Manifesto: The Incremental Draw — For Fairer Chess in the Age of the Clock

@Mister_Humidity said in #1:
The Problem

In modern chess, a player who runs out of time loses...
I personally have won a rapid game with an eval of +10 for the opponent.
It is possible 100% to make blunders in totally lost positions over +5. Also, with increment this rule kinda doesn't make sense because it's very hard to lose on time with a 30 second increment.

About the online part, isn't 1+0 and 3+0 mostly about flagging?

@Mister_Humidity said in #1:

The Proposal: The Incremental Draw

So close! "Increment" is the word you're looking for (it already exists).

@InkyDarkBird said in #7:

Was #1 written almost entirely using ChatGPT?

Almost certainly. Who would use an em dash in a forum post? And that cheesy final line smells a lot like AI.

Also, anyone who spent more than 2 seconds thinking about this would've quickly realized all of these problems are solved by increment.

P r e m o v e s exist.

Thanks for your replies.

I think you're missing the point. The point is--someone who has obviously played worse does not deserve a win, hence the incremental draw. That status quo currently frequently rewards worse, just faster play.

All of the objections to the idea do not address the inherent logic of the proposal.

Practically everyone's objection to the proposal is nothing more than a nod to convention. "It's not done that way, because it's not done that way."

People still lose on time even with increment and pre-moves.

(The first post was written by AI, after "discussing" it with the AI. This was not written by AI.)

In chess, both players must be allowed the same amount of time to think for the game to be fair. That's why time is measured and is therefore a precious resource that players must not waste recklessly.

You seem to consider that it's not fair for someone to lose on time even though they had a better position. But do you really think it's fair to let the more foresighted player lose, who had saved time to get through a difficult endgame, when their opponent wasted all their time without worrying about whether they would be able to finish the game?

@Mister_Humidity said in #1:

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

These engine evaluations look horrible since if no mate is possible evaluation is 0.0 and any engine that gives a +5.2 evaluation when no mate is possible is deeply flawed. It just shows perils of using AI since it gives plausible suggestions until you read carefully and realise it's all junk.

Other reason this doesn't work is that engine evaluations vary depending on engine used and depth/time you examine to. For example a +1 eval to infinite depth is either a mate in X moves or a draw. If used in otb competitions anti cheating regulations prohibit the use of engines in the playing hall.

Also on a serious note there actually already exists a rule where you can claim a draw if there is less than 2 minutes on your clock and opponent cannot win by normal means or isn't trying to win. So if there's no increment and you're 2 Queens up and opponent has no realistic way to win you can stop the clock, call an arbiter and claim a draw.

If playing online and you don't want to get flagged use an increment.

@Mister_Humidity Time is used to impose a fair duration limit (time control) that is previously agreed upon by the players. Time/Clock play is one of the major developments in chess, which has enabled the emergence of competitive game and, above all, made chess fairer by allowing both players to have a similar amount of time to think and play.

Yes, many people want to play without having to worry about flagging, in these case - you can favor correspondences games or slower time controls with longer increments.

By choosing to play with a faster time control or without increments, players are expected to be aware of the importance of time management. As in an exam or a sports competition, you cannot allow a player to exceed a limit that has been set and agreed upon by the participants, otherwise, it gives an unfair advantage to the player who cannot manage their time !

In my opinion, managing your time is an integral part of the game (especially today with online chess!) and requires practice. It's not easy to manage it well, as it can sometimes be very frustrating especially when you have a winning position on the board - but flagging mean losing by time. So, i think that having a winning position on the board but not managing to win because of time should not be a draw or it'll make the game unequal because time is also a skill. There are also some people (like me!) who also take the challenge of playing Arena tournaments by Berserking games, (Berserk cuts your time in half but allows you to earn an extra point if you win !) It's a kind of compensation compared to choosing to have half of the time !

@Curieuil said in #17:

do you really think it's fair to let the more foresighted player lose, who had saved time to get through a difficult endgame, when their opponent wasted all their time without worrying about whether they would be able to finish the game?

No, that's why the entire point of this thread is that such players should receive a DRAW, not a loss.