The Problem
In modern chess, a player who runs out of time loses—even if they are winning on the board. This creates a paradox: a player with a crushing advantage can lose the game simply by flagging.
Under current rules, the clock overrides the board. But chess is fundamentally about outplaying your opponent—not just outlasting them on the clock.
Time: A Useful Tool, Not a Sacred Law
Time controls were introduced in the 1800s—not to define the game, but to keep tournaments moving. For centuries, chess was played without clocks. Yet today, the clock is treated as absolute. A player may be up two queens—but if they flag, they lose.
This rule doesn’t reward skill. It rewards delay.
The Proposal: The Incremental Draw
When a player flags but holds a clearly winning position (over a pre-determined advantage threshold), the game should be declared a draw—unless the opponent can demonstrate a forced mate.
How It Works:
• The Advantage Threshold (say, +5) is voted on annually by the chess community.
• Online play: If a player flags, but the engine evaluation (at the end of the game) is equal or greater than the advantage threshold (perhaps, +5.0) in their favor, the result is a draw.
• Over-the-board play: If a player flags but holds a material advantage equal or greater than the advantage threshold (again perhaps +5), the result is a draw. Caveat: If the player with less material advantage can demonstrate a forced checkmate, they are awarded a win.
This is not about rescuing players who mismanage their clock—it's about refusing to reward losing positions with a full victory.
Why It Matters
This rule encourages:
• Stronger play at all stages of the game—not just time-scrambling.
• Fairer outcomes when both players have failed: one on the board, one on the clock.
• Respect for the purpose of chess: to win by playing better.
It also discourages cheap flagging tactics that reward inferior play and rob the game of its dignity.
Why Not Just Stick With the Clock?
The Incremental Draw isn’t a rejection of time control. It’s a refinement. It ensures that neither bad time management nor bad chess gets rewarded with a win. The result should reflect what the game actually was: an unresolved fight.
Example Use Cases
Player flags with +6 material, opponent cannot mate-- Draw
Player flags with +6 but opponent has mate in 3-- Opponent wins
Player flags with +0.8 engine evaluation and equal material-- Loss on time
Player flags with +5.2 engine evaluation, no mating position on other side-- Draw
Join the Discussion
Let’s make chess fairer, truer to its spirit, and more satisfying for players at every level. If you believe the outcome of a game should reflect what happened on the board, not just what happened on the clock...
Support the Incremental Draw.
Let’s evolve the game—incrementally.
bro chess is a balanced game with the whole intention to go and mate ur opponent BEFORE HE CAN
what does that mean? chess is played under time pressure - not from a clock , but from a move perspective
50 rule move also supports move pressure
most openings aim to give u favorable or at least solid middlegame ... so u do not have to ward of attack or can attack urself - some openings aim to bring u into the endgame , not even allowing for attack
voting on a piece value engine valuation does not work bc i can just take ur rook , engine says i am winning , i haver more points but i have no skill so i can not convert
and time pressure is good bc u get to flag , be flagged and have fun doing so - either case u learn
btw no one cares about onlone chess - it is the place where fun happens and should stay this way (we have ppl serious playing and lots of trolls , booth make it fun imo)
learning is good , if u make a draw or win or loss forced due to evaluation by the ai then u take away need for ppl to improvee themselves in some area - i mean , i can not mate with two knights and pawn , but i do know mate exists there somewhere
Increment fixes the problem.
Do not run out of time, Play Correspondence!
If a player loses on time being two queens up, then he better should have tried to win with one queen up.
The clock is as important as the board. Maybe you only reached a winning position because your opponent played fast to take advantage of your clock situation.
A version of your proposal already exists as you can only lose on time if your opponent has checkmating material. If you extend this to 'winning position' that is unfair as it's possible to blunder and lose even with +5. It's up to you to prove you will play precisely and win on the board and if you run out of time it implies your opponent put up enough resistance to create problems in realising your 'advantage'.
Was #1 written almost entirely using ChatGPT?
I should point out this problem has largely disappeared from classical chess because of the Fischer increment. A winning position will stay winning as long as you play fast. Losing on time in a winning position mainly happens in no increment time controls. If that's an issue, the solution should be self evident - play with an increment.
All serious chess is now with time increment.
Thank you for the suggestion.
A much better approach has already been implemented by using time controls with increment.
No need to agree to some obscure and arbitrary rule that will lead to endless discussions and problems.
And chess is too complex to make this a feasible rule, ever.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.