"This can be determined by any chess player and doesn't require arbitration. Using the technologies of chess engines this can even be done automatically." The decision would have to be agreed on by both players at the table...if it was not, then it would indeed require arbitration. The use of an engine to rule on the position is technically arbitration.
Regardless, whether arbitration were required or not, it is not possible for Lichess to engine check final positions, nor is it really possible to send for arbitration. My argument still stands, the spirit of the rule (and in 99% or more of all endgame positions, the letter of it) is being followed. I see no reason to alter the functionality, it's better than most online sites do (as I'm pretty sure even FICS goes on the timeout = win rule, though I may be mistaken). I think the whole purpose of Lichess is to be different in some respects from everywhere else and attempt to create the best chess experience possible using as little resources as possible, imo. I may be wrong, I don't know the mission, but I still say you're beating a dead horse.
"You always lose on time, unless your opponent has insufficient material (i.e. very specifically defined as a king only, or a king and a single piece that is not a pawn, rook, or queen...the 2 knight mate is theoretically possible so it isn't considered insufficient material by FIDE standards) to secure a victory."
Duh, Wulfseige, you're so ADHD.
Did you not know that that is NOT how the rules are implemented on this site?
The list idea I gave (always make a timeout a loss except the most common cases, if enemy has only 1 King or 1 King+Bishop v. rook) was the quick fix because dougthehead's game was wrongly declared as a draw, when he should have won it.
How do you fuck up and declare a timeout as draw on a game where both sides could have won?
It's BECAUSE this site's detection algorithm is flawed.
Seriously, if you'd looked at the first link of the other thread instead of immediately entering the thread just to look for some long discussion/argument of posts that annoyed you into challenging its merit you'd see that there was already evidence for a simple, minimal-interference change that improves the detection scheme all-around to fixing falsely declared draws for games that should have been won.
Um. I looked at the first link of the other thread. He had insufficient material to win (a knight and a king) and it was declared a draw. The POSITION allowed a potential win (with suicidal play from Black) which under FIDE would allow him to claim a win by proving that line (and as I said, that would generally in a tournament setting require arbitration). I'm not sure what you're even arguing now. Perhaps because this argument started 2 weeks ago I've forgotten the position, but I was pretty certain that the player had only a knight and a king, and the only reason he could win was because the opponent had a pawn that might have allowed for a smothered mate. I'll go back and look at it again.
Yup, it's as I said. The site detected that knight and pawn is insufficient mating material under normal conditions of play, and therefore declared a draw. The position was sort of a fluke in that there is a "possible" mate. Everything I said is still 100% accurate. Thanks for continuing to drag it out more and prove me more right though.
That first line in #14 should have read "knight and king is insufficient" not knight and pawn.
Wulfsige you suck.
It's called tactics, if one player is going to position where he's king has nowhere to go and cannot move any other piece (purposely if he thinks he cannot win), no matter what "no draw" repetition moves he plays it is valid in chess. Lose is when someone is checkmated or runs out of time, that's it.
I don't know why you are philosophizing
wtf i'm totally lost here
isn't everyone agreeing on how the error is such a small occurence nothing needs to be fixed?
@xiaoqiao You are always lost, in time and space.
but you're an anonymous nobody.
so suck it
as long as you're anonymous
you can suck ma balls cuz you don't count.
And you are xianqiao, that's the same as if you are anonymous, your name is not telling anything!
But your behavior is so entertaining to me as you are dumb