I actually checkmated my opponent this way once. They were busy eating my pawns. When one pawn left, I locked the king in the corner h8 with my own king f8 and opponent's pawn h7. Then delivered a checkmate with a knight.
Is it not possible to implement something that checks whether the pieces are close to an edge or a corner. If the pieces are in the middle of the board it is unconstructive to rule loss if you know what I mean.
@Brian-E
During the ICC's days it was a ruled draw and i guess it was possible to pm admins to alter the result if there were forced mates available on the board. The ICC way was good in the vast majority of cases and it was like i said possible to pm administrators to alter the result if forced mates were available at the end.
@Brian-E
During the ICC's days it was a ruled draw and i guess it was possible to pm admins to alter the result if there were forced mates available on the board. The ICC way was good in the vast majority of cases and it was like i said possible to pm administrators to alter the result if forced mates were available at the end.
@Nordlandia said in #12:
> Is it not possible to implement something that checks whether the pieces are close to an edge or a corner. If the pieces are in the middle of the board it is unconstructive to rule loss if you know what I mean.
>
And if the pieces are a couple of squares away from the corner? A line will have to be drawn, and it will be a very complex line if we go down that road. Laws of chess need to be as simple as possible so that there is no arguing with them.
> @Brian-E
>
> During the ICC's days it was a ruled draw and i guess it was possible to pm admins to alter the result if there were forced mates available on the board. The ICC way was good in the vast majority of cases and it was like i said possible to pm administrators to alter the result if forced mates were available at the end.
Yes, I too played on the ICC from 1996 until 2013. It was a labour-intensive site for its admins. Plenty of games and situations were referred to them. If Lichess has those human resources they could be put to good use.
But however many admins there are (and I suspect they are not adequate on this site for this purpose), you can't achieve perfection if the recourse has to be after the game has finished. By then the tournament will be over and the winners announced and everyone will have moved on.
> Is it not possible to implement something that checks whether the pieces are close to an edge or a corner. If the pieces are in the middle of the board it is unconstructive to rule loss if you know what I mean.
>
And if the pieces are a couple of squares away from the corner? A line will have to be drawn, and it will be a very complex line if we go down that road. Laws of chess need to be as simple as possible so that there is no arguing with them.
> @Brian-E
>
> During the ICC's days it was a ruled draw and i guess it was possible to pm admins to alter the result if there were forced mates available on the board. The ICC way was good in the vast majority of cases and it was like i said possible to pm administrators to alter the result if forced mates were available at the end.
Yes, I too played on the ICC from 1996 until 2013. It was a labour-intensive site for its admins. Plenty of games and situations were referred to them. If Lichess has those human resources they could be put to good use.
But however many admins there are (and I suspect they are not adequate on this site for this purpose), you can't achieve perfection if the recourse has to be after the game has finished. By then the tournament will be over and the winners announced and everyone will have moved on.
@Brian-E said in #10:
> Article 10.2 covers the situation for OTB play. If a player is running out of time (no increment) and they think that their opponent is making no attempt to win the game by normal means, or cannot win the game normally, they can summon the arbiter for a judgment.
>
> But how do you handle the situation with automatised online play, or in OTB games where no arbiter is present?
>
> No-one thinks the current method is great. But no-one has come up with a better way. (One or two contributors here seem to think they have, but when pressed they fail to provide the details.)
>
> Can you think of a way to improve the rule?
Article 10.2 as you refer to is no part of the laws of chess since more the 12 years. The vastly changed article is now in guidlines 3.5 and only possible if announced beforehand and 3.4 of the same guidline cannot be used. And for all it's worth it was never valid for blitz games.
I mean FIDE has for such a case as a default fallback the addition of an increment. What more do you need. Do not, never, under no circumstance play without increment and you are fine.
> Article 10.2 covers the situation for OTB play. If a player is running out of time (no increment) and they think that their opponent is making no attempt to win the game by normal means, or cannot win the game normally, they can summon the arbiter for a judgment.
>
> But how do you handle the situation with automatised online play, or in OTB games where no arbiter is present?
>
> No-one thinks the current method is great. But no-one has come up with a better way. (One or two contributors here seem to think they have, but when pressed they fail to provide the details.)
>
> Can you think of a way to improve the rule?
Article 10.2 as you refer to is no part of the laws of chess since more the 12 years. The vastly changed article is now in guidlines 3.5 and only possible if announced beforehand and 3.4 of the same guidline cannot be used. And for all it's worth it was never valid for blitz games.
I mean FIDE has for such a case as a default fallback the addition of an increment. What more do you need. Do not, never, under no circumstance play without increment and you are fine.
@Nordlandia said in #6:
> How often does smothered mate occur compared to how many times it would be a draw with natural play. We probably just have to stick to fide's solution to the problem for the time being. It has been discussed more than a handful of times in the past and some solution to an deliberate self-mate is not easy.
It depends on material on the board.
If there are lots of pieces on board, then smothered mate is pretty likely in top 5 mating methods.
If there are just 4 pieces in all, (WK, BK, R, N) then smothered mate is not practical at all unless a player is forced to play or on agreement or when bribed.
> How often does smothered mate occur compared to how many times it would be a draw with natural play. We probably just have to stick to fide's solution to the problem for the time being. It has been discussed more than a handful of times in the past and some solution to an deliberate self-mate is not easy.
It depends on material on the board.
If there are lots of pieces on board, then smothered mate is pretty likely in top 5 mating methods.
If there are just 4 pieces in all, (WK, BK, R, N) then smothered mate is not practical at all unless a player is forced to play or on agreement or when bribed.
A possible rule: if time runs out, your opponent takes control of all pieces and tries to make a cooperative checkmate. If opponent used all their time, then it's a draw.
@Aluminium-27 said in #16:
> A possible rule: if time runs out, your opponent takes control of all pieces and tries to make a cooperative checkmate. If opponent used all their time, then it's a draw.
That would be a pretty bad rule. Imagine a timescramble on a full board. It is much harder to get a checkmate with 5 seconds in the clock out of a defensive position than on an empty Board with bishop against knight.
> A possible rule: if time runs out, your opponent takes control of all pieces and tries to make a cooperative checkmate. If opponent used all their time, then it's a draw.
That would be a pretty bad rule. Imagine a timescramble on a full board. It is much harder to get a checkmate with 5 seconds in the clock out of a defensive position than on an empty Board with bishop against knight.
@fuxx_de said in #17:
> That would be a pretty bad rule. Imagine a timescramble on a full board. It is much harder to get a checkmate with 5 seconds in the clock out of a defensive position than on an empty Board with bishop against knight.
You are just used to how it works now. If there is no possible mate anytime soon, why would you claim victory?
> That would be a pretty bad rule. Imagine a timescramble on a full board. It is much harder to get a checkmate with 5 seconds in the clock out of a defensive position than on an empty Board with bishop against knight.
You are just used to how it works now. If there is no possible mate anytime soon, why would you claim victory?
Because my opponent used all of its time?
If a win after flag would not be the default than why should you care about your time at all?
Again imagine a full board. Black is up two pawns but defending. White is objectively loosing but attacking. White flags and black hast 3 seconds left.
What schould be the outcome?
For me there is no question.
If a win after flag would not be the default than why should you care about your time at all?
Again imagine a full board. Black is up two pawns but defending. White is objectively loosing but attacking. White flags and black hast 3 seconds left.
What schould be the outcome?
For me there is no question.
@fuxx_de said in #19:
> Because my opponent used all of its time?
This is how it works now. If we talk about what rule is better, you can't argue with what the current rule is.
> Because my opponent used all of its time?
This is how it works now. If we talk about what rule is better, you can't argue with what the current rule is.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.