play 1 inc
@BerserkAsIfUWereMad said in #17:
> Should this be a draw or a win for white if black loses on time?
> lichess.org/editor/8/p5kr/6bn/q7/8/P7/4K3/8_b_-_-_0_1
A win for White. Even a complete newbie can't play that bad to lose all material. Plus if so, then consider the case as if it's beginner then how come he/she reached such dominating position. Use common sense sometimes!
An ultrabullet fan spotted!
> Should this be a draw or a win for white if black loses on time?
> lichess.org/editor/8/p5kr/6bn/q7/8/P7/4K3/8_b_-_-_0_1
A win for White. Even a complete newbie can't play that bad to lose all material. Plus if so, then consider the case as if it's beginner then how come he/she reached such dominating position. Use common sense sometimes!
An ultrabullet fan spotted!
If you dislike being flagged, then play with increment. The purpose of increment is to fight back against people who try to win by timeout, you should've learned that by now.
The starting position is very likely a draw as well, so by your logic we shouldn't begin a game of chess at all. The point of any game is to have fun in the first place. Chess being a draw doesn't kill the fun. Moreover, it makes the game healthier knowing that if you play well enough, the player with the white pieces will not be able to win, no matter what opening they might try.
By playing a chess game with somebody, you have agreed that you will respect your opponent's decision of playing on until a factor described by the rules of the game concludes the game (be it a loss by timeout, checkmate, stalemate, threefold repetition or 50 move rule).
The starting position is very likely a draw as well, so by your logic we shouldn't begin a game of chess at all. The point of any game is to have fun in the first place. Chess being a draw doesn't kill the fun. Moreover, it makes the game healthier knowing that if you play well enough, the player with the white pieces will not be able to win, no matter what opening they might try.
By playing a chess game with somebody, you have agreed that you will respect your opponent's decision of playing on until a factor described by the rules of the game concludes the game (be it a loss by timeout, checkmate, stalemate, threefold repetition or 50 move rule).
We should sue FIDE for this
@Akbar2thegreat said in #20:
> Even a complete newbie can't play that bad unless bribed. Moreover, he/she would get crushed in the opening.
Now try explaining that to a computer. Any FIDE rules involving an arbiter can't be implemented. FWIW I agree with you on that, but that's not the point. The question is how would you program a computer to be able to do what you want, bearing in mind that having an instance of Stockfish as an "arbiter" of any and all games is impractical.
> Even a complete newbie can't play that bad unless bribed. Moreover, he/she would get crushed in the opening.
Now try explaining that to a computer. Any FIDE rules involving an arbiter can't be implemented. FWIW I agree with you on that, but that's not the point. The question is how would you program a computer to be able to do what you want, bearing in mind that having an instance of Stockfish as an "arbiter" of any and all games is impractical.
@ArnieChipmunk said in #1:
> A nice platform such as lichess shouldn’t be abused by silly flaggers who are too weak to win by any normal means.
First of all it is not nice to call someone "silly flagger" when you are too slow. It is not enough to play well, you gotta play fast!
I don't think, that chess should be played online with special rules especially nowadays, where online platforms are in a large part substituting chess in real life. An alternative solution not contradicting chess rules in real life could be an additional small increment after move 60 for longer time controls, for instance:
* Blitz: 1 second increment after move 60
* Rapid: 2 seconds ...
* Classical: 3 seconds ...
A test could be a "traditional" weekly blitz arena and in parallel at second "modern" weekly blitz arena with the additional second after move 60. And then let's see, what users prefer!
And of course Lichess could also make this option available for arenas hosted by users.
> A nice platform such as lichess shouldn’t be abused by silly flaggers who are too weak to win by any normal means.
First of all it is not nice to call someone "silly flagger" when you are too slow. It is not enough to play well, you gotta play fast!
I don't think, that chess should be played online with special rules especially nowadays, where online platforms are in a large part substituting chess in real life. An alternative solution not contradicting chess rules in real life could be an additional small increment after move 60 for longer time controls, for instance:
* Blitz: 1 second increment after move 60
* Rapid: 2 seconds ...
* Classical: 3 seconds ...
A test could be a "traditional" weekly blitz arena and in parallel at second "modern" weekly blitz arena with the additional second after move 60. And then let's see, what users prefer!
And of course Lichess could also make this option available for arenas hosted by users.
@oberschlumpf said in #26:
> First of all it is not nice to call someone "silly flagger" when you are too slow. It is not enough to play well, you gotta play fast!
>
I agree, but was referring specifically to flaggers who play on in KN vs KN just because they have 3 seconds more. That is just silly. If you don’t agree with that, then we don’t have a common basis for discussion I fear :-)
> First of all it is not nice to call someone "silly flagger" when you are too slow. It is not enough to play well, you gotta play fast!
>
I agree, but was referring specifically to flaggers who play on in KN vs KN just because they have 3 seconds more. That is just silly. If you don’t agree with that, then we don’t have a common basis for discussion I fear :-)
@ArnieChipmunk said in #1:
> Hello, I’ve been playing online chess since 1995 and am still surprised lichess allows flagging in endgames where both players have only one minor piece left, such as KN vs KB or KB vs KB. I understand there are theoretical wins in such positions, but why not allow someone to ‘try’ a mate for say a maximum of 5 more moves, and then call it a day? A similar thing can be done for KR vs KR which in 99.999% is also an immediate draw. Sure, allow the ‘flagger’ to try for a few moves and potentially reward his faster play, but then show a little mercy on the poor person being flagged - and indeed the spirit of the game, which stipulates you can’t win with just one minor piece left. It’s the decent thing to do. A nice platform such as lichess shouldn’t be abused by silly flaggers who are too weak to win by any normal means.
You can't seriously be suggesting that the clock should change the rules of the game for all time controls, or that different time controls should have different rules. USCF tried such experiments which caused it to have such an enormous rule book.
> Hello, I’ve been playing online chess since 1995 and am still surprised lichess allows flagging in endgames where both players have only one minor piece left, such as KN vs KB or KB vs KB. I understand there are theoretical wins in such positions, but why not allow someone to ‘try’ a mate for say a maximum of 5 more moves, and then call it a day? A similar thing can be done for KR vs KR which in 99.999% is also an immediate draw. Sure, allow the ‘flagger’ to try for a few moves and potentially reward his faster play, but then show a little mercy on the poor person being flagged - and indeed the spirit of the game, which stipulates you can’t win with just one minor piece left. It’s the decent thing to do. A nice platform such as lichess shouldn’t be abused by silly flaggers who are too weak to win by any normal means.
You can't seriously be suggesting that the clock should change the rules of the game for all time controls, or that different time controls should have different rules. USCF tried such experiments which caused it to have such an enormous rule book.
@Toadofsky said in #28:
> You can't seriously be suggesting that the clock should change the rules of the game for all time controls, or that different time controls should have different rules. USCF tried such experiments which caused it to have such an enormous rule book.
I am not suggesting this. I just think that these basic endgames should always be automatically declared a draw after say 5 moves. I really don’t see what the disadvantage of that is, except some minor additional programming.
> You can't seriously be suggesting that the clock should change the rules of the game for all time controls, or that different time controls should have different rules. USCF tried such experiments which caused it to have such an enormous rule book.
I am not suggesting this. I just think that these basic endgames should always be automatically declared a draw after say 5 moves. I really don’t see what the disadvantage of that is, except some minor additional programming.
@ArnieChipmunk #27:
My suggestion was more general, because endgames with one side having only a minor piece are only a small subset of dead drawn positions.
White premoves Bc4-Bd5-Bc4 no matter what.
My suggestion was more general, because endgames with one side having only a minor piece are only a small subset of dead drawn positions.
White premoves Bc4-Bd5-Bc4 no matter what.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.