Any game longer than 300 moves adjudicated as a draw?

Quite funny to watch this game, actually. Just out of interest (and I haven't read the thread through), what was the reason for not mating (I usually mate when I get the chance; not a joke)?

I agree with adjudicating games as draws after move 300 for the sake of minimizing server load and making best use of bandwidth; assuming that those are the reasons why games are adjudicated as draws after move 300.

If a game goes to 300+ moves in a position where one side is clearly winning, I reckon it's highly probable that both players involved wish to continue playing that game; whatever their individual reasons may be but hopefully because both players are still having fun. A winning player can deliver mate at any time they choose to any way they choose to based on what they find either most fun or most challenging, and a losing player can resign a game that they recognize they're losing and do not wish to continue at any time; whether because they want to get to the next game, because there's other things that require their attention, or because they're not having fun. For those reasons, I think it would be fair to have a warning at move 250 that the game will be adjudicated as a draw after move 300 if it would otherwise reach move 301 without other result.

@Enny_Gima

I consider this an arrogant and hateful way of thinking. You call for retaliation because you consider it disrespectful. People who behave differently should be punished and this makes up a perfect world. It is not sane. It is tyrannic.

The direct counterpart how to perceive the situation in a loving way shows @RadiantDarkBlaze

Ah and I wanted to share one more thought to the general discussion about the point of "it's a waste of cpu power". All we do here is a waste of cpu power xD ... I will not contribute to any insights into chess by finding out new groundbreaking lines or anything. Literally ALL my games I play on lichess are either for entertainment and or for some form of communication.

Other than that I agree that it's not fundamentally important to have games that go 300+ moves and if there is a programming bug that can be avoided by the dirty fix of limiting games to 300 moves it's fine.

@aescht "And then you claim that you know how discussions should work: people should agree to your viewpoint or else the discussion is broken. Reminds me a bit of Donald Trump, btw." You throw this at me but at the same time you call @Enny_Gima tyrannic and insane. Is that the kind of discussion you want to have? I hope not.
Anyway: As repeated many times: Not resigning and not mating can't be compared. The arguments for that are given in the comments #3, #6, #7, #14, #17, #22. The winning side is just intentionally trolling and lichess doesn't want to waste CPU power on that.

Ok I started to read through a couple of your given comments.

#3 says "Don't troll your opponent and that won't happen @inversed"

IMO that says nothing. I can make the point "Don't play chess and you won't run into any argument here" that seems equivalently meaningless.

#6 "Not mating shows arrogance and disrespect towards your opponent because you believe you are so good you can do anything, you won't blunder and you can still win the game."

That is not true, I actually ran into stalemates at moves 300+ as the winning side and I found it profoundly funny and it made me laugh. Everytime I keep playing like that I know it can end in a stalemate if I am not careful but I don't mind it. I don't feel superior to people I play against. I have a different motivation and I find it not okay that you condemn me for it.

#7 "If you show off because you got a superior position, and don't checkmate your opponent when you can and instead trying to continue the game endlessly, then you really deserve it."

That seems to me like an individual feeling and this viewpoint shouldn't be forced on others who think and feel differently. It's not something fact based per se. The counter-statement "Not resigning is such a defiant unmature behavior that deserves to be punished" is also not something I would want to force on you.

And yes I was throwing my remark at @Enny_Gima because he/she says a perfect world should punish me and I think that's not okay. Many useless wars have been fought with such an attitude.

"Many useless wars have been fought with such an attitude." wtf??
"IMO that says nothing." Yes, it does: The winning side is trolling his opponent.
"That is not true, I actually ran into stalemates at moves 300+ as the winning side." That is the point...
"Not resigning is such a defiant unmature behavior that deserves to be punished" First: *immature, second: The winning side plays on for the purpose of showing off, the losing side plays on for the purpose of getting a draw or even a win, therefore this isn't a counter statement but bullsh*t.

@aescht you have Liberal views. You say that "And then you claim that you know how discussions should work: people should agree to your viewpoint or else the discussion is broken. Reminds me a bit of Donald Trump, btw." And "I consider this an arrogant and hateful way of thinking. You call for retaliation because you consider it disrespectful. People who behave differently should be punished and this makes up a perfect world. It is not sane. It is tyrannic." In other words you are tolerant to those you agree with

@GBA87 LUL, I'm liberal and I didn't call anyone in this forum arrogant or hateful for disagreeing with me but instead I try to have sensible discussion, even with @aescht...