Silly idiotic rule: K+N vs. K+p is 1-0 when timeout

@Sarg0n "If your opponent has no sufficient material to mate you will be awarded with a draw. " - that's indeed the case here. His opp has a knight which is not sufficient mating material. A single white pawn would be sufficient material, as it can promote.

@game_spectator if you look through the forums you will find a number of topics like yours - the rule was changed very recently. Though I like your: "letters of the rule contradicts the spirit of the rule".

It is lost by FIDE - the mate is possible. Though it is draw by USCF - your opp has no sufficient mating material. Both are official. 2nd is more fair. Why to choose 1st?

p.s. And I feel like as the result of this change all this bullet stuff we be even more far away from chess. I am happy to know that I am not forced to play it :)

@Dr_King_Schultz

> Losing with 9 queens vs 1 pawn is also impossible without helpmate. Still, nobody complains about it...

I did not see such a real games, but I got your idea. Lets consider KQQQ vs KQ:

Say, I have 3 queens vs Stockfish with 1 queen. I have 1 second for each move. I believe that Stockfish will win. May be 99.9%. So I do not complain.

And lets consider me with K+p (king in the center of board) vs Stockfish with K+N with the same time controls. Stockfish will never win. So I complain.

@game_spectator Thanks for your feedback.

In the given game, the players did not have a 1-second increment per move.

@Toadofsky

Old-aged "draw, because white has no material to mate" seems much more appropriate to blitz without increment, although slightly imprecise.

To add precision: 4-man EGTB result for KN+KP should be result of the game when KP-player timeouts. This rule is good for any time control to release KP player from the duty to make 50 silly moves.

May be KB+KP should use the same rule.

@game_spectator I encourage reconsidering the 4-man EGTB idea since humans are capable of blundering.

Honestly I think the easiest solution (and best for long-term improvement) is for players to use at least a +1 increment.

@Toadofsky

> I encourage reconsidering the 4-man EGTB idea since humans are capable of blundering.

I do not know English well enough to answer, so I hope you understand my idea despite my strange way to say it.

Wow. Blunders. He-he. Let me tell you that I do know that blunders exist (and, say, I sometimes win fully dead-draw KR+KR positions because of opp blunders (and not because timeout)).

But blunders of KP-player in KN+KP do not matter for the question of fair human-played-position-evaluation. At all.

Yes, it is possible that KP-player will try to promote his pawn and his K will go to the corner, but then, *then*, he will be caught by EGTB and game will be considered to be lost by him.

So:

1. The biggest unfairness is to consider 99% of real-game positions to be KP-lost.

2. Small unfairness is to consider 1% of real-game positions (king near the corner) to be KP-lost, while it is not lost because KN-player do not know how to make a mate by N.

3. Negligible unfairness is to consider position equal while KP-player is engaged in risky business of promoting his pawn and will enter lost position, say, 2 moves later, but now still is in draw position according to EGTB.

EGTB is how a computer would play, not how a human would play. The only organization which uses EGTB for adjudication is the WCCC:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Computer_Chess_Championship

The rule is the same for everyone:
"if a player does not complete the prescribed number of moves in the allotted time, the game is lost by the player. However, the game is drawn, if the position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the player’s king by any possible series of legal moves."

Fair is defined "marked by impartiality: free from self-interest, prejudice, or favoritism":
http://merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fair

If players want to claim, "I could easily draw this with 1 second per move" players should use a +1 increment.

I'm completely against this change on Lichess, that simply incite a player to move his lone knight(or bishop) frenetically with premoves in the only hope to win on time with no try to mate at all. This is against the spirit of chess and left the player who lost on time in a feeling of injustice and incomprehension.

Lichess has a good behavior before (same as ICC and chess.com) : with a lone piece, only give a win on time when you have a forced mate (not a "possible mate" but a "forced mate" !), that means way less than 1% of games.
Why did you change to use the same stupid rule as FIDE ? Are subject to FIDE ? Do you thing the rule of FIDE is better ?

Yeah, it's more objective because it needs less evaluation. Say a number which probability of a mate is draw and which is lost. Mine is "zero" to gain a draw.

By the way, should I repost the unintentional one_minor piece_mates taken from the Megabase? And there are probably more played in the internet.

Advice: increment or no clock at all

Do you prefer to generalize what happens 99% of the time or what happens 1% of the time ?
Intelligence prefers to generalize what happens 99% of the time.