It's live chess that doesn't implement it correctly.
...
Interesting.
A GUI that gets it right in practice games and gets it wrong in real games might be considered wilfully bad programming. Why different processing for the two cases?
Means it needs two people to just check how it applies the rules.
I would also recommend an appeal system. If a game that was in a dead position ended in a win or a loss for one side, they could send the game in and have it reviewed by staff. If by human review they determine the position to be completely dead with no possibility of mate even through absurd moves, then they could change the result in your game archive and refund rating points (but not deduct them from the side that "unfairly" won beforehand). 99.999% of games never end in a dead position, and 99% of the ones that do, would be covered under my simple pawn algorithm with 5 parameters above.
@23
"99.999% of games never end in a dead position"
++ Yes, losing dead positions on time is rare. You can avoid it by playing with increment to reach a 3-fold repetition or trigger the 50-moves rule.
The main problem remains that chess.com awards draws by insufficient material where there exists a series of legal moves leading to checkmate, even forced checkmates.
On chess.com you can get away with a draw in face of a forced checkmate by letting your clock run out of time.
The problem I'm having with this, which I'm surprised no one else seemed to point out (but maybe I missed it) is that it sounds like you're giving a position with both white's king and black's knight on the g3 square.
@25
The position is shown @4.
Not the position OP describes (though possibly the one he had in mind).
@23
"99.999% of games never end in a dead position"
++ Yes, losing dead positions on time is rare. You can avoid it by playing with increment to reach a 3-fold repetition or trigger the 50-moves rule.
...
Depends if it's under FIDE or chess.com rules. Under FIDE rules you can't lose a dead position on time because the dead position terminates the game (and if it's basic rules you can't lose on time full stop).
The rarity is probably partly due to arbiters or players failing to recognise dead positions or refusing to abide by the laws when some dead positions occur. E.g. under FIDE competition rules, this position may be reached, but only if the arbiter has (illegally) ignored the dead position rule.
@28
You are once more trolling with the 50-moves rule...
The Laws of Chess are clear:
'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, provided that the move producing the position was in accordance with Article 3 and Articles 4.2 – 4.7.'
So your position is no dead position:
white can checkmate the black king with a series of legal moves.
That the 50-moves rule would trigger would lead to a draw by the 50-moves rule,
but does not make it a dead position.
Wrong.
It will take at least 7 ply and the game will terminate under the mandatory 75 move rule before that occurs. Therefore neither side can checkmate and 5.2.2 applies.
(You say, "white can checkmate the black king with a series of legal moves". Can you show any such series?)
But the same was true on the previous ply so the position is actually illegal.
The 50 move rule is irrelevant because, under FIDE competition rules it doesn't apply if not claimed.
@3
Yes, this is an incorrect implementation on chess.com.
This position for example is a forced checkmate for white,
but chess.com erroneously calls it a draw if black lets his time run out.
This position for example is an immediate draw by dead position,
but chess.com calls it a loss for whoever runs out of time.
They really need to get their act together. They've had nearly 20 years to sort out their mistakes.
I'd agree so far as the first failing is concerned, but, for the second, are you offering to provide them with an algorithm to reliably detect dead positions on a less than geological timescale?
Nobody else has come up with one in the same 20 years.
...
(You say, "white can checkmate the black king with a series of legal moves". Can you show any such series?)
...
@tygxc
Down voting is not such a series.
Hi all,
Good discussion.. if you don't mind can i add.....
Perhaps the biggest issue is that there is no common definition of the rules around insufficient material. Different federations and FIDE have different requirements. For example, USCF required FORCED mate to be possible. FIDE requires mate to be possible via any sequence of legal moves.
There is also the concept of deliberately flagging an opponent. Common on line, but not allowed in FIDE competition on. (Article 10 if anybody is interested).
The bottom line is there is no common global standard so all chess sites have an implementation. What ever they do will be wrong for some. It's consistant which is good. I do think it would be a good idea if the "rule" was publish though so we dont have to attempt to reverse engineer it.!!
@34
"there is no common definition of the rules around insufficient material"
++ There is:
'6.9 Except where one of Articles 5.1.1, 5.1.2, 5.2.1, 5.2.2, 5.2.3 applies, if a player does not complete the prescribed number of moves in the allotted time, the game is lost by that player. 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.'
https://handbook.fide.com/chapter/E012023
"Different federations and FIDE have different requirements."
++ There is FIDE for the whole world, and USCF for non-FIDE rated competitions in the U.S.A.
"For example, USCF required FORCED mate to be possible. FIDE requires mate to be possible via any sequence of legal moves." ++ But none allows to gain a draw by letting time on the clock run out in the face of a forced checkmate.
"there is no common global standard"
++ There is: the FIDE Laws of Chess are the global standard,
while USCF rules are a local standard for non FIDE rated competitions in the U.S.A. only.
"all chess sites have an implementation"
++ None have a perfect implementation, but chess.com is worse.
"What ever they do will be wrong for some." ++ No, it is wrong for all.
"It's consistant" ++ But makes no sense to gain 1/2 point by letting the clock run out.
Hi all,
Good discussion.. if you don't mind can i add.....
Perhaps the biggest issue is that there is no common definition of the rules around insufficient material. Different federations and FIDE have different requirements. For example, USCF required FORCED mate to be possible. FIDE requires mate to be possible via any sequence of legal moves.
To be accurate, that last should read, "FIDE requires that at least one player can mate via some sequence of legal moves". In many dead positions there are sequences of legal moves leading to checkmate, but the players cannot mate via such sequences because doing so would violate other rules.
There is also the concept of deliberately flagging an opponent. Common on line, but not allowed in FIDE competition on. (Article 10 if anybody is interested).
Don't know which version you're using, but unless it's changed since the start of 2023, article 10
Article 10: Points
10.1 Unless the regulations of an event specify otherwise, a player who wins his/her game, or wins by forfeit, scores one point (1), a player who loses his/her game, or forfeits, scores no points (0), and a player who draws his/her game scores a half point (½).
10.2 The total score of any game can never exceed the maximum score normally given for that game. Scores given to an individual player must be those normally associated with the game, for example a score of ¾ - ¼ is not allowed.
would appear to have nothing to do with it.
The bottom line is there is no common global standard so all chess sites have an implementation.
FIDE was set up to provide such a global standard (and apart from Americans, who couldn't quite bring themselves to cooperate with the rest of the world, it's largely accepted).
On the other hand chess sites can't can't correctly implement the FIDE laws because said laws don't apply to online games. Sites have no algorithm to reliably determine dead or half dead positions. (And how are they to check that you're using only one hand to move your mouse?)
What ever they do will be wrong for some. It's consistant which is good.
But actually consistently bad for some of the cases mentioned previously.
I do think it would be a good idea if the "rule" was publish though so we dont have to attempt to reverse engineer it.!!
Documentation. Now there's a novel idea.
Escaping inevitable forced checkmates by letting your time flag can happen in Realistic Endgame positions like this, which I discussed in my own threads on the topic:
If white realizes he has fell into a mating net he can let his time run out at any point and get a draw. It's insane. I don't care if black has a king and knight and white has a king and 9 queens and 2 rooks..a black knight can theoretically mate a white king and 1 Rook, so if white runs out of time he should lose and be deducted rating points.
There you go ive just shown my age…. That and the fact that ive not read the rules for 20 years…. There used to be a completely different Article 10….. But, it was deleted “Some time ago”. For purely historical interest this used to be quite a contentious point….. I consider myself corrected.
10.2
If the player, having the move, has less than two minutes left on his clock, he may claim a draw before his flag falls. He shall summon the arbiter and may stop the clocks. (See Article 6.12.b). If the arbiter agrees the opponent is making no effort to win the game by normal means, or that it is not possible to win by normal means, then he shall declare the game drawn. Otherwise he shall postpone his decision or reject the claim.
I thought i’d read somewhere that chess.com had tried to implement the uscf rules. But i cant find it….
Now expanded and relegated to Guidelines III. Games without Increment including Quickplay Finishes
Even sillier rule than the dead position rule I should say.
I think I read the same about chess.com trying to implement USCF rules. Trying to implement a regional variation when your target audience is the world wouldn't appear to be the most sensible approach (especially when you compare the two sets of rules).
.
KBBB...KBBB... where the bishops are on the same colour squares. Bishop's on different coloured squares should count as different pieces for the purpose of the exercise.