game lost by time in a position where opponent can't win

@Sicilian67 said in #30:
> Aha, say it to Bobby Fischer or to Kasparov (when he created the PCA).
I'm not so sure these are well chosen examples to support your case. :-)

@mkubecek said in #27:
>
> lichess.org/editor/7k/8/6KP/8/8/8/8/8_w_-_-_0_1?color=white
> Everyone understands that you just keep repeating Kg8 - Kh8 until white realizes it's hopeless or stalemates you, right? So should that also be a draw if black times out? And how about this?
>
> lichess.org/editor/8/8/8/4k3/4P3/4K3/8/8_w_-_-_0_1?color=white

I see a big difference between the 2 positions you presented, for 1st one is clearly relevant the "moron" story, for the second one, how many rookies would blunder and lose as black? Many. So it's not a matter of being a moron, IMO, it's a matter of knowing the endgames rules.

> That's why it's much better not to step on the thin ice of "common sense based rules" and have an exact rule instead.

If you mean that giving the arbiters the power to use their common sense may lead to favoritism for the player who is "friend" of the aribter, then ok. Else I still trust my thinking.

@Sicilian67 said in #32:
> I see a big difference between the 2 positions you presented, for 1st one is clearly relevant the "moron" story, for the second one, how many rookies would blunder and lose as black? Many. So it's not a matter of being a moron, IMO, it's a matter of knowing the endgames rules.
...and that's exactly the problem. Some people would find losing either of them moronic, some neither of the two. Which of the three is supposed to be "right" here?

> If you mean that giving the arbiters the power to use their common sense may lead to favoritism for the player who is "friend" of the aribter, then ok.
That's also a problem but only one part of the problem. Even without favoritism (conscious or subconscious), it would inevitably result in the same position being ruled different way in different games. And therefore endless protests and appeals in tournaments. Another important question: should the measure of "expected moronity" depend on player's level? Should the same position be considered impossible to lose unless moron in a game of 2000+ ELO players but not between two ELO-less beginners? Both approaches could be advocated for - but then even the same player may play a move now and then that they would find completely moronic any other day.

Last but not least: how do you expect these "common sense" criteria to be implemented in software? The game that made you start this topic was played on lichess, after all...

@mkubecek said in #33:
> Last but not least: how do you expect these "common sense" criteria to be implemented in software? The game that made you start this topic was played on lichess, after all...

Just a rough idea, which could be possibly improved and applicable to both OTB and online:
I know in SWs there "tables" for the endgames, another kind of "tables" could be implemented at least for those cases where it's not possible to win unless one player moronly self mates himself. So K + B/N vs. K + B/N and similar cases.

Also speculation on the rule should be prevented, in my game the opponent clearly didn't take my pawn just to win by the rule... as he knew else it was a draw.... quite paradoxical story

Now that's an algorithm! Come on developpers, don't you chicken out!

But, actually, as far as I know (from most of this kind of topics) there IS a "moron's rule" in US chess where the endgame king + bishop vs. king + knight is indeed a draw. So let us grant @Sicilian67 as much: it has to be codifyable.

I could live with that rule, too. But in this respect I prefer FIDE/Lichess rules. It#s just easier than using "tablebases" as part of the rules.

But after all: You know - I am German. We just obey rules. It's our nature.

@Sybotes said in #36:
> But after all: You know - I am German. We just obey rules. It's our nature.

You just obey the rules and then try to bully with silly irony those who prefer to criticize rules.... go on obeying sergeant, I go on being a free minded person

@Sybotes said in #36:
> But, actually, as far as I know (from most of this kind of topics) there IS a "moron's rule" in US chess where the endgame king + bishop vs. king + knight is indeed a draw.
I looked up the USCF rules and they say that player who runs out of time loses except when the opponent has
- lone king
- king and bishop or king and knight and does not have a forced win
- king and two knights, no forced win and the player who ran out of time has no pawns

So I wouldn't exactly say it's a "no moron" rule original poster would like because while it does not grant you a win in the most often discussed case of king and bishop against king and something, you may be granted a win in positions which cannot be possibly won without a timeout (not even as a help mate) and therefore would be ruled as a draw under FIDE rules.

@Sicilian67 said in #3:
> in the final position I was having only K (and a lost pawn) but opponent was having only K+B, I lost by time... I guess it's not correct, as my opponent can't never ever checkmate me...
No there is a way to checkmate you.
If you make a knight or a bishop and you go on the corner there is checkmate.

@panagiskosmatos said in #39:
> If you make a knight or a bishop and you go on the corner there is checkmate.
A promotion to Bishop does not allow a checkmate. Only a Knight.