Your network blocks the Lichess assets!

lichess.org
Donate

Timeout vs. Insufficient Material - A Deeper Dive

Just realised there was a bug in uploading, so part of the content was cut out. It should be fixed now as of 3:56pm PST.

Just realised there was a bug in uploading, so part of the content was cut out. It should be fixed now as of 3:56pm PST.

Now, the interpretation of insufficient material can vary greatly

The interpretation is not the problem, the very term "insufficient material" is the problem as it's misleading. What material you have is not important and it was never meant to be.

According to FIDE --- the International Chess Federation --- should the player who did not flag have the possibility to execute a possible checkmate with the material they have, no matter how absurd or horrendous the other side would have to play to make it happen, the player who flagged in fact loses the game.

As many others, you are taking it from the opposite side than how the rule is constructed and formulated which is why it looks illogical and weird. What the rule really says is that the player who runs out of time loses the game - and only if the opponent cannot possibly achieve a checkmate, the result is a draw. The point is that the draw is an exception, not the win. (BtW, exactly the same exception is applied in other situations when a player would lose normally: second illegal move or resignation.) Once you look at it this way - the way the actual rule is written - it makes a lot more sense and there is not need for manipulative formulations like "horrendous play".

According to USCF --- the US Chess Federation -- if one player flags and the other player has material that cannot execute a checkmate by force, it is a draw.

And this is completely wrong. You don't need to be able to force a checkmate under USCF rules either. The only difference is that USCF adds few arbitrarily cherry picked exceptions where a checkmate can be reached but the result is still a draw. But only very few of them. In vast majority of positions where a checkmate is possible but cannot be forced the player who runs out of time still loses even by USCF rules.

> Now, the interpretation of insufficient material can vary greatly The interpretation is not the problem, the very term "*insufficient material*" is the problem as it's misleading. What material you have is not important and it was never meant to be. > According to FIDE --- the International Chess Federation --- should the player who did not flag have the possibility to execute a possible checkmate with the material they have, no matter how absurd or horrendous the other side would have to play to make it happen, the player who flagged in fact loses the game. As many others, you are taking it from the opposite side than how the rule is constructed and formulated which is why it looks illogical and weird. What the rule really says is that the player who runs out of time loses the game - and only if the opponent cannot possibly achieve a checkmate, the result is a draw. The point is that *the draw* is an exception, not the win. (BtW, exactly the same exception is applied in other situations when a player would lose normally: second illegal move or resignation.) Once you look at it this way - the way the actual rule is written - it makes a lot more sense and there is not need for manipulative formulations like "horrendous play". > According to USCF --- the US Chess Federation -- if one player flags and the other player has material that cannot execute a checkmate by force, it is a draw. And this is completely wrong. You don't need to be able to force a checkmate under USCF rules either. The only difference is that USCF adds few arbitrarily cherry picked exceptions where a checkmate can be reached but the result is still a draw. But only very few of them. In vast majority of positions where a checkmate is possible but cannot be forced the player who runs out of time still loses even by USCF rules.

To me, the FIDE rules make the most sense. The general rule is: if your time runs out, you lose. And the only exception that makes some sense is when you can actually prove the opponent cannot win. If it's an unlikely sequence doesn't matter. No time means no chance to prove you wouldn't play that.

To me, the FIDE rules make the most sense. The general rule is: if your time runs out, you lose. And the only exception that makes some sense is when you can actually prove the opponent cannot win. If it's an unlikely sequence doesn't matter. No time means no chance to prove you wouldn't play *that*.

Great blog! But can you explain to me why I lost this game?

Great blog! But can you explain to me why I lost this game?

https://lichess.org/4pno90Da

https://lichess.org/4pno90Da

Being in the World Blitz Championship, FIDE rules applied here, and they deemed that Black can give checkmate (i.e. it is possible for Black to give checkmate), even if Firouzja has to play the most horrendous moves for that to happen... Therefore, given that there existed a possibility to checkmate, Firouzja lost this game. Now of course no player with the Black pieces, even a beginner (let alone a player of Firouzja's caliber) would allow this checkmate to happen, so ethically Carlsen's victory is 100% controversial.

Players don't protest other rules, like stalemate being a draw, or castling being legal. When players agree to play by certain rules, they are bound by the rules. The real problem is the clock setting.

> Being in the World Blitz Championship, FIDE rules applied here, and they deemed that Black can give checkmate (i.e. it is possible for Black to give checkmate), even if Firouzja has to play the most horrendous moves for that to happen... Therefore, given that there existed a possibility to checkmate, Firouzja lost this game. Now of course no player with the Black pieces, even a beginner (let alone a player of Firouzja's caliber) would allow this checkmate to happen, so ethically Carlsen's victory is 100% controversial. Players don't protest other rules, like stalemate being a draw, or castling being legal. When players agree to play by certain rules, they are bound by the rules. The real problem is the clock setting.

@Batchess24 said in #7:

Great blog! But can you explain to me why I lost this game?

You lost because technically there is still material to checkmate you. While there is obvoiusly no way to win the game for either side (and according to the FIDE rules this is a draw), it's basically impossible to have these kind of cases evaluated correctly.
That's why lichess uses the insufficient material method: it's simple, has clear rules and while unfortunate, these edge cases are so rare that it evaluates only a very low fraction of games incorrectly.

@Batchess24 said in #7: > Great blog! But can you explain to me why I lost this game? You lost because technically there is still material to checkmate you. While there is obvoiusly no way to win the game for either side (and according to the FIDE rules this is a draw), it's basically impossible to have these kind of cases evaluated correctly. That's why lichess uses the insufficient material method: it's simple, has clear rules and while unfortunate, these edge cases are so rare that it evaluates only a very low fraction of games incorrectly.