Just wondering after reading that in another tread: "don't blame the rules that you agreed before starting the game" or something like that, saying that all rules on lichess are based on FIDE.
Well, I don't think it's fair to give the victory to someone who has only king + knight and starts playing fast to flag out the opponent who has more material arguing that the opponent can make a suicidal sequence of moves; so, are there another set of rules and different entities available?
here in Britain there is the English chess federation and chess Scotland and welsh chess union, none of them have their own rules set to my knowledge.
The Rules are the Rules...
There are a lot of other games if you don't like them. Checkers, Poker come to mind!
Technically, a player cannot win if they do not have enough material to theoretically checkmate their opponent. If their opponent runs out of time in that scenario, it would be a draw. Time is also a dimension of playing ability, despite many slower players detesting that reality.
Sure, most countries have their own chess federations, and each site (
chess.com, chess24,
lichess.org) often has its own minor changes to the formula. The reason it is more or less uniform throughout all the federations and websites is because it is already fair and logical.
Remember that everyone is playing the same game with the same rules :)
So you're saying that it's not fair to give somebody a win who only has a knight. What if you have all your pieces and your opponent has a knight plus some shabby pawn but you lose on time. Now how's it fair to give him the win in that case?
@DVRazor because you wasted all your time keeping your pieces but not mating them or taking their shabby knight and pawn...
he obviously used his time wisely and beat you accordingly
To answer
@josevitor91 , there is USCF (United States), CFC (Canada), and such. Most countries have thsir own chess federations.
Thank you guys, I'd like to see a different set of rules, my point is the argument "If you play Chess, at the same time you agree with FIDE rules", or something like that.
I'll search for the national federations.
#5 If the opponent still has a pawn, he has a win condition, it's as silly as to have a Knight, but the Knight can't checkmate with the King and the pawn can, that's enough to be fair. Note that your case is really difficult to see happening, a more realistic example would be an ending of for example King and Rook vs King and pawn, and depending on the position, the pawn can still save the day itself after a strategical last trade, blocking with the King the path to protect the promotion square for example, it's a winning condition and that's simply enough to argue at least. Another point: pawn endings require a lot of study from you, depending on the rank the pawn is, it's draw or win, even a single pawn, sometimes you can't blocade as fast as you want, you can fall in a zug position.. in the other hand, you can study anything you want, you will never be able to make yourself a win with a single Knight, because parte of the mate depends on your opponent top. You mau say that if you have only a blocked pawn you also depend on your opponent, but to try to hold the win on time in this case is more similar to that cases when you force some trade by repeating moves or claiming draw by repetition, you are using legit ways to try to favor the position, because under pressure your opponent can free your winning condition to avoid the draw, which is a way different case of the Knight that Will never mate for real.
The argument that "I would never do that" has a slippery slope. Take this hypothetical situation: Magnus flags when he is playing against a 600 rated player. Magnus has every one of his pieces, and the 600 player only has a queen. Not there would be no way the 600 would ever win, so should the game be declared a draw?
When you give up you're essentially giving up control of the game to a monkey that only plays random moves. When I get low on time I start to play worse, I think we all do. I play moves I would never would play if I had time. Your argument that your opponent has to help falls off, because winning anything requires the opponent to help. I mean if I flag on move 2 where nobody has a advantage should the game be a draw, because my opponent has to make a bad move in the first place for me to win?
