King and bishop vs 2 pawns and a knight should end in a draw if the player with pawns timesout

[TZubiri]

Hello,

Consider the following game:

https://lichess.org/dl7uECwuwJZ4

The game should end in a draw since the player that timed out could not have been reasonably checkmated.

[Nordlandia]

I know what you mean but according current FIDE rules, the army that forfeits on time turns into zombies and expects worst possible play. Mate is possible in the corner. I think a clause should be used here stating "If no reasonable mate is reachable then draw"

[TZubiri]

I see the complexity behind this issue. I am forwarding this complaint from the player who is coming from chess.com, but I myself don't have a particular stance on what the resolution should be.

Chess.com seems to implement a ruleset that is more aligned with the USCF ruleset rather than FIDE.

http://www.uschess.org/docs/gov/chessrules/US_Chess_Rule_Book-Online_Only_Edition_v7.1_chp_11-7.19.19.pdf

8d.) If one player has insufficient mating material when the opponent’s flag falls or makes an illegal move. “Insufficient Losing Chances”(ILC) claims are not allowed.TD TIP: Blitz tournaments allowing “Insufficient Losing Chances”(ILC) claims should be advertised and announced in advance. The TD should be aware that common practice has shown that in addition to the official Blitz rules that “Insufficient Losing Chances”claims are upheld only:1.) If both players each have just one identical piece and if neither side can show a forced win.2.) In K+bishop vs. K+bishop of opposite colors, with only 1 pawn on the board, provided there is no forced win.3.) K+rook pawn vs. K can be claimed as a draw once the defender is on the rook file in front of the pawn. K+pawn vs. K can be claimed as a draw once the defender is immediately on the square directly in front of the pawn as long as it’s not on the 7th rank.4.) K= + rook+rook pawn vs. K+rook is a draw if the pawn is blockaded by the king and there is no immediate win.5.) The claimant has a significant material andpositional advantage.

The USCF ruleset is objectively better for 1+0 games. A solution can be reached while still complying with FIDE rules. That said, conforming to a US standard might not be the best move considering the international nature of lichess.

The FIDE ruleset was designed for live play, and has few considerations for online play. But it also specifies that it's an extensible framework on its preface:

The Laws of Chess cannot cover all possible situations that may arise during a game, nor can they regulate all administrative questions. Where cases are not precisely regulated by an Article of the Laws, it should be possible to reach a correct decision by studying analogous situations which are discussed in the Laws. The Laws assume that arbiters have the necessary competence, sound judgement and absolute objectivity. Too detailed a rule might deprive the arbiter of his freedom of judgement and thus prevent him from finding the solution to a problem dictated by fairness, logic and special factors.FIDE appeals to all chess players and federations to accept this view.A member federation is free to introduce more detailed rules provided they:a. do not conflict in any way with the official FIDE Laws of Chess, and. are limited to the territory of the federation concerned, andc. are not valid for any FIDE match, championship or qualifying event, or for a FIDE title or rating tournament

So USCF rules in chess.com are probably implemented on top of FIDE rules. If lichess can't find an existing internationally unbiased ruleset to implement, you are free to implement your own. The only caveat is that matches are not fide rated, but that was never the case anyway.

[ornicar]

Lichess follows FIDE rules. https://lichess.org/faq#timeout

[TZubiri]

Could the user be read the faq upon such a draw? Perhaps with a link to rationale about the decision.