lichess.org
Donate

I won but lost rating?

This game: http://sv.lichess.org/MXbDi7rMFb0Z

I was pretty damn screwed the last minute, but the opponent kept making good-for-nothing moves and ultimately lost. I played the last move, which put me in a draw position, but he could have checkmated me the following move, had he not ran out of time.

So why do I lose rating?
I should add that it's for some reason is counted as a draw, which is presumably why I lost rating. But he ran out of time, so I should've won. What I'm really asking is, why does it say it was a draw, when he ran out of time?
Lichess draw rules are pretty messed up but in an otb game u would have won as u can put mate on the board
you can't force a checkmate, so that counts as insufficient material
did you really expect to win a piece and a queen down position?
btw you should have resigned on 33rd move, let's not make chess disgusting
From Wikipedia (chess rules draw time):

"""
In games played with a time control, there are other ways a draw can occur (Schiller 2003:29), (Just & Burg 2003).

• In a sudden death time control (players have a limited time to play all of their moves), if it is discovered that both players have exceeded their time allotment, the game is a draw. (The game continues if it is not a sudden-death time control.)

• If only one player has exceeded the time limit, but the other player does not have (theoretically) sufficient mating material, the game is still a draw. Law 6.9 of the FIDE Laws of Chess states that: "If a player does not complete the prescribed number of moves in the allotted time, the game is lost by the player. However, the game is drawn, if the position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the player's king by any possible series of legal moves, even with the most unskilled counterplay." For example, a player who runs out of time with a king and queen versus a sole king does not lose the game. It is still possible to lose on time in positions where mate is extremely unlikely but not theoretically impossible, as with king and bishop versus king and knight. (Under USCF rules, king and bishop, king and knight, or king and 2 knights with no pawns on the board is not considered sufficient mating material, unless the opponent has a forced win, even though it's theoretically possible to mate (but extremely unlikely to happen) in situations such as K+B vs. K+N).

• Because of this last possibility, article 10 of the FIDE laws of chess states that when a player has less than two minutes left on their clock during a rapid play finish (the end of a game when all remaining moves must be completed within a limited amount of time), they may claim a draw if their opponent is not attempting to win the game by "normal means" or cannot win the game by "normal means". "Normal means" can be taken to mean the delivery of checkmate or the winning of material. In other words, a draw is claimable if the opponent is merely attempting to win on time, or cannot possibly win except on time. It is up to the arbiter to decide whether such a claim will be granted or not.
"""

Ugh. I hate these FIDE rules...
It actually is possible for white to get checkmated from that position.

http://en.lichess.org/TKSA6Hgzebg3

However, lichess rules are strange, and time-out draws only occur when the person who does not run out of time only has a bishop or only a knight.
Yes, it is practically impossible in terms of evaluating positions without an arbiter to show that it's theoretically possible. Therefore lichess, not going the route of FICS with all its arbitration silliness that would hinder maintenance and development, lichess.org opted to automate the arbitration on the time-out draw rule with a reasonable compromise. If you have only a king, a king and a bishop, or a king and a knight, you draw if your opponent flags, because practically you have no way to have found a win in the position even if theoretically you can put a win on the board.

Why people continue to find it "strange" is beyond me since it's well known by this point.

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.