From FIDE Laws of Chess (
www.fide.com/component/handbook/?id=208&view=article):
5.2.2 "The game is drawn when a position has arisen in which neither player can checkmate the opponent’s king with any series of legal moves. The game is said to end in a ‘dead position’. This immediately ends the game [...]"
6.9 "[...] if a player does not complete the prescribed number of moves in the allotted time, the game is lost by thatplayer. 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."
I tested this:
When that position occurred, me and my opponent agreed to a draw. What worries me is that if we didn't, in the case that any of us didn't have enough time to make 50 moves, it could have been considered a win/loss for any of us (because we still have pawns). Is that intended, a bug, or a technology limit?
If this was intended, I would consider it a huge mistake. It reduces a beautiful game to a speed race. It must be a bug, cause I don't believe that today's engines couldn't solve this problem in a fraction of millisecond.
...
My suspicion is that, yes, you would be required to play 50 moves here if your opponent doesn't agree to a draw. I imagine the software probably only checks for very specific conditions (is there enough material left), and can't evaluate the position in real time quickly enough on every board to determine that there is no way to progress.
As long as you have a few seconds left, it shouldn't be any trouble to premove this out.
Checking for such positions would be computatinally expensive, so I think the answer is that it is because of technical constraints :)
Really "dead" positions are quite rare in practice, and most players will just agree to a draw. For players who are worried about their opponent playing on in such a position I will recommend a thing called increment.
According to USCF rules, if a player claims insufficient losing chances, you are to allow the game to continue with a delay or increment. This rule would be easy to implement, but then we would be flooded with complaints that a "bug" changed their time control.
Although a test for a blocked position wouldn't be hard to calculate, just find the series of squares that can't be passed and ensure that the kings are on the right(wrong?) side.
However, testing this in every position would be a waste of the CPU, and would eventually slow down the site, maybe this function could be called only when a draw offer is extended.
Firstly, I suggest that you move your complaint to the feedback forum, just so the lichess team is more aware of your concern. To greatly increase the chances of it being accepted, create the code to show how easy this would be, and maybe have others back up your suggestion to show that it is in demand.
Lol I must say that the insufficient losing chances rule is rather silly. This is also because you can claim it even in positions that are not "landlocked" however now for my rant.
Just like in life, time is an important factor that must be observed. In a war if you do not have your supplies in time you will lose. If this was a blitz game I find it even more absurd that people would complain about losing. If your opponent used the same amount of time, the position would most likely be in their favor. The addition of increment and delay has dulled the importance of time in a game for "purists" and their nonsensical beliefs. "I would have won if I had more time". "It would have been a draw If I had more time" These are just excuses. (Especially in a speed chess).
In slower chess, it also denies the importance of time in a game. I believe that it is unfair to just assume you would be winning if your opponent used the same amount of time as you did. If you use more time, you should be punished even in positions that are deadlocked. Anyways my two cents, have a great day or evening!
Chess is not war, and that tired, predictable cliche of an analogy is meaningless. There is no clock in war, you don't take turns, you don't agree to not attack your enemy when it is not your turn. Chess is not war. This is a stupid, stupid comparison, and one that people make constantly. Chess is a game, and if you have a point to make, you should compare it to other games.
Finally, while I agree that time is a vital component, with this: " you should be punished even in positions that are deadlocked." ... you are undermining your own stupid war analogy. A war is not won simply by waiting for a clock to run out. Your opponents may die or flee or whatever it takes for this absurd comparison, but if you cannot physically go occupy the space they abandoned, what have you won? Absolutely nothing.
It is a stupid analogy.
As for the original post, I suggest the commenter either offer to pay for a server to analyze every game played here in real time - do you have any idea how much that would cost? - or accept the limitations of this free and fantastic Web site, and acknowledge that a few lost rating points attached to your Internet chess alias is not at all worth worrying about.
It is technically impossible/ highly impracticable. There is not other reason for not using it 1:1 according to FIDE.
