(Important) Changes to Live Chess

(I posted this in help and support, but I would like some advice and opinions)

Consider the following position: White to play and DRAW.

I think it's possible for a computer to check if mate is (im)possible. A set of rules describing possibilities will always be flawed but the simple rule "if the computer thinks you can mate, you can mate" would be more effective overall.

^That would be ideal, but I think it's just too hard to program all the possibilities. 

But what I'm offering is a simple suggestion to make a small, but sure improvement.

Well, chess engines already exist, if they can't find a mate in (arbitrary number) of moves and you don't seem to have enough material, than that could be enough reason to suggest mating is impossible.

Yes, chess engines are very strong, but even they cannot exhaustively search through positions to conclude if something is possible or not.

For instance:

It would take a tremendous amount of time for two engines to "play out" this position exhaustively and conclude that mate could occur. And this is just one example of such a position - if you remove the knight, then mate is impossible. The issue is that the pawns can be configured in so many ways, etc.

The system already is able to check that^ I've had a draw similar to that given by the computer.

Perhaps a button should be added: if you think mate is possible with the material, then you are allowed to move pieces on the board to get mate? If you cannot do this, you have insufficient material. Of course pawns can only move forward.

Why must you beat this poor horse yet again?

The current algorithm works correctly in 99. 999% of situations and allows no chances for subjectivity to take a hand.

If you want your argument to be taken seriously, you must use examples that are logically and practically possible. Your first position is absurd.

The other examples you give rely on cooperation from the defending side- ( king and one minor piece versus king and one  minor piece) or ( king and two knights versus king.) The rule for king and two or more bishops of the same color is another absurdity.

In reality, I doubt that many near wins have been compromised.  Anyone who makes a second bishop of the same color and can't mate probably deserves to lose.

/ PS There is no need to spam the forum with multiple thread postings. It is all one forum. Users answer 99% of all postings, not staff.

//It's not hard to understand why there is seldom any support staff on the forum, other than to enforce the rules against cheating accusations and religious and political flame wars. They would have to double their prices in order to be able to afford the staff to handle the volume of (important) questions like this one.

/// Furthermore, why not just add to one of the previous threads on this subject?

 There are currently 17 pages of threads with the words "insufficient" and "draw" https://www.chess.com/forum/search?keyword=Insufficient+draw

 That is sufficient.

 (1) I said the example was an extreme case - but note it's a possible position and it leads to a ridiculous result - a player gets the best result by timing out.

(2) No one has yet suggested such a simple fix as I have - this is extremely simple to implement.

(3) The purpose of this new rule is not to fix positions like the one I showed (although that would be a matter of principle - you *should* be trying to fix those things), but to allow for flagging in positions where mate is still possible, rather than a *subjective* view on when mating material is "sufficient", which is what the current algorithm does.

(4) The only purpose to me even mentioning 2 bishops of the same color is for programming purposes. 

For an understanding of how the current insufficient material rules were reached, see:

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/help-support/no-mating-material--draw

OK, that's reasonable. 

@myratingis1523 that's exactly what I said - the two engines have to "conclude that mate could occur", which is very hard to do. I'm talking about programming an engine that can know when mate is possible, and when it's impossible, regardless of material.

But it doesn't matter! To get to a high rating on this site, all you have to do is not hang pieces and take hanging pieces  right?

Sorry, I haven't yet acquired a copy of the rules of chess. Can someone kindly explain to me how a player doesn't lose when his time expires? Even if his opponent can't mate, officially he would lose, wouldn't he? Is that draw thing a tournament rule or just a chess.com rule? Learn something new everyday I say.

Check out the post that "notmtwain" last wrote - the link to the forum post will explain everything.

However, just know that the insufficient draw rules on this site are definitely imperfect. If you aren't/haven't been affected by them yet, though, it's not a big deal.

While time is important, if a player runs out of time and their opponent can't mate them, given infinite time and worse possible play by the opponent, then it should be a draw. The site uses a slight variation of the USCF rules to cover insufficient material. One that likely works in the vast majority of instances but is different than the FIDE rules on the subject.

Thank you. What I now understand is that in a USCF tournament a player may stop the clock with about 2 minutes left and ask an arbiter for a ruling on insufficient material.  In Chess.com. when a player runs out of time a program decides whether to call a draw based on insufficient material.

But I am not sure because it appeared that everyone disagreed with everybody. So I tried to stick with the posts quoting the official USCF rules.

The stop the clock for a ruling on USCF is for Insufficient Losing Chances (in non-increment/delay time controls). There is also an option for your opponent not trying to make progress.

Insufficient material rules are handled either at flag fall, in the case where one side still has sufficient material, or immediately when neither side does.

Thanks for the clarification.

If you remove a knight then mate is not impossible. White could put his rook somewhere that black can capture it with one of his pawns (e.g. Re4 in the current position). Of course it's a stupid move, but we say nobody is going to blunder.

Okay, now I'm confused again. How does a player get infinite time?

What if player A believes he will lose the game but has plenty of time, while player B has a winning game but is nearly out of time; so player A strategically sacrifices pieces to stay out of checkmate and player Bs flag drops? At the end of the game A may be down to K and N, but he should win the game. You must checkmate your opponent before you run out of time or you lose.

I don't get the logic of this. If you run out of time, you lose. Or why have clocks at all? How did you earn a draw if your flag drops? Yes, your opponent can't mate you, but you used more than your allotted time to get him there. You should lose. The draw thing is unfair, though I have now learned that the official rules of chess allow this, I disagree with the entire premise.