@Sicilian67 said in #32:
> I see a big difference between the 2 positions you presented, for 1st one is clearly relevant the "moron" story, for the second one, how many rookies would blunder and lose as black? Many. So it's not a matter of being a moron, IMO, it's a matter of knowing the endgames rules.
...and that's exactly the problem. Some people would find losing either of them moronic, some neither of the two. Which of the three is supposed to be "right" here?
> If you mean that giving the arbiters the power to use their common sense may lead to favoritism for the player who is "friend" of the aribter, then ok.
That's also a problem but only one part of the problem. Even without favoritism (conscious or subconscious), it would inevitably result in the same position being ruled different way in different games. And therefore endless protests and appeals in tournaments. Another important question: should the measure of "expected moronity" depend on player's level? Should the same position be considered impossible to lose unless moron in a game of 2000+ ELO players but not between two ELO-less beginners? Both approaches could be advocated for - but then even the same player may play a move now and then that they would find completely moronic any other day.
Last but not least: how do you expect these "common sense" criteria to be implemented in software? The game that made you start this topic was played on lichess, after all...