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

What does any of your points about bullet games have to do with AI? I'm so confused.

@Firegoat7 said in #38:
"... What is your stalemate ratio in bullet?"
9 times in 1700 games in rapid 10 min. It's like bullet for me :)

@pointlesswindows said in #42:
> "... What is your stalemate ratio in bullet?"
> 9 times in 1700 games in rapid 10 min. It's like bullet for me :)

Of those 9, How many did you force compared to your opponent?

1+0

@Firegoat7 said in #43:
> Of those 9, How many did you force compared to your opponent?

From that 9 games in 8 I was easily winning. Only once I saved a draw in a lost position. I always say that a stalemate should be a loss for the side with a stalemated king.

@pointlesswindows said in #46:
> From that 9 games in 8 I was easily winning. Only once I saved a draw in a lost position. I always say that a stalemate should be a loss for the side with a stalemated king.

All other things being equal you would expect a 50-50 distribution. Clearly with a sample size of 9 games the expectation would be that this statistic would balance out over time. It is worth comparing Magnus Carlsen in bullet.

Magnus has 71 bullet stalemates.
lichess.org/@/DrNykterstein/search?clock.initMin=60&clock.initMax=60&players.a=drnykterstein&status=32&sort.field=d&sort.order=desc

Quite a few are fairly standard King V King extra pawn etc
However, it seems that even Magnus is the victim of many more stalemates with multiple pieces compared to what he delivers upon others.
Of course it would have to be modeled over a significant population to prove that such a phenomena is statistically meaningful. If it was I would be focusing attention on the players who benefit the most in such situations.

Well, of my 41 stalemates only 10 or 11 were against me. Does this make me secretly an AI player? In fact, there is a theme among bullet stalemates: the player who gets stalemated is a worse chess player who is also better at moving fast. This can be seen in my bullet stalemates, as well as the game presented in this thread. OP's opponent was 1800 bullet, but only 1500's blitz. This indicates a person whose main skill is moving fast, and not necessarily playing well. Several of my bullet stalemates show the same: someone whose bullet rating is noticeably higher than his blitz rating. These players induce stalemates because they always have a time advantage, but also a terrible position(when playing opponents of similar strength).

@pj_diesel said in #48:
> Well, of my 41 stalemates only 10 or 11 were against me. Does this make me secretly an AI player?

Let me put it this way. If you have the ability to recognise patterns for stalemate under extreme time pressure consistently, then you should have the pattern recognition not to lose material consistently. DUCY that if you prioritise time over position, as strategy, that is is logically inconsistent to play for stalemate?

So having made that point the next question is......Is playing for a stalemate a deliberate strategy choice?

firegoat, your stalemate positions are here:
lichess.org/@/Firegoat7/search?players.a=firegoat7&status=32&sort.field=d&sort.order=desc

I look at the first 20 or so. In all of them you have a massive material advantage. You are voluntarily forcing the stalemates in winning positions. Or am I not reading this correctly?