Manifesto: The Incremental Draw — For Fairer Chess in the Age of the Clock • page 4/5 • General Chess Discussion • lichess.org

ChatGPT said my idea is the best idea it's heard in ages.

https://www.techspot.com/news/108248-chatgpt-gets-crushed-chess-1-mhz-atari-2600.html

Look at this article and ask yourself if you should trust ChatGPT for anything chess related...

@Mister_Humidity said in #25: > ChatGPT said my idea is the best idea it's heard in ages. https://www.techspot.com/news/108248-chatgpt-gets-crushed-chess-1-mhz-atari-2600.html Look at this article and ask yourself if you should trust ChatGPT for anything chess related...

Hagredion

#32

In theory the idea has some merit but in practice there would always be situations in which it is difficult to evaluate if a players really has a winning position.

Geelse_zot

#33

What if two beginners play against each other, one drops a queen and the other starts stalling for 1.5 hour, because he's happy with the draw?

Mister_Humidity

#34

@nadjarostowa said in #24:

It actually encourages stalling in some positions.

Please describe such a scenario. Thanks.

It encourages cheating ("just checking if I can lose on time here").

Please describe such a scenario. Thanks.

@nadjarostowa I would genuinely like to explore how my proposal could be used in the ways you described. Thanks.

@nadjarostowa said in #24: > It actually encourages stalling in some positions. Please describe such a scenario. Thanks. > It encourages cheating ("just checking if I can lose on time here"). Please describe such a scenario. Thanks. @nadjarostowa I would genuinely like to explore how my proposal could be used in the ways you described. Thanks.

Mister_Humidity

#35

@Geelse_zot said in #33:

What if two beginners play against each other, one drops a queen and the other starts stalling for 1.5 hour, because he's happy with the draw?

Why would someone up a queen want to settle for a draw?

@Geelse_zot said in #33: > What if two beginners play against each other, one drops a queen and the other starts stalling for 1.5 hour, because he's happy with the draw? Why would someone up a queen want to settle for a draw?

Geelse_zot

#36

@Mister_Humidity said in #35:

Why would someone up a queen want to settle for a draw?

For personal reasons. They don't have to tell you. But now your incremental draw has encouraged this player to stall a game and get a draw as a result.

@Mister_Humidity said in #35: > Why would someone up a queen want to settle for a draw? For personal reasons. They don't have to tell you. But now your incremental draw has encouraged this player to stall a game and get a draw as a result.

lizani

#37

@Mister_Humidity said in #35:

Why would someone up a queen want to settle for a draw?

This is why your proposal will never work as there are too many exceptions. Just two scenarios -
During the game, a player may not realise how winning their position is. What if the +5 is only due to one precise sacrificial sequence ending in mate?
Last round in a big money tournament. Stronger player blunders, weak opponent has a big advantage. But they're afraid of blundering back, sit back and wait for the flag to fall, collect 1/2 point and first prize.
The forum is full of ideas for rule changes but this seems one of the least useful. As I already pointed out, if the clock is so important to you, stop playing no increment chess.

@Mister_Humidity said in #35: > Why would someone up a queen want to settle for a draw? This is why your proposal will never work as there are too many exceptions. Just two scenarios - During the game, a player may not realise how winning their position is. What if the +5 is only due to one precise sacrificial sequence ending in mate? Last round in a big money tournament. Stronger player blunders, weak opponent has a big advantage. But they're afraid of blundering back, sit back and wait for the flag to fall, collect 1/2 point and first prize. The forum is full of ideas for rule changes but this seems one of the least useful. As I already pointed out, if the clock is so important to you, stop playing no increment chess.

Mister_Humidity edited

#38

How about if a player got crushed, played like crap--even down a whole queen!--, but just made, fast dumb moves, knowing they'd get a win--equal to a checkmate--just because they managed to get their king in a pawn fortress? Obviously everyone's fine with that.

Curieuil

#39

As has been said many times: using an increment is enough to invalidate this strategy since the opponent is guaranteed to always have time to think.

And even without an increment, such a strategy only works at the fastest time controls. A player can't risk "playing like crap" if their opponent has at least a little time to think.

As has been said many times: using an increment is enough to invalidate this strategy since the opponent is guaranteed to always have time to think. And even without an increment, such a strategy only works at the fastest time controls. A player can't risk "playing like crap" if their opponent has at least a little time to think.

InkyDarkBird

#40

Everyone is fine with that because the people that aren't fine with that almost never have encountered that scenario since they play longer time controls, and the people that are fine with that play faster time controls.

Literally just play a longer time control if you hate losing on time.

Everyone is fine with that because the people that aren't fine with that almost never have encountered that scenario since they play longer time controls, and the people that are fine with that play faster time controls. Literally just play a longer time control if you hate losing on time.