It isn’t an exception, it is only written as an exception there because I assume it gets asked a lot and whoever wrote the article or Q/A wanted to communicate it in that way.
The rule is clear, your time runs out, can the opponent checkmate you after a series of legal moves? yes, you lose opponent wins; no, game is draw.
The FIDE rule (from 2023) is as following (which I believe was like that for a long time and was not recently changed):
Summary
Except where one of Articles 5.1.1, 5.1.2, 5.2.1, 5.2.2, 5.2.3 applies, if a player does not complete the prescribed number of moves in the allotted time, the game is lost by that 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.
I remember that years ago, chesscom was handling single knight/single bishop as insufficient material (even if checkmate is possible, even worse even when checkmate is the expected outcome so people were sometimes wait the timer to end to “draw“, which you could appeal with a report etc.) and the support article specially doesn’t adress that, so yeah chesscom L I guess. Mentioning something that is not an exception as an exception and not addressing how you are handling the exception that isn’t at the FIDE rules.
I guess one thing that might make it seem more like an exception though, is once you start taking into account checkmates that can happen by mistake, whats to stop you counting stalemates that could happen by mistake for example? Or when the 50 move rule would kick in before a forced mate would be possible but they timed out etc.
I can see why it is written as an “exception” for general population (e.g. general population includes people struggling at understanding en passant), and the rule is not really about how ridiculous the path of possible checkmate is. It is considered as player’s fault for their timer to run out (and responsibility to not let it run out). These situations almost never happens in slower games (as generally either Fisher clock is used, or (idk what they are called) the time control which you start with a fixed time but a huge amount of time is added after 40th and 60th move, and then each move after 60) as you can just move around with pieces to gain more time without changing the position much (and if you time out because the position is one you need to think (e.g. you are under pressure to not lose), then insufficient material doesn’t apply anyway).
And for faster games (in chess, we call them blitz (a few minutes) or bullet (even faster)), if there is increment after each move, again, shouldn’t be an issue for the player. If there is no increment after each move (e.g. 3 min+0 sec), then losing by time in a game you should win can be sometimes frustrating, but it is considered as part of the game and I hadnt really heard anyone from being mad about ruling, except after they just lose due to it xd. Clock is part of the game, and that’s how we/you are taught from the beginning.
I can say in chess the ability to move around to increase time without changing much in non-equal/non-criticial positions really makes it easier to deal/more fair. I can say in go, Fisher clock feels much harder (both compared to byo-yomi and Fisher clock at chess) because, it is never truely peaceful until the very end, I make a move without thinking and lose some territory at best, much more at worst.
That’s kind of why it seems a bit funny to reward - well give a safety net - to a player that used more time and times out by making it a draw, as long as they performed well enough.
But anyway, it doesn’t bother me particularly, it’s just something I noticed but hadn’t known about before.
Yeah it can rough in Go to be low on time in byo-yomi and sometimes even worse with low increment fisher. Ko is maybe the main way to regain time in fisher in Go, that or some forcing moves/ataris.
The safety net is pretty small when you think about it. Enemy has one pawn, you still lose. Enemy has one knight and you have one piece that is not queen, you lose. Enemy has one bishop and you have one pawn/knight/opposite colored bishop, you lose. Enemy has anything else and you still lose.
(And I’m especially mentioning the side with timer running out having a pawn, since some of that “technically possible“ situations require that player to promote the pawn into a non-queen piece and then block their king’s escape path, which is simply impossible, more impossible than accidentally walking into checkmate at 2 knight, but you still lose if your timer runs out)
The only application of it I really seen as a strategy is going after last enemy pieces/pawns if you have too little time in a non-incremental clock (which is a common strategy tbh) when you are winning.
I dont know maybe because I grew up playing chess, it all feels natural.
This still sounds weird. You never know what happens if the game continues. Maybe it’s supposed to be a draw but the player screws up and loses the game. But he can get the draw immediately just by losing on time?
I played a lot of absolute time controls for Go and it was always a loss if you lost on time. Unless the opponent is deliberately stalling by playing in his own territory etc, it will always be a loss if your time runs out no matter how much you are winning. That’s why we were always taught to divide the time accordingly and leave enough time to play endgame even if we are winning by a lot.
If this rule applies to Go, it means that if the player is winning on the board but times out it will be a draw or a win, which doesn’t really make sense since you never know what happens if he continues playing.
I don’t think you are exactly understanding the rule. It applies in cases like “timed out player has king and queen, opponent has only a king”. “No sequence of legal moves leading to checkmate” is a bit ambiguous, but isn’t supposed to only mean there isn’t a forced checkmate - rather it means that the timed-out player couldn’t lose even if they tried. Really this usually applies in no-increment games where the player who would have won on time only has a king.
This rule doesn’t really work for go, because a player can always fill their own eyes to lose.
Can’t you deliberately put yourself in checkmate? There are some situations which are technically drawn but may end up in a checkmate due to a mistake, no?
Anyway, this is highly frowned upon and is considered stalling if it’s a fixed time control.
The idea of this rule is to prevent a situation where a player does continue the game in an entirely lost (or entirely drawn) position - just to win on time.
You can also look at it this way: If you manage to get into a position in which it is impossible to get checkmated (and doing it before your time runs out), the worst result you can achieve is a draw.
Players who are super-low on time can use this rule to focus on capturing all of the opponents pieces to get the draw (instead of trying to checkmate the opponent - which might require much more time).
It happens quite regularly at short time controls and works well in practice.
I think its great, no opening prep, no memorized lines of the Sicilian up to move 25. Just pure tactics and calculation. Great for the game. Its fun to play as it adds more variety to positions.
No one has a finer command of language than the person who keeps his mouth shut. — Sam Rayburn
