"Drawn" positions when there is an increment

[Stuart McKinney]

Yeh, it's a separate (and far too debatable point) but I do wonder if the increment idea has been embraced a little too quickly (globally) without sufficient thought. The argument over "purity/quality" only washes with a certain perspective (who granted might even be a majority in numbers) but the case in my view is a long way from proven. I will always be of the view that chess is a game between mere humans with flawed and imperfect psychologies and that that is a material part of the game, and the fun. Managing time (deliberately and consciously - or not doing so) is then just another way for those differences to distinguish themselves - while "fixing the problem" with increments is a misconception based on flawed assumptions about what "quality" means. Still, we are where we are so I'll pack caffeine tablets the next time  I'm playing in an increment tournament

Just my thoughts on an old thread: Imagine the same scenario with no increment. The position would be decided on time alone if one of the players refuses the draw. Again unsatisfactory.

I was playing a game on chess.com and we got down to a K & R v K & R so I offered a draw. The game had an increment so couldn't be decided on time. The draw offer was refused. I was annoyed and after a few moves I blundered and eventually lost which is beside the point. I've also watched games on chess.com where clearly drawn positions are played out only to win on time. Should players be allowed to claim draws in these positions. In my game should I have had an option to claim a draw rather then offer one?

There are hundreds of positions where K+R v K+R is winning, for example white has rook on a1, king on b1, black has king on b3, rook on h3. Regardless of who is to move, black wins. Add to the mix there will be tactics that deliberately swap into K+R vs K+R because of a winning pin. There will also be some cases where one side actually is fairly close to being mated and has to play a move in a few seconds - panic sets in and blunders happen. So there is no way for the platform to determine if the K+R vs K+R position is actually a draw and therefore you should never be allowed to claim the draw there. FWIW, I would play on if my opponent looked close to blundering online, but maybe not OTB. If you have no incrament, sadly that is just time management. If you have incrament, you just have to play it out (then block and never play the person again if it upsets you). 

I have more sympathy for something like K+B v K+P, where the only way for the K+B side to win is if the opponent underpromotes to a knight and decides to self mate. Probably in that position you should be able to claim a draw.

---

Thanks for your reply. In the game in question it was definitely a drawn position. After any game you can have your game analysed on chess.com and it confirmed the draw until of course when I had a brain freeze and blundered.

If this game had been in an over-the board game in a congress I probably could have claimed a draw as I probably could in a league match under Chess Edinburgh rules.

My own thoughts: If the game is clearly drawn and the only way for someone to win is to run down your opponent's clock you should be able to claim a draw. You should also be allowed to claim a draw in incremental games if a player is just playing moves without any realistic way of winning. I also believe though that if you are in a losing position but your opponent is in time trouble you should be allowed to play it out.