What stupid rules Lichess uses regarding draws on timeout

@JesusIsLord906 said in #31:
> Stop whining = Just let them do what they want and lets not question anything or challenge it.
>
> We must question everything and try to find understanding and mutual agreement especially in a game like Chess.
>
> But I get what you're saying, I just don't agree with it.
>
> Being a sheep and letting anyone do whatever they want is half the reason of what has leaded us the world into bad positions.
>
> I really think the rules need to be changed and we should vote on them somewhere.
>
> Clock dies you die. No exceptions.
>
> Thank you for your feedback though.

The clock is the allotted time you have to make your moves and attempt to win the game. Once you're down to just a king, or a king and a knight, or a king and a bishop, you can NOT win the game anymore, under any circumstances. If your opponent runs out of time he doesn't "die", he just doesn't have any more time to make moves. So imagine you can use your king to capture the rest of his pieces (if you can, if his king isn't protecting them), while he cannot move at all. So can you win? Absolutely not. That's why it's an automatic draw. That's why if you had played well enough, it would have been a win.

So it's fair like that, objectively. It's also fair because a win for you would cause your rating to go up, when you really didn't do anything to merit a rating increase. If you'd had some other pieces left, even in a losing position, you could've won with skill or by the opponent's blunder. But with no pieces left for you, 99% of the time you are getting checkmated if the opponent has time. Why should your rating increase when you didn't do anything right?

I agree, it's like they have a rule but they don't enforce it. Running out of time in a timed game means you lose. Except it doesn't because we don't take our own rule seriously.

@corvusmellori said in #40:
> Stockfish solves this just fine. Testing on my setup, Stockfish finds 1. Nf3! in just 15 billion nodes (about 284 seconds) and plays the continuation perfectly.
Probably you downloaded SF from the official website. There, the engine is latest and up to date. It would definitely be stronger than on any other source like chessify.
What about this one:
lichess.org/editor/8/8/2pppN2/p1q2kpP/p4p2/P2P1PP1/P1P1NP2/1K6_w_-_-_0_1?color=white

@Akbar2thegreat said in #43:
> Probably you downloaded SF from the official website. There, the engine is latest and up to date. It would definitely be stronger than on any other source like chessify.
Or, whoever is using chessify is simply not running the engine very deep.
> What about this one:
You could at least post the supposed correct line instead of making me hunt for it.
Are you just copying puzzles from Suren's youtube channel?

@corvusmellori said in #44:
> Or, whoever is using chessify is simply not running the engine very deep.
It was done at depth 66 at speed of more than 70kN/s.
> You could at least post the supposed correct line instead of making me hunt for it.
Lol. Well, the last one I shared is a draw with perfect play. (Evaluation of 0.0)
I am more inclined to see your result this time than previous two ones.
> Are you just copying puzzles from Suren's youtube channel?
Nah. I saw Plaskett's one at Wikipedia, the one by Smyslov at online blog by a chess player (blogs are common now days), last one only saw from Suren's channel. I am active a lot on social media and encounter lot of chess puzzles here and there. I even saw one at article by a GM covered by ChessBase which I talked at Lichess before.

@Akbar2thegreat said in #45:
> I am more inclined to see your result this time than previous two ones.
It's really hard to know if SF has "found the solution" on white-to-move-and-draw puzzles without knowing the line because the engine can play correctly with a nonzero evaluation (as opposed to play-and-win puzzles, where the evaluation usually makes it clear when the right line is found).

Anyways, I went and found the line myself. SF found 1. Nd7! on my system in about an hour, with about 150B nodes, and plays the continuation perfectly (I let it run another hour to 420B nodes and it printed the full line as the PV, even without making the moves).

@Quantum_Immortal said in #41:
> The clock is the allotted time you have to make your moves and attempt to win the game. Once you're down to just a king, or a king and a knight, or a king and a bishop, you can NOT win the game anymore, under any circumstances. If your opponent runs out of time he doesn't "die", he just doesn't have any more time to make moves. So imagine you can use your king to capture the rest of his pieces (if you can, if his king isn't protecting them), while he cannot move at all. So can you win? Absolutely not. That's why it's an automatic draw. That's why if you had played well enough, it would have been a win.
>
> So it's fair like that, objectively. It's also fair because a win for you would cause your rating to go up, when you really didn't do anything to merit a rating increase. If you'd had some other pieces left, even in a losing position, you could've won with skill or by the opponent's blunder. But with no pieces left for you, 99% of the time you are getting checkmated if the opponent has time. Why should your rating increase when you didn't do anything right?

What part of burning up their clock while still staying alive isn't a skill to you?

@corvusmellori said in #46:
> It's really hard to know if SF has "found the solution" on white-to-move-and-draw puzzles without knowing the line because the engine can play correctly with a nonzero evaluation (as opposed to play-and-win puzzles, where the evaluation usually makes it clear when the right line is found).
> Anyways, I went and found the line myself. SF found 1. Nd7! on my system in about an hour, with about 150B nodes, and plays the continuation perfectly (I let it run another hour to 420B nodes and it printed the full line as the PV, even without making the moves).
Just check it with correct solution:
1. Nd7+ Qb5+ 2. Kc1 e5 3. c4 Qb7 4. Nd4+ exd4 5. g4+ Ke6 6. Nc5+ dxc5 7. Kc2
It's unreachable fortress.
And then SF assumes White to play h6 for no reason by recommending continuously.

@Akbar2thegreat said in #48:
> And then SF assumes White to play h6 for no reason by recommending continuously.
It doesn't if you actually let it search. That Suren video makes no sense anyways; chessify shows a speed of almost 1Bnps but takes many seconds to reach depth 30? And has the nps continue to change after stockfish stops searching? None of that makes any sense.

That video is also in multi-PV mode, which is much weaker. As I said, SF played the line correctly.

@corvusmellori said in #49:
> It doesn't if you actually let it search. That Suren video makes no sense anyways; chessify shows a speed of almost 1Bnps but takes many seconds to reach depth 30? And has the nps continue to change after stockfish stops searching? None of that makes any sense.
> That video is also in multi-PV mode, which is much weaker. As I said, SF played the line correctly.
Due to the nature, the strongest engine will ultimately play the correct variation but it's not just about playing right line.
What about the evaluation then? How would you explain that? Are you familiar with those things related to engines?
As engine plays the line, slowly the evaluation changes and at the end the evaluation comes right (probably due to draw rule).