@petri999 said [^](/forum/redirect/post/HXSRPOJg)
> Strength of the players mean a lot. Queen vs bishop is easy checkmate for the queen and impossible for bishop. so nothing to do. BUT if a FIDE master wins K+B vs. K+N game against IM arbiter will in tournament qualified for norms arbiter will report to chief arbiter who will notify FIDE with Tournament Investigation form about suspect behaviour. At at Qualification commission + Ethics and Disci...
That is precisely the point.
An endgame with a theoretically forced checkmate is absolute; it remains unchanged regardless of who is playing or under what conditions.
Conversely, an endgame that is theoretically a draw—but where a "cooperative" checkmate (a self-mate) could potentially occur—can be forcibly declared a draw, the result annulled, or the game even halted. For instance, if players in a World Championship match were to continue a knight-versus-bishop endgame for fifty moves, such behavior would fall under the clause regarding actions that damage the reputation of chess.
Yet, some fail to see this distinction.
On Lichess, there is a choice as to whether a knight-versus-bishop endgame should be automatically considered a draw. The platform does not account for the players' skill levels or the prestige of the tournament; the chosen rule applies universally—whether it is a prize tournament for titled players or an event for those with a rating below 1400.
FIDE regulations, such as Article 11.1, do not apply on Lichess.
The reputation of chess is not taken into consideration. In my view, this is not the best approach.
From a FIDE perspective, treating a knight-versus-bishop endgame as always "playable" is incorrect.
Perhaps treating it as always "unplayable" is also not quite right; however, in most FIDE-sanctioned tournaments, such an endgame is typically not played out, and the players instead agree to a draw.