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

@corvusmellori said in #40:
> A promotion to Bishop does not allow a checkmate. Only a Knight.
Yes but still there is a possible checkmate.

Sergeant, have ever heard that "risus abundat in ore stultorum"?

Mkubecek, take care of your thumb, too many times down, you risk an injury....

by looking at your ELO here, it's clear why you both make so much blabla keyboard activity, because you can't make ELO raising activity...

< This shows a flaw in the rule I think. This should be a draw because it is impossible for either side to make progress or blunder. You can't tell if a checkmate is possible by the material on the board alone in all positions. The rule is probably the best we can do since this sort of situation is so unlikely but it is a bit broken. The only other fair rule I can think of would be to make timeout a loss every time.

If chess ended with capturing the king rather than checkmate then this problem wouldn't exist but chess would be a far less interesting game without stalemates and checkmates. So we accept chess is inherently a bit scuffed and make do with this compromise solution.

@AndrewMackney said in #43:
> The rule is probably the best we can do since this sort of situation is so unlikely but it is a bit broken.
It's true. It turns out that determining whether a mate is possible from a specific board position is not trivial for a computer. There's been some discussion of it on the lila github.

github.com/lichess-org/lila/issues/9249

@AndrewMackney said in #43:
> < This shows a flaw in the rule I think. This should be a draw because it is impossible for either side to make progress or blunder. You can't tell if a checkmate is possible by the material on the board alone in all positions. The rule is probably the best we can do since this sort of situation is so unlikely but it is a bit broken. The only other fair rule I can think of would be to make timeout a loss every time.

Yes, this is a draw according to FIDE rules. On the server it is a loss, I think... as you rightfully say that it's practically impossible to detect if checkmate is still possible.

> If chess ended with capturing the king rather than checkmate then this problem wouldn't exist but chess would be a far less interesting game without stalemates and checkmates. So we accept chess is inherently a bit scuffed and make do with this compromise solution.

Not sure if this would make such a huge difference for this rule, unless you can force stalemate (= win), which seems unlikely in most cases.

@Sicilian67 said in #42:
> by looking at your ELO here, it's clear why you both make so much blabla keyboard activity, because you can't make ELO raising activity...
Resorting to cheap personal attacks as a way to admit you have no rational arguments to present? Your choice... but I have no interest to participate in such form of "discussion".

BtW, I don't have ELO. But even if I had, it would be completely irrelevant for this discussion.

@panagiskosmatos said in #41:
> Yes but still there is a possible checkmate.
Only with opposite color bishops. And in the position shown in the initial comment, white pawn would promote on g8 (light square) and black has light squared bishop.

@AndrewMackney said in #43:
> This shows a flaw in the rule I think. This should be a draw because it is impossible for either side to make progress or blunder.
Yes, that's a downside: the rule would be extremely hard to implement in software precisely. And I believe one could construct position where it would be difficult to judge even for a decent human player. How likely it is to ever happen in real life is something I don't dare to guess.

@mkubecek said in #47:
> Only with opposite color bishops. And in the position shown in the initial comment, white pawn would promote on g8 (light square) and black has light squared bishop.
>
>
> Yes, that's a downside: the rule would be extremely hard to implement in software precisely. And I believe one could construct position where it would be difficult to judge even for a decent human player. How likely it is to ever happen in real life is something I don't dare to guess.

if he promotes a knight? Yeah there is checkmate.

@Sicilian67 said in #42:
> risus abundat in ore stultorum
@Sicilian67 said in #42:
> by looking at your ELO here, it's clear why you both make so much blabla keyboard activity, because you can't make ELO raising activity...

It's important to remember that someone's Elo rating, which is commonly used in chess to measure player strength, doesn't necessarily correlate with their ability to contribute meaningfully in discussions or other activities. Elo ratings are specific to chess and are not indicative of a person's intelligence, creativity, or capability in other domains.

Critiquing someone's contributions based solely on their Elo rating is unfair and unfounded. People engage in discussions for various reasons, and their value isn't solely determined by numerical metrics like Elo ratings. It's more productive to evaluate individuals based on the quality of their contributions and their willingness to engage constructively, rather than making assumptions based on unrelated metrics.

With thanks to Chat GPT. I wouldn't have expressed it so well myself.

@panagiskosmatos said in #48:
> if he promotes a knight? Yeah there is checkmate.

In comment #39 - which was a direct reply to #3 - you said "If you make a knight or a bishop and you go on the corner there is checkmate."
In comment #40, corvusmellori replied "A promotion to Bishop does not allow a checkmate. Only a Knight."
To which you replied in #41: "Yes but still there is a possible checkmate."
And I pointed out in #47 that while it's possible with a bishop in general, it's not possible in the case that we are discussing here (i.e. in comment #3, you were responding to in your first comment).