game lost by time in a position where opponent can't win

@Jack4557 said in #19:
> Yes, but Lichess doesn't look at the position,

Just to state the obvious: this isn't a specific Lichess rule. The game would be lost in OTB according to FIDE rules as well.

(And yes, USCF rules may differ....)

You are absolutley right

Why does this discussion never come up when a player with only king and pawn left against king and queen and rook wins because of timeout? No sane player ever would ... etcetc. Still people don't complain about "unfair rules".

I suspect the answer might be the same as why noone ever asks "Why did I get more points of rating than someone else with the same difference?" or "Why did I gain more points of rating than my opponent lost?" but the forum is full of people asking about the opposite cases (or not bothering to ask and complaining that it's unfair/bug and must be fixed).

@Sybotes said in #23:
> Why does this discussion never come up when a player with only king and pawn left against king and queen and rook wins because of timeout? No sane player ever would ... etcetc. Still people don't complain about "unfair rules".

The comparison may be appropriate, the irony is just silly.... or would you really play as white in this example:
lichess.org/editor/KN6/1b6/1k6/8/8/8/8/8_w_-_-_0_1?color=white
?
Of course no sane player would play in such way to get "self mated", this is the common sense I was referring to, if you have no common sense then go on with silly irony...

And still of course it happened to me to lose by time in a totally winning position, no discussion was opened... simply because if you take too long to get a winning position then you lose by time, it's normal.
What is not normal (IMO) is supposing that one player plays like a moron to get self mated....

@Sicilian67 said in #25:
> What is not normal (IMO) is supposing that one player plays like a moron to get self mated....
So now you might define exactly what "like a moron" is so you can codify it in the rules. For me it would be pretty moronesque to lose with a queen ahead ... No? 2 queens? A position mate in 1? Where is the limit?

I think the rule "If you timeout you lose (except there is no theoretical way to lose)" is quite simple. Might lack common sense, but be it so.

@Sicilian67 said in #25:
> What is not normal (IMO) is supposing that one player plays like a moron to get self mated....
Nobody does that. The problem is that you - like many others - look at it from the opposite side than you actually should.

The simplest form of the timeout rule would be - and AFAIK it in fact was, originally - that who times out, loses, period. And then people realized that it's not actually fair to lose in case it's not even theoretically possible to lose in any way. That's why we ended up with what's in FIDE rules.

Your hypothetic rule based on "common sense" has one big flaw: there is no consensus about that "common sense" you would like to base your decision on. You are right that "nobody sane" would play like a moron and get checkmated from the position you presented. Hm... and how about this:

lichess.org/editor/7k/8/6KP/8/8/8/8/8_w_-_-_0_1?color=white

Everyone understands that you just keep repeating Kg8 - Kh8 until white realizes it's hopeless or stalemates you, right? So should that also be a draw if black times out? And how about this?

lichess.org/editor/8/8/8/4k3/4P3/4K3/8/8_w_-_-_0_1?color=white

Even here, you might say that black would have to be a complete moron to get checkmated - and I would have to agree. And we could go on and different people would have completely different notions what is clearly a draw and what can be lost without being a complete moron. Few days ago, I watched a review of a game between two strong players (IIRC ~2100 and ~1950 FIDE ELO) where in the endgame both Stockfish and the GM commentating the live stream immediately saw that it's clearly a draw - but both players were convinced that they are winning - and one of them actually won in the end.

That's why it's much better not to step on the thin ice of "common sense based rules" and have an exact rule instead.

And maybe direct a bit of that anger towards yourself. You took most of your last second to play Ke3, when promoting would have been a safe draw. Or using over thirty seconds for a single move whit less than 90 seconds left...

It's ok to dislike the rules, but they are what they are, and they make sense in many ways and most if the cases.

What you are saying implies that we should have an arbiter have a look at each single game with a time out, and then judge the likelihood of getting mated. Good luck with that.

"Common sense" is knowing the rules and accepting their application...

@Sybotes said in #26:
> Might lack common sense, but be it so.

This is the point IMO. Nothing else to say, else we could write books on the opportunity to go on following not good rules.

@nadjarostowa said in #28:

> "Common sense" is knowing the rules and accepting their application...

Aha, say it to Bobby Fischer or to Kasparov (when he created the PCA).
Again, nothing else to say else we never stop with arguments.... let's say there is who likes to blindly follow the rules and who wants to use his right to criticize the (not good) rules.