this is absurd (Bug Report)

@boogaly
According to online chess rules,
They consider possibility of checkmate instead of thinking about forced checkmate scenario.
So, if by any means of series of moves a checkmate is possible it is checkmate.
I perfectly agree that it is absurd rule but sadly it's not in our hands only thing is we have to abide by the rules.
A possible checkmate that could take place:
https://lichess.org/analysis/8/7b/7P/8/3k1K2/8/8/8_w_-_-_1_65#142

I had even mailed FIDE regarding same but it was forwarded to the incharge though it wasn't responded. I just hope that someday rule changes.
Since humans made computers, humans can also program computers to learn natural and obvious moves. I just wait for that day.

@Akbar2thegreat said in #11:

@boogaly
According to online chess rules,
wrong it is fide rules which applies over the board and on chess websites that apply it
They consider possibility of checkmate instead of thinking about forced checkmate scenario.
So, if by any means of series of moves a checkmate is possible it is checkmate.
I perfectly agree that it is absurd rule but sadly it's not in our hands only thing is we have to abide by the rules.
ok lets consider this same position but this rule does not exist meaning after time runs out it draws because of insufficient marital but then what if bishop and knight that's would also be consider draw since insufficient marital but you would say that there is enough martial but then same for the other. you can't have it both ways.
you can't say it's draw if they play right because you can't assume what they would play
A possible checkmate that could take place:
lichess.org/analysis/8/7b/7P/8/3k1K2/8/8/8_w_-_-_1_65#142

I had even mailed FIDE regarding same but it was forwarded to the incharge though it wasn't responded. I just hope that someday rule changes.
Since humans made computers, humans can also program computers to learn natural and obvious moves. I just wait for that day.
How would you change the rule to be "fair" and not assume a player knows how to hold x position or are we going to say that all players can hold all endgames because yes

@for_cryingout_loud said in #12:

wrong it is fide rules which applies over the board and on chess websites that apply it
Oh, then the rule is much more stupider!

ok lets consider this same position but this rule does not exist meaning after time runs out it draws because of insufficient marital but then what if bishop and knight that's would also be consider draw since insufficient marital but you would say that there is enough martial but then same for the other. you can't have it both ways.

I won't say both things. I would still say that material is not enough.
Even a complete newbie won't lose with the facts that the checkmate isn't forced and one cannot control opponent's mind.
A person can checkmacted with lone knight/bishop on three cases:

1. By being bribed
2. By playing deliberately
3. By playing on agreement with opponent
   All these cases are against the rules of any sport, hence these account under unfair means.
   Therefore, according to fair chess rules, such checkmates cannot take place.
   Q.E.D.

you can't say it's draw if they play right because you can't assume what they would play

How would you change the rule to be "fair" and not assume a player knows how to hold x position or are we going to say that all players can hold all endgames because yes

Suppose Carlsen is playing against 1500 rated player. And there is an opposite coloured bishop left on both side. Would Carlsen continue?
So, would you say Carlsen or his opponent can lose?
The logic in this comes with that if a guy is such low rated then he can't even play that good to give equal fight to such high rated GM.
And if equally skilled players are playing the game and come to such position with lone knights, then it should be declared draw outright with the fact that they both are equally skilled.
Q.E.D.

Sometimes use logic instead of talking in language of a computer.
It means rules of chess especially this one was made by people who lacked simple logic. So sad. But I am happy that they did not make any other big poor rule.
And don't justify your name, 'cryingoutloud'!

white pawn is a potential queen ... that's why ...

@boilingFrog said in #14:

white pawn is a potential queen ... that's why ...
Don't act like James Mason!

@Akbar2thegreat said in #13:

Oh, then the rule is much more stupider!

I won't say both things. I would still say that material is not enough.
Even a complete newbie won't lose with the facts that the checkmate isn't forced and one cannot control opponent's mind.
A person can checkmacted with lone knight/bishop on three cases:

1. By being bribed
2. By playing deliberately
3. By playing on agreement with opponent
   All these cases are against the rules of any sport, hence these account under unfair means.
   Therefore, according to fair chess rules, such checkmates cannot take place.
   Q.E.D.

Suppose Carlsen is playing against 1500 rated player. And there is an opposite coloured bishop left on both side. Would Carlsen continue?
So, would you say Carlsen or his opponent can lose?
The logic in this comes with that if a guy is such low rated then he can't even play that good to give equal fight to such high rated GM.
And if equally skilled players are playing the game and come to such position with lone knights, then it should be declared draw outright with the fact that they both are equally skilled.
Q.E.D.

Sometimes use logic instead of talking in language of a computer.
It means rules of chess especially this one was made by people who lacked simple logic. So sad. But I am happy that they did not make any other big poor rule.
And don't justify your name, 'cryingoutloud'!
pls provide a better rule that is fair then

@Akbar2thegreat said in #13:

And don't justify your name, 'cryingoutloud'!
ohno he insulted me
anyway

A person can checkmacted with lone knight/bishop on three cases:

1. By being bribed
2. By playing deliberately
3. By playing on agreement with opponent
   All these cases are against the rules of any sport, hence these account under unfair means.
   Therefore, according to fair chess rules, such checkmates cannot take place.
   Q.E.D.

not alone you miss read what i said
i said "ok lets consider this same position but this rule does not exist meaning after time runs out it draws because of insufficient marital but then what if bishop and knight that's would also be consider draw since insufficient marital but you would say that there is enough martial but then same for the other. you can't have it both ways."
notice where it says bishop and knight not bishop or knight alone
second of all
"Even a complete newbie won't lose with the facts that the checkmate isn't forced and one cannot control opponent's mind."
you are assuming there strength they might just blunder and lose or play so bad that thye loose you can't say a newbie wont loose because something might happen

Suppose Carlsen is playing against 1500 rated player. And there is an opposite coloured bishop left on both side. Would Carlsen continue?
So, would you say Carlsen or his opponent can lose?
The logic in this comes with that if a guy is such low rated then he can't even play that good to give equal fight to such high rated GM.
And if equally skilled players are playing the game and come to such position with lone knights, then it should be declared draw outright with the fact that they both are equally skilled.
Q.E.D.
calson would offer a draw if they say no play for 50 moves or 3 fold repetition which i said you can do if your opponent really can't win
Sometimes use logic instead of talking in language of a computer.
computers are made from a series of logic gates meaning by you saying "instead of talking in language of a computer."
i am speaking the language of logic according to you
It means rules of chess especially this one was made by people who lacked simple logic. So sad. But I am happy that they did not make any other big poor rule.
i doubt fide the world chess organization lacks logic when it comes to chess considering they have been managing chess rules since 1924 and control chess titles and crown world champions and more

@for_cryingout_loud said in #16:

pls provide a better rule that is fair then

I just told my rule in the post. That it should be draw in case of fair play chess. Read #13 again.

ohno he insulted me
anyway
I just took a dig at your username, sorry for that.

notice where it says bishop and knight not bishop or knight alone
second of all
Oh, I didn't see that. In fact, you didn't specify properly. Bishop + Knight checkmate is theoretically forced mate and the material is enough to win.
It takes at most 30 moves to win that endgame.
So if the opponent of player having these (Bishop and Knight) pieces gets timed out, the game should be declared win for attacking side as it is technically a forced checkmate.

you are assuming there strength they might just blunder and lose or play so bad that thye loose you can't say a newbie wont loose because something might happen
might
You are also assuming that a newbie 'might' just blunder and lose with only piece. Don't contradict yourself. In fact whole world is based on assumptions I agree, but there is no proof to such things. So, one cannot say it for sure.
That's where the actual problem lies with everyone.

computers are made from a series of logic gates meaning by you saying "instead of talking in language of a computer."
I know, I actually meant human logic which is completely different from computer logic. You didn't answer me about fortresses as to why computers call it winning for one side despite human knowing that it's draw with obvious moves.

i doubt fide the world chess organization lacks logic when it comes to chess considering they have been managing chess rules since 1924 and control chess titles and crown world champions and more
There are many companies and organisations which are taking wrong decisions of late.