule of all time, because that would never happen. Not in a million years it wouldnt happen.
Are lichess rule-makers actually able to care for themselves, being so utterly devoid of common sense?
I worry about them. I hope they get the support they need.
Are lichess rule-makers actually able to care for themselves, being so utterly devoid of common sense?
I worry about them. I hope they get the support they need.
Very intelligent rule. Actually I won once N against h-pawn (mate!)
Even in the Mega db there are examples where a lone knight delivers mate accidentally.
PS: stupid are those who agree to play with a clock and complain about losing on time.
Even in the Mega db there are examples where a lone knight delivers mate accidentally.
PS: stupid are those who agree to play with a clock and complain about losing on time.
#16 Nah, the stupidest rule is the one which awards you a win for stuff like this:
@Toadofsky
Ha ha you showed him XD
@amazingname
It's true, in the game above common sense would have you lose :P
But if your opponent had more time there was this almost nonexistent chance that they would back their rooks and queen into a corner, let you promote, and then let you checkmate their king :P
Ha ha you showed him XD
@amazingname
It's true, in the game above common sense would have you lose :P
But if your opponent had more time there was this almost nonexistent chance that they would back their rooks and queen into a corner, let you promote, and then let you checkmate their king :P
I have also delivered a mate with rook pawn and knight and been mated by the same, but that's the exception, and the rare exception should never be the rule.
Let me repeat: the rare exception should never be the rule.
As for that bullet game, while the material imbalance is unusually lopsided at the end, in general there is such a thing as "sneaky pawns". That is, often enough one of those pawns does get through to promotion when the opponent is very low on time, changing a losing position to a winning position.
I've certainly won more games due to "sneaky pawns" than i've won with my opponent performing a helpmate when i have just a knight.
To be precise, i have NEVER won a game, in all my life, where the latter was the situation. I have also lost zero games due that situation.
And neither have you. And neither has anyone.
Lichess rule-makers, Get some help.
Let me repeat: the rare exception should never be the rule.
As for that bullet game, while the material imbalance is unusually lopsided at the end, in general there is such a thing as "sneaky pawns". That is, often enough one of those pawns does get through to promotion when the opponent is very low on time, changing a losing position to a winning position.
I've certainly won more games due to "sneaky pawns" than i've won with my opponent performing a helpmate when i have just a knight.
To be precise, i have NEVER won a game, in all my life, where the latter was the situation. I have also lost zero games due that situation.
And neither have you. And neither has anyone.
Lichess rule-makers, Get some help.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.