You're pulling up a lot of other cases. WE ARE STRICTLY TALKING ABOUT A SINGLE KNIGHT OR A SINGLE BISHOP VERSUS A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF OPPOSING MATERIAL. Wait for another day to bring up any of that stuff.
Do we really need 'computer arbiter' here? The position arise when player with a single Bishop or Knight waiting the opponent's move and and can make mate in one move, we call the position 'zugzwang'. Otherwise with computer analyzes with 'the best move' I think it is still common knowledge in chess that a King with a single Bishop or Knight can't mate even a single opposing King.
I changed lichess behavior. From now on, if a player flags, and has enough material to mate, and the opponent has only K or K + B or K + N, then it's a draw.
Thibault this is amazing speed of adjusting the site slightly... thanks for taking my suggestion so seriously. The thread also highlighted reasoning behind it even for me, to try and provide evidence for why it was a good idea.
Well done and many thanks
KC
Well done and many thanks
KC
Hello!
I realize I am replying to an old thread, but I wonder if I can suggest an improvement based on the change mentioned above. Since it is now agreed that insufficient mating material is a draw, shouldn't such games be shown in the "Draws" tab? I notice one I played today is not on the draws tab. This is the game: http://en.lichess.org/VbAp4xtY39HT
Also, I notice lichess generally has two comments about the end of a game where someone wins, "how the game ended, who won". But on the draws tab, it only says "Draw". I would love to see why the game was drawn, be it three fold repetition, draw agreed upon, or other rule like the one above.
Chris
I realize I am replying to an old thread, but I wonder if I can suggest an improvement based on the change mentioned above. Since it is now agreed that insufficient mating material is a draw, shouldn't such games be shown in the "Draws" tab? I notice one I played today is not on the draws tab. This is the game: http://en.lichess.org/VbAp4xtY39HT
Also, I notice lichess generally has two comments about the end of a game where someone wins, "how the game ended, who won". But on the draws tab, it only says "Draw". I would love to see why the game was drawn, be it three fold repetition, draw agreed upon, or other rule like the one above.
Chris
No response? Has this been fixed?
Yes, the issue has been fixed.
I don't agree with Kingscrusher here. The reason why ICC have these rules (draw when it should be win according to FIDE rules), is because it's easier to implement (I've talked about the admins on ICC about this issue). Yeah, you might get some "unfair" wins here and there, but that's a part of the game when playing with a low time control.
Should we also start ending games in a draw instead of win in the cases where white wins on time when he only has a pawn against queen + rook, because it's unlikely that white would ever win the game?
Should we also start ending games in a draw instead of win in the cases where white wins on time when he only has a pawn against queen + rook, because it's unlikely that white would ever win the game?
+1 LM Assios
I also don't agree with Kingchrusher. By Fide rules it should be a win.
KC also said :
"Actually technically statistically you are encouraging the breach of OTB chess rules as far as UK chess OTB is concerned, if you want to start talking about rules. The rules is basically being able to claim a draw in OTB chess if the opponent is making no effort whatsoever to win the position by normal means.
You will be in breach of this statistically with the current policy far more than anything else. Someone moving their single knight or bishop around with the aim of achieving a win on time is such a breach - and will draw people away from this site who have some knowledge of OTB chess, and the notion of winning by "normal
means". It is actually in OTB rules. Check it out. "
</endquote>
http://en.lichess.org/forum/lichess-feedback/no-mating-material-shouldnt-win?page=3#21
While yes, a player could claim a draw in OTB, he would have to do it before the game is finished, so technically the new implementation isn't at all an improvement in regards to this.
If this argument by KC meant anything in the decision to change the implementation to what it is now, I would strongly encourage the devs to reconsider it.
In regards to the quoted, technically an improvement would basically require lichess to implement some kind of arbiter which the player can call while the game is still in progress. I'm not sure what the feasibility of implementing such a thing would be, but a possible implementation would be to give an option to call "the arbiter" when the opponent only has a minor piece and if there is no forced mate, to make it a draw (if not a draw, then the player with the minor piece should get some extra time). In the future this could possibly be enhanced further for deadlocked positions, but that would, IMO, be a greater degree of difficulty.
However, if no arbiter is implemented, I still think that the implementation should be reverted to follow fide flag fall rules, since the current implementation breaches the rules, and it technically does not improve things in regards to the quoted.
KC also said :
"Actually technically statistically you are encouraging the breach of OTB chess rules as far as UK chess OTB is concerned, if you want to start talking about rules. The rules is basically being able to claim a draw in OTB chess if the opponent is making no effort whatsoever to win the position by normal means.
You will be in breach of this statistically with the current policy far more than anything else. Someone moving their single knight or bishop around with the aim of achieving a win on time is such a breach - and will draw people away from this site who have some knowledge of OTB chess, and the notion of winning by "normal
means". It is actually in OTB rules. Check it out. "
</endquote>
http://en.lichess.org/forum/lichess-feedback/no-mating-material-shouldnt-win?page=3#21
While yes, a player could claim a draw in OTB, he would have to do it before the game is finished, so technically the new implementation isn't at all an improvement in regards to this.
If this argument by KC meant anything in the decision to change the implementation to what it is now, I would strongly encourage the devs to reconsider it.
In regards to the quoted, technically an improvement would basically require lichess to implement some kind of arbiter which the player can call while the game is still in progress. I'm not sure what the feasibility of implementing such a thing would be, but a possible implementation would be to give an option to call "the arbiter" when the opponent only has a minor piece and if there is no forced mate, to make it a draw (if not a draw, then the player with the minor piece should get some extra time). In the future this could possibly be enhanced further for deadlocked positions, but that would, IMO, be a greater degree of difficulty.
However, if no arbiter is implemented, I still think that the implementation should be reverted to follow fide flag fall rules, since the current implementation breaches the rules, and it technically does not improve things in regards to the quoted.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.