Changes to the Arena streak system are all that is needed to correct poor sportsmanship regarding clock flags and excessive waiting times. The streak point multiplier should be incrementally increased and decreased gradually. The multiplier would reset to 1.0x if a player incurs two consecutive losses or a flagged game. Winning just one game would not be sufficient to achieve a 4.0x multiplier; two consecutive wins would be required to reach that level. Similarly, for a lost game when at a 4.0x multiplier, one would not drop to 1.0x unless flagged. A single loss or resignation would only decrease the multiplier by 0.5x, demonstrating that the streak works both ways, and flagging is the sole cause of a full reset of the multiplier.
@Mister_Humidity said in #34:
> Please describe such a scenario. Thanks.
>> It actually encourages stalling in some positions.
Take a position where both players attack. One side is winning according to the computer (and maybe some material up), but that win is very difficult (or call it engine-like). For example, they would need to sacrifice a lot and then find some difficult only moves. This sort of thing that most players will simply miss. But if they don't find those moves, they would lose.
So it's a position that you would only win if you take risks, and realistically lose, but if you have the feeling "there is.a win somewhere", now stalling is a great option.
And this is also an example why the whole thing doesn't work at all. It gives "wrong" results - results, that would not occur if the game was played out.
It's much easier to know that "you are winning" than to actually do it, often risking everything in the process.
It also encourages other kinds of shenanigans - think of a drawish position where you are very low on time. You will probably lose on time, but you have that chance of wild sacrifice. Now you secure a draw if the computer says it's winning, and you wouldn't even need to find any of the moves. That's your free lunch right there. Just gamble.
If you think those type of positions are rare, just pick your favourite tactics book or many of the millions of puzzles on lichess. Each one of them allows you to weasel out of a decision. And just look how many of them were actually lost anyway, not merely on time.
>Please describe such a scenario. Thanks.
>>It encourages cheating ("just checking if I can lose on time here").
Just take the example above. If you are unsure if you actually are winning, just ask the engine for confirmation and you secured the draw (and you did never even play an engine move on the board). If the engine says it's not winning, you keep playing.
Looking at engine evals even without moves is cheating, and it is now even more useful, adding incentives to do so.
Probably an even better example is when your opponent sacrifices material for an attack, and you think you are getting mated.
We often see that the computer can find very creative defences and escape (probably with a winning position).
So now you take their sacrifice, and simply stop moving. So instead of an almost sure loss you now will get a gamble for a draw, using the defences of a 3500 Elo computer, without the moves ever being played or even thought of.
Chess time controls, especially in speed chess, needs new approaches. Players often resign early in speed formats not because they’re losing on the board, but to save time or energy. Why not give them some sort of bonus for resigning after 30 moves? Why let players run the time down and not resign when they could be thanked for resigning. What if speed chess used move limits instead of just time limits? This could shift the focus from rushing a game to making quality decisions. Everyone knows constant time pressure can compromise a game, which raises ethical questions about why we do it, forcing players to rush moves and do shortcuts to meet deadlines.
Speed chess has become a test of risk management. Players weigh imperfect choices under stress, unlike slower games where time managed moves are well-evaluated. Draws also need a fresh look OTB, but online I have not done that many draws. New approaches to draws online could keep OTB chess engaging.
Time controls started in the early 20th century for tournament scheduling, but today’s technology and fairness concerns offer more options. Increment and delay formats prove to be workable solutions. Let’s explore how to evolve chess while preserving its essence.
@Mister_Humidity
I find your proposal quite interesting. I’m no more than a novice, but winning on time is not appealing to me. Hence, I play correspondence. Even with stating so, I choose one day increments. Why? I simply want to play without time pressure, without waiting months for the steamer to arrive with my overseas opponent’s latest move. Obviously, we each like what we like. There have been some good comments here too. Good thread btw. Kudos!
As I am reading your proposal, there seems to be an obvious flaw: one player can be up 5 or more points of material but still be losing, or worse. However, there is no immediate checkmate, so the game is a draw once the losing player stalls out the clock. Also, suppose black is up a pawn and sacrifices his queen for a rook. Once black captures the queen, white forks the king and queen, winning a queen and leading to a position up a rook for a pawn. However, when white forks the king and queen, black stalls out the clock, is up 5 points of material, and this draw the game. Fabulously implemented idea.
@Mister_Humidity said in #1:
> 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.
How do have mate in 3 if you are losing?
@Mister_Humidity said in #1:
> 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.
How do have mate in 3 if you are losing?@grrrrrrr_r said in #46:
> As I am reading your proposal, there seems to be an obvious flaw: one player can be up 5 or more points of material but still be losing, or worse. However, there is no immediate checkmate, so the game is a draw once the losing player stalls out the clock. Also, suppose black is up a pawn and sacrifices his queen for a rook. Once black captures the queen, white forks the king and queen, winning a queen and leading to a position up a rook for a pawn. However, when white forks the king and queen, black stalls out the clock, is up 5 points of material, and this draw the game. Fabulously implemented idea.
He meant stock fish
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.