Quick answer
Increment versus Delay is a rules question: the legal-move test. Work from the first evidence position for Increment versus Delay, and begin by testing Kd8.
Begin from Kd8 in 8/4k3/8/8/4P3/8/8/4K3 b - - 0 2. Read the side to move, legal conditions, history fields and procedural distinction before relying on a shortcut. The evidence answer is: Increment versus Delay: identify checks, captures, pins and king safety before accepting a move as legal. Candidate line: Kd8.
In the Increment versus Delay example, notice: side Black; pieces Black king e7, White pawn e4, White king e1; legal first moves Kd8, Ke8, Kf8, Kf7, Kf6, Ke6, Kd6, Kd7. Use the inventory as a reading aid for this position alone rather than as a template for other games.
The exact condition
The first evidence board tests the legal-move test; the second board tests the legal-move test. A is seeded by the moves direct FEN setup. B is seeded by direct FEN setup. Shared language is catalogued on the Chess Wiki and the Rules hub. Then compare Piece Movement with Flag Fall And Time Forfeits, Resignation And Draw Offers, Arbiter Draw Claims around resignation versus a draw offer.
The two inventories make the distinction concrete. A contains side Black; pieces Black king e7, White pawn e4, White king e1; legal first moves Kd8, Ke8, Kf8, Kf7, Kf6, Ke6, Kd6, Kd7; B contains side Black; pieces Black king c7, White pawn e4, White king c1; legal first moves Kb8, Kc8, Kd8, Kd7, Kd6, Kc6, Kb6, Kb7. Compare the side to move before comparing the labels in the context of a claim versus an automatic draw.
Topic dossier for this page and board pair r1:8 | r2:4k3 | r3:8 | r4:8 | r5:4P3 | r6:8 | r7:8 | r8:4K3 / r1:8 | r2:2k5 | r3:8 | r4:8 | r5:4P3 | r6:8 | r7:8 | r8:2K5: start with resignation versus a draw offer; then test a claim versus an automatic draw; keep the arbiter's role in a claim separate from the en-passant window; use the legal castling test as the transfer check; and reserve the dead-position exception for the exception.
Procedure and counterexample
On the first board, calculate Kd8 after Kd8 and write down the opponent's best reply around resignation versus a draw offer. On the second board, calculate Kb8 after Kb8 and check a claim versus an automatic draw. Separate what the board proves from what only the move record, clock or arbiter can establish. In this case the useful condition is the dead-position exception.
Key claim: Increment versus Delay is illustrated here by the legal-move test; the first concrete test is Kd8. The board anchor is 8/4k3/8/8/4P3/8/8/4K3; the example is intentionally narrower than the topic label and should not be generalised without checking the surrounding position..
Practical boundary: To answer “When is increment versus delay legal, what exceptions matter, and how can a player verify the rule at the board?”, compare the recorded setup with Kb8 and the opponent's reply. The decision is useful only when the stated condition survives that concrete test on board 8/2k5/8/8/4P3/8/8/2K5. The evidence records The position tests the stated rule or record field; verify the relevant source when a procedural decision matters and the second board signature r1:8 | r2:2k5 | r3:8 | r4:8 | r5:4P3 | r6:8 | r7:8 | r8:2K5. The false-positive test is whether the arbiter's role in a claim appears without the en-passant window, so the conclusion is useful only when the stated condition survives that concrete test.
Evidence positions
example-1: the legal-move test
Show answer
Increment versus Delay: identify checks, captures, pins and king safety before accepting a move as legal. Candidate line: Kd8.
Why this position is here: Increment versus Delay is represented by the legal-move test. This is a direct FEN setup with board anchor 8/4k3/8/8/4P3/8/8/4K3; no opening history is inferred from the diagram.
FEN: 8/4k3/8/8/4P3/8/8/4K3 b - - 0 2
Question: What is the first concrete decision in this increment versus delay position?
Answer cue: Increment versus Delay: identify checks, captures, pins and king safety before accepting a move as legal. Candidate line: Kd8. The first candidate to test is Kd8. Replay Kd8 on board anchor 8/4k3/8/8/4P3/8/8/4K3 and write down what changes after it.
Evidence boundary: The position tests the stated rule or record field; verify the relevant source when a procedural decision matters.
example-2: the legal-move test
Show answer
Increment versus Delay: identify checks, captures, pins and king safety before accepting a move as legal. Candidate line: Kb8.
Why this position is here: Increment versus Delay is represented by the legal-move test. This is a direct FEN setup with board anchor 8/2k5/8/8/4P3/8/8/2K5; no opening history is inferred from the diagram.
FEN: 8/2k5/8/8/4P3/8/8/2K5 b - - 0 3
Question: What is the first concrete decision in this increment versus delay position?
Answer cue: Increment versus Delay: identify checks, captures, pins and king safety before accepting a move as legal. Candidate line: Kb8. The first candidate to test is Kb8. Replay Kb8 on board anchor 8/2k5/8/8/4P3/8/8/2K5 and write down what changes after it.
Evidence boundary: The position tests the stated rule or record field; verify the relevant source when a procedural decision matters.
Reading the record
Read the first example (id example-1) as a complete record: continuation Kd8, source fide-laws. This is a direct FEN setup with board anchor 8/4k3/8/8/4P3/8/8/4K3; no opening history is inferred from the diagram. If A does not expose the legal-move test, correct the evidence before relying on the prose.
Read the second example (id example-2) separately: continuation Kb8, source fide-laws. Its feature is the legal-move test; inventory side Black; pieces Black king c7, White pawn e4, White king c1; legal first moves Kb8, Kc8, Kd8, Kd7, Kd6, Kc6, Kb6, Kb7. Compare what changes between Kd8 and Kb8.
Common confusions
The main mistake to avoid with Increment versus Delay is remembering a simplified slogan while overlooking a history field, exception or procedural condition. In A, the missing condition must be located in r1:8 | r2:4k3 | r3:8 | r4:8 | r5:4P3 | r6:8 | r7:8 | r8:4K3 after Kd8; in B, test it against r1:8 | r2:2k5 | r3:8 | r4:8 | r5:4P3 | r6:8 | r7:8 | r8:2K5 after Kb8.
For Increment versus Delay, the first board's evidence boundary (after Kd8) is The position tests the stated rule or record field; verify the relevant source when a procedural decision matters. The second board's evidence boundary for Increment versus Delay is The position tests the stated rule or record field; verify the relevant source when a procedural decision matters. If a trusted source or careful calculation changes the conclusion around the legal castling test, update both the evidence record and this article.
Practice with a position
rebuild the position from the initial board, change one condition, and explain exactly which rule changes the result. Start with A's side to move and r1:8 | r2:4k3 | r3:8 | r4:8 | r5:4P3 | r6:8 | r7:8 | r8:4K3; record two candidates, the reply to Kd8 and the correction. Repeat with B's side to move and r1:8 | r2:2k5 | r3:8 | r4:8 | r5:4P3 | r6:8 | r7:8 | r8:2K5; the changed board tests transfer rather than diagram memory.
After the drill, compare your notes with Flag Fall And Time Forfeits, Resignation And Draw Offers, Arbiter Draw Claims through the en-passant window. Keep A's rejected alternative beside B's chosen line Kb8; this shows whether the conclusion survived a new board signature.
Sources and scope
Sources for Increment versus Delay: FIDE Laws of Chess, 1chess.online editorial scope. Source ids are fide-laws, original-analysis. Primary evidence hook: fide-laws. Comparisons and practice notes are editorial. Evidence revision: 2026-08-remediation-r2.
Scope note for board pair r1:8 | r2:4k3 | r3:8 | r4:8 | r5:4P3 | r6:8 | r7:8 | r8:4K3 / r1:8 | r2:2k5 | r3:8 | r4:8 | r5:4P3 | r6:8 | r7:8 | r8:2K5: this page does not claim that Kd8 is an engine principal variation, that an exact endgame result is verified when the evidence says it is not, or that a tool output replaces human calculation. The conclusion is limited to the recorded boundary and the exception the arbiter's role in a claim.