Why is it allowed to request an increment in time trouble?

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
4
down vote

favorite












From the FIDE Handbook:




III.2.2 These Guidelines shall apply only to standard chess and rapid chess games without increment and not to blitz games.



III.4 If the player having the move has less than two minutes left on his clock, he may request that an increment extra five seconds be introduced for both players. This constitutes the offer of a draw. If the offer refused, and the arbiter agrees to the request, the clocks shall then be set with the extra time; the opponent shall be awarded two extra minutes and the game shall continue.




According to this, if I crush my opponent in a rapid game using all of my clock time except for a minute, then I can simply request an increment of 5 seconds for continuing the game (my opponent gets two minutes, but that will not affect the game due to his/her hopeless position). Is this fair enough?



There have been many examples where this rule could be used but wasn't, for instance, the Unofficial Chess960 World Championship, Carlsen could have requested an increment and tried to win the R + B vs R endgame instead of flagging. Why didn't he do so?






rules time-control







share|improve this question



























    up vote
    4
    down vote

    favorite












    From the FIDE Handbook:




    III.2.2 These Guidelines shall apply only to standard chess and rapid chess games without increment and not to blitz games.



    III.4 If the player having the move has less than two minutes left on his clock, he may request that an increment extra five seconds be introduced for both players. This constitutes the offer of a draw. If the offer refused, and the arbiter agrees to the request, the clocks shall then be set with the extra time; the opponent shall be awarded two extra minutes and the game shall continue.




    According to this, if I crush my opponent in a rapid game using all of my clock time except for a minute, then I can simply request an increment of 5 seconds for continuing the game (my opponent gets two minutes, but that will not affect the game due to his/her hopeless position). Is this fair enough?



    There have been many examples where this rule could be used but wasn't, for instance, the Unofficial Chess960 World Championship, Carlsen could have requested an increment and tried to win the R + B vs R endgame instead of flagging. Why didn't he do so?






    rules time-control







    share|improve this question

























      up vote
      4
      down vote

      favorite









      up vote
      4
      down vote

      favorite











      From the FIDE Handbook:




      III.2.2 These Guidelines shall apply only to standard chess and rapid chess games without increment and not to blitz games.



      III.4 If the player having the move has less than two minutes left on his clock, he may request that an increment extra five seconds be introduced for both players. This constitutes the offer of a draw. If the offer refused, and the arbiter agrees to the request, the clocks shall then be set with the extra time; the opponent shall be awarded two extra minutes and the game shall continue.




      According to this, if I crush my opponent in a rapid game using all of my clock time except for a minute, then I can simply request an increment of 5 seconds for continuing the game (my opponent gets two minutes, but that will not affect the game due to his/her hopeless position). Is this fair enough?



      There have been many examples where this rule could be used but wasn't, for instance, the Unofficial Chess960 World Championship, Carlsen could have requested an increment and tried to win the R + B vs R endgame instead of flagging. Why didn't he do so?






      rules time-control







      share|improve this question















      From the FIDE Handbook:




      III.2.2 These Guidelines shall apply only to standard chess and rapid chess games without increment and not to blitz games.



      III.4 If the player having the move has less than two minutes left on his clock, he may request that an increment extra five seconds be introduced for both players. This constitutes the offer of a draw. If the offer refused, and the arbiter agrees to the request, the clocks shall then be set with the extra time; the opponent shall be awarded two extra minutes and the game shall continue.




      According to this, if I crush my opponent in a rapid game using all of my clock time except for a minute, then I can simply request an increment of 5 seconds for continuing the game (my opponent gets two minutes, but that will not affect the game due to his/her hopeless position). Is this fair enough?



      There have been many examples where this rule could be used but wasn't, for instance, the Unofficial Chess960 World Championship, Carlsen could have requested an increment and tried to win the R + B vs R endgame instead of flagging. Why didn't he do so?






      rules time-control




      rules time-control






      share|improve this question















      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited 39 mins ago









      Glorfindel

      11.8k43355




      11.8k43355










      asked 2 hours ago









      Wais Kamal

      443112




      443112




















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          2
          down vote














          but that will not affect the game due to his/her hopeless position




          Your opponent would be better off accepting the implied draw offer ("This constitutes the offer of a draw."), then. So invoking this entire rule is only beneficial if you have a worse position and very few time left on your clock, which sort-of makes sense: especially in classical games, we want the stronger side to win on the board, not by simply moving his pieces around.



          The advantage of this rule is that it's an objective rule. An older rule (III.5.1) is that the player in time trouble can claim their opponent isn't trying to win by normal means; validating this claim required a subjective decision by an arbiter.






          share|improve this answer






















            Your Answer








            StackExchange.ready(function()
            var channelOptions =
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "435"
            ;
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
            createEditor();
            );

            else
            createEditor();

            );

            function createEditor()
            StackExchange.prepareEditor(
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            convertImagesToLinks: false,
            noModals: false,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: null,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            imageUploader:
            brandingHtml: "",
            contentPolicyHtml: "",
            allowUrls: true
            ,
            noCode: true, onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            );



            );













             

            draft saved


            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fchess.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f22776%2fwhy-is-it-allowed-to-request-an-increment-in-time-trouble%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest

















            1 Answer
            1






            active

            oldest

            votes








            1 Answer
            1






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes








            up vote
            2
            down vote














            but that will not affect the game due to his/her hopeless position




            Your opponent would be better off accepting the implied draw offer ("This constitutes the offer of a draw."), then. So invoking this entire rule is only beneficial if you have a worse position and very few time left on your clock, which sort-of makes sense: especially in classical games, we want the stronger side to win on the board, not by simply moving his pieces around.



            The advantage of this rule is that it's an objective rule. An older rule (III.5.1) is that the player in time trouble can claim their opponent isn't trying to win by normal means; validating this claim required a subjective decision by an arbiter.






            share|improve this answer


























              up vote
              2
              down vote














              but that will not affect the game due to his/her hopeless position




              Your opponent would be better off accepting the implied draw offer ("This constitutes the offer of a draw."), then. So invoking this entire rule is only beneficial if you have a worse position and very few time left on your clock, which sort-of makes sense: especially in classical games, we want the stronger side to win on the board, not by simply moving his pieces around.



              The advantage of this rule is that it's an objective rule. An older rule (III.5.1) is that the player in time trouble can claim their opponent isn't trying to win by normal means; validating this claim required a subjective decision by an arbiter.






              share|improve this answer
























                up vote
                2
                down vote










                up vote
                2
                down vote










                but that will not affect the game due to his/her hopeless position




                Your opponent would be better off accepting the implied draw offer ("This constitutes the offer of a draw."), then. So invoking this entire rule is only beneficial if you have a worse position and very few time left on your clock, which sort-of makes sense: especially in classical games, we want the stronger side to win on the board, not by simply moving his pieces around.



                The advantage of this rule is that it's an objective rule. An older rule (III.5.1) is that the player in time trouble can claim their opponent isn't trying to win by normal means; validating this claim required a subjective decision by an arbiter.






                share|improve this answer















                but that will not affect the game due to his/her hopeless position




                Your opponent would be better off accepting the implied draw offer ("This constitutes the offer of a draw."), then. So invoking this entire rule is only beneficial if you have a worse position and very few time left on your clock, which sort-of makes sense: especially in classical games, we want the stronger side to win on the board, not by simply moving his pieces around.



                The advantage of this rule is that it's an objective rule. An older rule (III.5.1) is that the player in time trouble can claim their opponent isn't trying to win by normal means; validating this claim required a subjective decision by an arbiter.







                share|improve this answer














                share|improve this answer



                share|improve this answer








                edited 37 mins ago

























                answered 1 hour ago









                Glorfindel

                11.8k43355




                11.8k43355



























                     

                    draft saved


                    draft discarded















































                     


                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function ()
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fchess.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f22776%2fwhy-is-it-allowed-to-request-an-increment-in-time-trouble%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                    );

                    Post as a guest
































































                    Comments

                    Post a Comment

                    Popular posts from this blog

                    List of Gilmore Girls characters

                    Image
                    The season three cast—(Back row): Lane, Michel, Paris, Emily, Richard, Sookie, Miss Patty, Kirk; Front row: Jess, Luke, Lorelai, Rory, Dean This is a list of characters for the comedy-drama television series Gilmore Girls . Contents 1 Main characters 1.1 Lorelai Gilmore 1.2 Rory Gilmore 1.3 Sookie St. James 1.4 Lane Kim 1.5 Michel Gerard 1.6 Luke Danes 1.7 Emily Gilmore 1.8 Richard Gilmore 1.9 Paris Geller 1.10 Dean Forester 1.11 Jess Mariano 1.12 Kirk Gleason 1.13 Jason Stiles 1.14 Logan Huntzberger 2 Major recurring characters 2.1 Christopher Hayden 2.2 Jackson Belleville 2.3 Mrs. Kim 2.4 Tristin DuGray 2.5 Max Medina 2.6 Taylor Doose 2.7 Dave Rygalski 2.8 Marty 3 Recurring characters 3.1 Stars Hollow 3.2 Chilton 3.3 Yale 3.4 Other 4 Notable guest stars 5 Unseen characters 6 Notes 7 References Main characters Actor Character Appearances Season 1 Season 2 Season 3 Season 4 Season 5 Season 6 Season 7 A Year in the Life Lauren Graham Lorelai Gilmore...
                    Read more

                    What does second last employer means? [closed]

                    Image
                    Clash Royale CLAN TAG #URR8PPP .everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0; up vote -3 down vote favorite Say, for example I have worked in the following companies, Company A => 2010 - 2011 Company B => 2011 - 2012 Company C => 2012 - Till Date Company D => Have offer Now assume Company D is asking to submit documents from my second last employer. So from the list of companies given, which company would be qualified as second last employer? software-industry employer share | improve this question asked Aug 10 '14 at 5:16 Rajaprabhu Aravindasamy 559 1 6 13 closed as off-topic by Jim G., jmort253 ♦ Aug 11 '14 at 1:58 This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason: "Questions seeking advice on company-specific regulations, agreements, or policies should be directed to your manager or HR department. Questions that address...
                    Read more

                    One-line joke

                    A one-liner is a joke that is delivered in a single line. A good one-liner is said to be pithy - concise and meaningful. [1] Comedians and actors use this comedic method as part of their act, e.g. Jimmy Carr, Tommy Cooper, Rodney Dangerfield, Norm Macdonald, Ken Dodd, Stewart Francis, Zach Galifianakis, Mitch Hedberg, Anthony Jeselnik, Milton Jones, Shappi Khorsandi, Jay London, Mark Linn-Baker, Demetri Martin, Groucho Marx, Dan Mintz, Emo Philips, Tim Vine, Steven Wright and Henny Youngman and Arnold Schwarzenegger. [ citation needed ] Many fictional characters are also known to deliver one-liners, including James Bond, who usually includes pithy and laconic quips after disposing of a villain. [ citation needed ] Examples "A baby seal walks into a club." "A dyslexic man walks into a bra." (Anonymous) "There are three types of people, those who can count and those who can't." "Venison's dear, isn't it?" (Jimmy Carr) "An escala...
                    Read more