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

@Frogster64 said in #50:
> 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?

It is worth comparing the positions where the World champion Magnus Carlsen suffers a similar fate. Speaking for myself, I can guarantee that it is not deliberate on my behalf to draw a won position.

@Firegoat7 said in #40:
> I suggest you read Lichess terms of service on multi accounting.
> lichess.org/terms-of-service
2 accs is ok, and even more if approved by mod

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

You are using your stalemates as evidence that something strange is going on. But you are the one forcing all the stalemates. It's evidence that you're a troll. Nothing else.

@DERG_CHESS said in #52:
> 2 accs is ok, and even more if approved by mod

I stand corrected.

Shouldn't the rule read....

Multiple accounts - Having more than one account is allowed, under certain circumstances
instead of .....
Multiple accounts - Having more than one account is not allowed,

@Frogster64 said in #53:
> firegoat, your stalemate positions are here:
> lichess.org/@/Firegoat7/search?players.a=firegoat7&status=32&sort.field=d&sort.order=desc
>
> You are using your stalemates as evidence that something strange is going on. But you are the one forcing all the stalemates. It's evidence that you're a troll. Nothing else.

Does it not require a certain positional skill in chess to set up a stalemate opportunity?

Congrats, you have that skill. Not too impressive when you're up two queens, but if that's what you like to do, go for it.

@Frogster64 said in #56:
> Congrats, you have that skill. Not too impressive when you're up two queens, but if that's what you like to do, go for it.

I get that you are trolling. As long as it is recognised by everyone that the person who sets up the stalemate positionally is
the player with the lost position. And yet we heard from a player who has a positive record for stalemating that they consistently hang pieces as they are focused on speed.

So the question is, again, ....Is playing for stalemate a deliberate strategy?

It is known that computers or bots play for stalemate
Just as it is known that playing too fast results in players sometimes missing a mate or free queen
now how likely is it....that a player who plays fast sets up stalemates?

What is the probability of that number?

Re: #57: It isn't "setting up a stalemate". But it is a strategy, that is, a strategy of moving your king semi-randomly and as quickly as possible when you have a time advantage and no pieces left. This is not a difficult strategy to come up with, and then you wait for your opponent to blunder. Most of the time it probably doesn't work.

@derkleineJo said in #39:
> Have fun anyway - no you won't, sadly!

Earlier, you repeat your suggestion for the op to close their own account, because you may say "crap" when you see "crap". Here, you repeat your good-bye 'Have fun but you won't'. What are you giving, sympathy from the devil?

Nothing against you, but I'd always want to solidarize with what and who is dismissed like this.

@derkleineJo said in #39:
> And 10 games doesn't prove anything, because the statistical "mass" is way too small.

The expected stats should be 50:50 (or 5:5). Now, the mass of bullet games ending in stalemate the @Firegoat7 rely on is stated to be 88, not 10. Of these not around 50%, as could be expected, but 95% were, as they put it, "produced against" them.

The phrase "produced against me" irritated me at first, because I find if I lose half a point I want at least consider myself the active part, delivering stalemate.
But the phrase has some virtue, as it is the op's theory that ai is playing actively for stalemate (and training us in that) here.

So far, we have only one other participant with a sufficient sample of games in the survey, @pj_diesel, #48, offering a sample mass of 41 games and a score of 75%- in his favour.

@Firegoat7 adressed that in #57:
>And yet we heard from a player who has a positive record for stalemating that they consistently hang pieces as they are focused on speed.

>So the question is, again, ....Is playing for stalemate a deliberate strategy?

>It is known that computers or bots play for stalemate
>Just as it is known that playing too fast results in players sometimes missing a mate or free queen
>now how likely is it....that a player who plays fast sets up stalemates?

This does not convince me. Of course a player hanging pieces or positions can be quick and, playing to flag, develop good skills in playing for stalemate.

So far we do not have convincing support for the theory on the stalemate frontier. Neither from the experiment frontier.

I have 2 stalemates in 1600+ games and a low connection right now, so I can't help.

@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.

Stalemate as a draw rewards the defenders for their troubles and a victory is more marvelous. So I think it's okay. Moreover, making two deadly attacks count one as succesful and the other one as not supports the idea that chess is about garding the king as the overall principle. The results mock the will to win while the untouchability of the king stands further out. Quite possibly, the king cannot be left en prise to a simple check for the same reason.

@ungewichtet said in #59:

>
> This does not convince me. Of course a player hanging pieces or positions can be quick and, playing to flag, develop good skills in playing for stalemate.

I would suggest that the players who are running their kings around like headless chickens at a speed of 0.2 moves per second without walking into check are not thinking about the position at all. In my opinion, they are either mashing a hot key ie gamification of chess or they are not even human. If I am right, and I could be wrong, then online chess is already in a place where ethics are compromised.