PDA

View Full Version : Draw etiquette (was "inaudible mutterings")



Kevin Bonham
11-01-2005, 02:00 PM
I had two minor incidents with this issue in the recent Aus Open.

Several players either offer draws or say "adjust" (or "j'adoube") so inaudibly that any opponent whose hearing isn't perfect (which mine isn't really, although I'm a lot less deaf than quite a few older players) may not hear it at all. Sometimes I get an inaudible mutter which turns out to be a draw offer and have to ask "did you just offer a draw?" for clarification. In one game, my opponent reached out and adjusted one of my pawns. I hadn't heard a thing so I attempted to enforce touchtake but he claimed he had said "adjust" and I'm happy to take his word for it - it just must have been far too quiet for me to hear.

I understand players wanting to offer draws quietly so as to not disturb other players etc but it is really a total joke when the opponent cannot hear the offer let alone the surrounding players or potential witnesses. Any suggestions for arbiting solutions to prevent this problem?

Disclosure: I myself once offered a draw so quietly that my opponent failed to hear it (I later won that game), but I had an excuse - I was so sick with some nasty flu that I could not raise my voice above a whisper.

Cat
11-01-2005, 02:38 PM
I had two minor incidents with this issue in the recent Aus Open.

Several players either offer draws or say "adjust" (or "j'adoube") so inaudibly that any opponent whose hearing isn't perfect (which mine isn't really, although I'm a lot less deaf than quite a few older players) may not hear it at all. Sometimes I get an inaudible mutter which turns out to be a draw offer and have to ask "did you just offer a draw?" for clarification. In one game, my opponent reached out and adjusted one of my pawns. I hadn't heard a thing so I attempted to enforce touchtake but he claimed he had said "adjust" and I'm happy to take his word for it - it just must have been far too quiet for me to hear.

I understand players wanting to offer draws quietly so as to not disturb other players etc but it is really a total joke when the opponent cannot hear the offer let alone the surrounding players or potential witnesses. Any suggestions for arbiting solutions to prevent this problem?

Disclosure: I myself once offered a draw so quietly that my opponent failed to hear it (I later won that game), but I had an excuse - I was so sick with some nasty flu that I could not raise my voice above a whisper.

Time to get the ears tested perhaps? Maybe a little wax in the ears? People loose hearing at certain frequencies - I saw a drummer who had a specific loss at 6000Hz, we presumed the frequency of his symbols which were close to his ear. In all sincerity, kids have much more acute hearing and may genuinely believe their comments were audible. Ladies have better hearing at higher frequencies.

shaun
11-01-2005, 03:48 PM
If I was a player I would check for eye contact. Normally when people communicate with someone they also look towards them. So if you see you opponent gazing longingly into your eyes .....
As for touch move maybe a pattern of behavior needs to be observed. If your opponent has been capturing your pieces by moving his piece to the square first, then touching one of your pieces first indicates an adjust rather than a capture. Of course asking to speak louder after the first such misunderstanding also helps.
On a related matter, Milan Grcic indulges in gamesmanship quite often by musing aloud that the position is drawish. When specifically asked however he denies actually asking for a draw, counting on the opponent playing safe/lazy moves in the expectation that a draw will soon be agreed when he knows full that it won't. I at least have made it clear to him that if he says any phrase including the word draw when I am playing him he runs the risk of me stopping the clocks and recording 0.5-0.5 on the result sheet (depending on the position of course).

ursogr8
11-01-2005, 03:51 PM
I had two minor incidents with this issue in the recent Aus Open.

Several players either offer draws or say "adjust" so inaudibly that any opponent whose hearing isn't perfect (which mine isn't really, although I'm a lot less deaf than quite a few older players) may not hear it at all. Sometimes I get an inaudible mutter which turns out to be a draw offer and have to ask "did you just offer a draw?" for clarification.
I understand players wanting to offer draws quietly so as to not disturb other players etc but it is really a total joke when the opponent cannot hear the offer let alone the surrounding players or potential witnesses. Any suggestions for arbiting solutions to prevent this problem?

Disclosure: I myself once offered a draw so quietly that my opponent failed to hear it (I later won that game), but I had an excuse - I was so sick with some nasty flu that I could not raise my voice above a whisper.

hi KB
I would have thought the Arbiters job under 9.1 was easy (see coloured sentence below) >
9.1. A player can propose a draw after making a move on the
chessboard. He must do so before stopping his own clock and
starting his opponent's clock. An offer at any other time
during play is still valid, but Article 12.5 must be
considered. No conditions can be attached to the offer. In
both cases the offer cannot be withdrawn and remains valid
until the opponent accepts it, rejects it orally, rejects it
by making a move, or the game is concluded in some other way.

The offer of a draw shall be noted by each player on his
scoresheet with the symbol (=).


starter

arosar
11-01-2005, 04:19 PM
The offer of a draw shall be noted by each player on his scoresheet with the symbol (=).

A practice that is strictly enforced in NZ.

AR

Cat
11-01-2005, 06:21 PM
If I was a player I would check for eye contact. Normally when people communicate with someone they also look towards them. So if you see you opponent gazing longingly into your eyes .....
As for touch move maybe a pattern of behavior needs to be observed. If your opponent has been capturing your pieces by moving his piece to the square first, then touching one of your pieces first indicates an adjust rather than a capture. Of course asking to speak louder after the first such misunderstanding also helps.


Teenagers, particularly boys, are poor at developing eye contact - often shy away.

Rincewind
11-01-2005, 10:59 PM
A practice that is strictly enforced in NZ.

As it should be. The following is an extract of Guert's 5th column with Chess Cafe.


For several reasons, it is good that the offer of a draw must be recorded on the scoresheet. When a player has offered a draw there is now a proof of this offer. Making draw offers also are part of the history of the game and history should be recorded. But more and more I am starting to like Canadian Jonathan Berry's proposal to make an offer much clearer. He suggested that each of the players have a card; on this card would be written "0.5" and the player would show this card to his opponent when he offers a draw. In the Women's Candidates Tournament (Groningen 1997) Galliamova offered Peng a draw, but Peng did not react; the game was continued and Peng lost. When Galliamova asked her opponent why she did not accept her draw offer, Peng replied that she did not know that Galliamova had offered a draw. I remember the same thing happened in the game Korchnoi-Tal, Brussels 1988. Tal offered a draw and Korchnoi did not react. Tal repeated his offer several times and each time louder. Finally Korchnoi heard it and accepted.

The full article which also mentions an aussie GM can be viewed here (http://www.chesscafe.com/text/geurt05.txt).

Ian Rout
12-01-2005, 08:53 AM
I like this idea of the "I offer a draw" card. It removes the inconsistency between players being allowed to offer a draw but not being allowed to speak to the opponent. It also removes the dilemma of when to offer another draw in an obviously dead position - rather than shuffling around you can just leave your Draw card out. And as described, it eliminates the question of players not hearing, and diputes about whether draws were offered.

Shaun's eye contact point is a good one but I think some players deliberately (and wisely) avoid eye contact to avoid giving hints about whether they think they are losing or just think the position is drawn.

I note that the Laws of Chess do not stipulate the form in which a draw should be offered so I presume it could be trialled somewhere?

Perhaps a "Do not bother offering any more draws" card might be useful too.

Trent Parker
12-01-2005, 09:46 AM
Generally when i'm playing a game i sometimes do not hear the opponent say draw or anything else because i am concertrating on the position or not paying attention..... If i think my opponent has said something i almost always say "pardon?" Even if it may be a j'adoube case....

I always say j'adoube softly but not in whisper so even if my opponent does not hear me properly then they can ask me what i said.

I agree that draw offers should be made reasonably audibly but as to not disturb those around that board too much.....

There was an incident in the NSW minor where a person touched pieces. According to the opponent he didnt say I adjust or J'adoube but the other said he did say adjust......

Now another thing..... In the minor there was a guy who would mutter (silently) under his breath when playing the game.....this was occasionally annoying......What would the ruling on that be???????

Kevin Bonham
12-01-2005, 03:13 PM
In all sincerity, kids have much more acute hearing and may genuinely believe their comments were audible.

Yep. Both offenders were under 20, one by several years. Past offenders have also generally been early 20s or younger.


The offer of a draw shall be noted by each player on his
scoresheet with the symbol (=).

Yes. The pickup on this, especially among juniors, has been slow. I was impressed to observe J. Escribano demonstrating correct form.

A similar idea to the draw card is the "I want a draw" switch which a player can switch on or off; as soon as both players switch it on a light comes on and the game is drawn. I think that such things would lead to less interesting chess as some games continue in positions where both players want a draw but are too afraid to ask.

Incidentally the draw etiquette at Mt B especially from some of the juniors was abysmal - players offering draws while behind on material against opponents outrating them by hundreds of points, for instance.

Rincewind
12-01-2005, 04:14 PM
Incidentally the draw etiquette at Mt B especially from some of the juniors was abysmal - players offering draws while behind on material against opponents outrating them by hundreds of points, for instance.

I feel this can be more easily forgiven of juniors and says more about their teachers than it does the junior. When seniors do it then it is more reprehensible.

JGB
12-01-2005, 07:11 PM
I feel this can be more easily forgiven of juniors and says more about their teachers than it does the junior. When seniors do it then it is more reprehensible.

Its normal for kids, most have no idea that the simple draw offer is an insult to the opponent is such circumstances. They only get one draw offer anyway and after the game you should simple ask the junior 'What were you thinking, offering me a draw? Do you know that is impolite when completely losing?' or your own variation thereof. ;)

Lucena
12-01-2005, 08:19 PM
In the August Weekender in Sydney this year, I observed Bolens offer Zong-Yuan Zhao a draw. When Zong-Yuan didn't put the "=" sign on the scoresheet, he pointed out that this was required. Bolens is not widely known as a stickler for the laws of chess. I suspect he just wanted some excuse to show a bit of gamesmanship.

Rincewind
12-01-2005, 08:34 PM
Its normal for kids, most have no idea that the simple draw offer is an insult to the opponent is such circumstances. They only get one draw offer anyway and after the game you should simple ask the junior 'What were you thinking, offering me a draw? Do you know that is impolite when completely losing?' or your own variation thereof. ;)

Yes, most young player probably don't realise that and have not been told. However, what do you mean by "They only get one draw offer anyway"?

Trent Parker
13-01-2005, 11:09 PM
Incidentally the draw etiquette at Mt B especially from some of the juniors was abysmal - players offering draws while behind on material against opponents outrating them by hundreds of points, for instance.

I think with a lot of the (very)young players today they tend to offer a draw when they are clearly losing.

I mean even at the ralph seberry memorial tournament a junior asked me If I wanted a draw when i had won her queen for a rook.... though she outrated me by 400 points... a couple of moves later i had her mated ;)

I was actually quite surprised at the draw offer. (hmmm have i left too many clues?)....

Rincewind
14-01-2005, 07:00 AM
I was actually quite surprised at the draw offer. (hmmm have i left too many clues?)....

:hmm: Junior... girl... rated in the 1700s... Played in the Ralph Seberry Memorial... :hmm:

Could be anyone. :lol:

Woodstocker
21-01-2005, 02:21 PM
For my two pence worth, I find it extraordinary that some few players of all ages refuse to acknowledge that a draw offer has been made.

On occations I have had to offer the branch in an ever increasingly louder voice until the interaction becomes uncomfortable.

I agree with an earlier comment made that placed some blame at the foot of coaches.

The question must be canvassed, what excuse can an experienced adult player have for such rudeness.

antichrist
23-01-2005, 01:41 AM
For my two pence worth, I find it extraordinary that some few players of all ages refuse to acknowledge that a draw offer has been made.

On occations I have had to offer the branch in an ever increasingly louder voice until the interaction becomes uncomfortable.

I agree with an earlier comment made that placed some blame at the foot of coaches.

The question must be canvassed, what excuse can an experienced adult player have for such rudeness.

Must the reply be made at time of offer or can be delayed a few moves to see if one's interest? By sounds of it the rules say must be immediate. I will delay to see how going.

shaun
23-01-2005, 09:10 AM
Must the reply be made at time of offer or can be delayed a few moves to see if one's interest? By sounds of it the rules say must be immediate. I will delay to see how going.

Yes you can delay your reply for a few moves at least. What you should do after a draw offer is immeadiatley launch an attack, usually sacrificing material, and if it doesn't work out accept the draw offer your opponent made 5 or 10 moves previously.

Rincewind
23-01-2005, 09:13 AM
Must the reply be made at time of offer or can be delayed a few moves to see if one's interest? By sounds of it the rules say must be immediate. I will delay to see how going.

You can accept the draw anytime in your following move. By making a move you explicitly refuse the offer and it is no longer on the table unless your opponent re-offers. Of course you may offer a draw yourself (but your opponent is not required to accept it) but you may not accept an offer once you've made a move following the offer.

After an offer is made it is normal to acknowledge the offer in some way. Not necessarily deciding on the offer immediately.

Bill Gletsos
23-01-2005, 12:29 PM
Yes you can delay your reply for a few moves at least. What you should do after a draw offer is immeadiatley launch an attack, usually sacrificing material, and if it doesn't work out accept the draw offer your opponent made 5 or 10 moves previously.
:lol: :lol:

pax
24-01-2005, 02:32 PM
For my two pence worth, I find it extraordinary that some few players of all ages refuse to acknowledge that a draw offer has been made.

On occations I have had to offer the branch in an ever increasingly louder voice until the interaction becomes uncomfortable.

I agree with an earlier comment made that placed some blame at the foot of coaches.

The question must be canvassed, what excuse can an experienced adult player have for such rudeness.

There is no obligation, moral or otherwise for a player to acknowledge or reply to a draw offer. It is useful to indicate in some way that the offer has been heard, but no more than that. In my opinion, it is far more rude for a player to offer a draw and look expectant of an immediate reply or to repeatedly repeat a (clearly heard) draw offer.

Rincewind
24-01-2005, 02:57 PM
There is no obligation, moral or otherwise for a player to acknowledge or reply to a draw offer. It is useful to indicate in some way that the offer has been heard, but no more than that. In my opinion, it is far more rude for a player to offer a draw and look expectant of an immediate reply or to repeatedly repeat a (clearly heard) draw offer.

I think there is a social obligation to acknowledge a draw offer and most people do this subconsciously and non-verbally.

pax
24-01-2005, 03:19 PM
I think there is a social obligation to acknowledge a draw offer and most people do this subconsciously and non-verbally.

I characterise is as merely practically useful to acknowledge that the offer was heard (and personally, I invariably do acknowledge in some way), not as any kind of moral or social obligation.

"Would you like a draw?" is a very different question to "Would you like a cup of coffee?" - the difference being that the act of moving a chess piece and pressing the clock is a perfectly legitimate and well understood reply to the first question (how that might be interpreted as a response to the second question is anyone's guess ;) ).

Ian Rout
24-01-2005, 03:57 PM
I think there is a social obligation to acknowledge a draw offer and most people do this subconsciously and non-verbally.
Broadly, I agree - though I think if you expect an acknowledgement you should pause before pressing the clock so that the opponent does not have to give it in their own time. Of course a player should not repeat the offer after pressing the clock whether it was heard or not.

I find most people do acknowledge draw offers, for instance by a nod or at least by an involuntary gesture of recognition. A slightly peculiar reply is "I'll think about it" as if the offer might be withdrawn if this assurance is not given.

Rincewind
24-01-2005, 04:10 PM
I characterise is as merely practically useful to acknowledge that the offer was heard (and personally, I invariably do acknowledge in some way), not as any kind of moral or social obligation.

The acknowledgement is normally just one of establishing eye contact and a nod or the like. I think it is rude to not acknowledge in someway when you have been spoken to. But perhaps this is just an idiosyncrasy of mine.

Rincewind
24-01-2005, 04:16 PM
A slightly peculiar reply is "I'll think about it" as if the offer might be withdrawn if this assurance is not given.

I suppose it is a neutral way to verbally acknowledge the offer. Rejecting it immediately limits your options unnecessarily, accepting even moreso.

Of course once the offer has been made it remains on the table until you decide one way or the other, or make your next move.

While we're talking about offers I always reject offers by simply making my next move. I would never say, "draw offer rejected" or anything like that. Just make my next move. Is this considered universally acceptable, or am I making a faux pas?

pax
25-01-2005, 10:53 AM
While we're talking about offers I always reject offers by simply making my next move. I would never say, "draw offer rejected" or anything like that. Just make my next move. Is this considered universally acceptable, or am I making a faux pas?

I like to break into maniacal laughter. I find that always makes it abundantly clear :D

Seriously though, unless your reply is immediate, I find simply moving to be by far the clearest and least distracting way to refuse the draw.

Garvinator
25-01-2005, 11:35 AM
While we're talking about offers I always reject offers by simply making my next move. I would never say, "draw offer rejected" or anything like that. Just make my next move. Is this considered universally acceptable, or am I making a faux pas?
i was offered a draw once and after thinking for a while, decided to play on by just making my move on the board. After the game, my opponent pointed out to me my so called bad sportsmanship for not verbally declining the offer.

I knew his argument was garbage but just couldnt be bothered arguing about it. :uhoh:

Woodstocker
25-01-2005, 04:07 PM
The acknowledgement is normally just one of establishing eye contact and a nod or the like. I think it is rude to not acknowledge in someway when you have been spoken to. But perhaps this is just an idiosyncrasy of mine.

Mr Cox,

It is a lamentable proposition that society would today view your own good manners as being idiosyncratic.



There is no obligation, moral or otherwise for a player to acknowledge or reply to a draw offer.

Mr PAX,

Manners are the lubrication of social intercourse.




IW

Alan Shore
25-01-2005, 04:07 PM
A slightly peculiar reply is "I'll think about it" as if the offer might be withdrawn if this assurance is not given.

I often say 'I'll think about it' as a way of acknowledging I've heard the offer. Once I've thought, I will give a response.


i was offered a draw once and after thinking for a while, decided to play on by just making my move on the board. After the game, my opponent pointed out to me my so called bad sportsmanship for not verbally declining the offer.

I don't think it's bad sportsmanship to give no reply but then again, I think it polite to give a response. Accepting I'll say something like 'OK, draw' with a handshake, if not, something along the lines of 'No, let's play on'.

Of course if someone offers me a draw when I have mate in 1, I may have to throw a cream pie in their face... it reminds me of when Garry Kasparov was giving a simul to some schoolchildren and one of them offers the great man a draw. He immediately screams out 'BUT IT'S MATE IN 2!!!'

I suppose that young man will be thinking twice about silly draw offers in the future ;)

Kevin Bonham
25-01-2005, 10:01 PM
I have always acknowledged draw offers by writing "=" on the scoresheet since that rule was introduced. Apart from that:

(*) If the draw offer is completely ridiculous I either decline it immediately or else simply ignore it and play a move; why be nice to such an opponent?

(*) If the draw offer seems reasonable and I want to think about it I will try to gesture in some way indicating that I've heard it, but I won't say "I'll think about it".

However I don't see why anyone should be condemned for simply responding by playing a move and not acknowledging the offer.

Trent Parker
25-01-2005, 11:32 PM
Of course if someone offers me a draw when I have mate in 1, I may have to throw a cream pie in their face... it reminds me of when Garry Kasparov was giving a simul to some schoolchildren and one of them offers the great man a draw. He immediately screams out 'BUT IT'S MATE IN 2!!!'



Reminds me of one of the very first draw offers i offered.... I played a move then offered a draw....... not realising that i had played the wrong move and left my Q en prise. :uhoh: :lol:

Mischa
26-01-2005, 09:45 PM
In the recent Junior tournament, in one game my junior was offered a draw 7 times. Several games later, by an opponent who only needed a draw to win...he was offered a draw in the opening, twice , then inthe middle game 3 times and 3 more times before he finally accepted due to time pressure.[he was winning but only had 10 seconds left on the board]

he said this was a bit distracting.

Mischa
26-01-2005, 09:50 PM
Please explain, as I have noidea, what ws meant by "they only have one draw offer"

Garvinator
26-01-2005, 09:55 PM
there is no such rule as how many draw offers a player can make. But fide rules are:

12.5 It is forbidden to distract or annoy the opponent in any manner whatsoever. This includes unreasonable claims or offers of a draw.

If James felt that he was being distracted and annoyed by his opponent, he should have stopped the clocks and called for the arbiter.

Mischa
26-01-2005, 10:11 PM
He's 10 years old with a soft heart. He would not even be aware that he had a right to complain, and I doubt he would have. he would have felt that was not a NICE thing to do.

Perhaps these things need to be more clearly explained. Not only the polite thing to do in chess, but when you have a right to stand up for yourself.

Is this maybe an Aussie, "don't dob" idea?

James would NEVER complain about these sort of tactics for the simple reason that he would not recognise them as such. Nor do I believe that they were tactics...I think[although some of these kids are pretty street smart.] And some of their coaches teach tricks.

Mischa
26-01-2005, 10:15 PM
Just out of interest, had he stopped the clock and called for an arbiter, what would have happened? Nothing really I think. This is only junior chess, and under 12's to boot. His opponent would have been told to stop and James would have felt silly and they both would have lost their train of the game and then his opponent would have felt pressured to NOt offer a draw at the appropriate time. What gain to anyone?

Garvinator
26-01-2005, 10:29 PM
He's 10 years old with a soft heart. He would not even be aware that he had a right to complain, and I doubt he would have. he would have felt that was not a NICE thing to do.

Perhaps these things need to be more clearly explained.
actually things were explained. There were the readings of fide on draw offers. Also on distracting your opponent by repeated draw offers. Regarding what would have happened. The arbiter would have sternly warned the opponent not to keep repeating draw offers after listening to the explaination. If the arbiter believed the only reason the opponent was offering draws was to distract the opponent, then harsher penalties can be awarded, like forfeit.

Garvinator
26-01-2005, 10:32 PM
Just out of interest, had he stopped the clock and called for an arbiter, what would have happened? Nothing really I think. This is only junior chess, and under 12's to boot. His opponent would have been told to stop and James would have felt silly and they both would have lost their train of the game and then his opponent would have felt pressured to NOt offer a draw at the appropriate time. What gain to anyone?
How does it matter what the opponent thinks after being told off by the arbiter? James is at the perfect age to learn that it is perfectly legal and accepted to call for the arbiter when he believes a rule has been infringed. It is his right to call for the arbiter.In any other sport, if a player breaks a rule, the referee steps in, not different in chess.

Mischa
26-01-2005, 11:12 PM
Garvin, I appreciate your reply, but telling me that the rules were explained is just silly. These are kids they don't listen just before a game. They are sitting at their boards, geared up and ready to play and they are certainly not listening to the"BOOK OF FIDE". And James is not at the age you think he is. Garvin, you do not have kids,and James , like many kids is interested in the game, and the moves and the theory or whatever. He is not concerned with what maybe be legal or not. he would not call for an arbiter over something like that. And I don't think many kids would.

For example, when the power went off, James' opponent had just asked for a draw and then apparently, stopped the clock. This was pointed out to the arbiters who said, we didn't see it so we can't do anything about it. If James says something, then we can act. It was witnessed by many but James did not know that he had a right of complaint, not that he would have excercised it, but the fact remains, in junior chess, that the arbiters assume that the kids know, and we assume that the arbiters care.

Mischa
26-01-2005, 11:18 PM
And just for the record, in the Australian Junior, I , who was very busy running the kiosk, saw several incidents of cheating, Not my job to report on these, but where were the arbiters? Oh I know, they were mostly at the computer.
And when I did venture a comment I was told, "well what do you expect us to do?"

Garvinator
26-01-2005, 11:19 PM
I have told you what James is supposed to do, that is all i can do and all anyone can do. If James doesnt complain when his opponent is 'deliberately' distracting him, then nothing can be done. An arbiter cant stand over each and every table.

Garvinator
26-01-2005, 11:21 PM
And just for the record, in the Australian Junior, I , who was very busy running the kiosk, saw several incidents of cheating, Not my job to report on these, but where were the arbiters? Oh I know, they were mostly at the computer.
And when I did venture a comment I was told, "well what do you expect us to do?"
amazing that you bring this up now, but not to me in person when you know as well as i do, you had ample opportunity to do so, like about 30 times a day.

What ALLEGEDLY were these cheaters doing.

Mischa
26-01-2005, 11:25 PM
Garvin, no one cheated against my son so this is not a complaining parent. I know as do others what went on. THEY ARE CHILDREN, and they will try what they can. and I repeat. THIS IS NOT MY RESPONSIBILITY but, if you will be honest, you have to admit that there was little roving arbiting going on.

Garvinator
26-01-2005, 11:29 PM
Garvin, no one cheated against my son so this is not a complaining parent. I know as do others what went on. THEY ARE CHILDREN, and they will try what they can. and I repeat. THIS IS NOT MY RESPONSIBILITY but, if you will be honest, you have to admit that there was little roving arbiting going on.
i dont have a clue what you are talking about, you are making no sense to me. You have raised the prospect that ppl were cheating in an open and public forum, which is serious. I now ask you to explain what you mean by cheating and roving arbiters etc.

Mischa
26-01-2005, 11:29 PM
And Garvin you must be aware of the parent who withdrew their child for cheating...they saw it, even if the arbiters didn't. And no I don't expect the arbiters to be at every board, for heavens sake, but in the under 12's when they were at the top boards, No arbiters were present at all for nearly 2 hours.

Garvinator
26-01-2005, 11:33 PM
And Garvin you must be aware of the parent who withdrew their child for cheating...they saw it, even if the arbiters didn't.
No i wasnt aware of this. Do you mean withdrew the child from a game or from the tournament? Who was it?

And no I don't expect the arbiters to be at every board, for heavens sake, but in the under 12's when they were at the top boards, No arbiters were present at all for nearly 2 hours.
Was Lee around? I was in mansfield, so i dont know

Mischa
26-01-2005, 11:34 PM
Garvin, I repeat, this is not an attack on you. But THESE ARE CHILDREN... they will try whatever they can. Honey, kids sometimes don't even realise they are doing it. The arbiters were very busy, but sadly, they need to be busier with kids. I'm a parentwho can't keep up with only two kids...oh I knop I'm asking the impossible. I just thought that this should be an issue that we are aware of.

Don't get angry...get insured

Garvinator
26-01-2005, 11:38 PM
Garvin, I repeat, this is not an attack on you. But THESE ARE CHILDREN... they will try whatever they can. Honey, kids sometimes don't even realise they are doing it. The arbiters were very busy, but sadly, they need to be busier with kids. I'm a parentwho can't keep up with only two kids...oh I knop I'm asking the impossible. I just thought that this should be an issue that we are aware of.

Don't get angry...get insured
not getting angry at all ;) just asking questions as you have made some claims and I want to check what you know are facts or just thoughts. Also maybe your conclusions arent correct. Just want to know what you are claiming :uhoh:

Mischa
26-01-2005, 11:40 PM
Garvin, why are you so angry and defensive? You know me....

Mischa
26-01-2005, 11:52 PM
I am not going to name names here in a public forum. Besides, the responsible parent dealt with the issue with moral judgement and restraint...more than I can say for me I think, given the same situation. All I can say is, and I repeat, there was not enough supervision of the junior games...given they were sometimes spread out, it was a difficult task. I repeat, James did not cheat, nor was cheated against. He just did not always understand that repeated draw offers were not kosher.

And I will also repeat..there was insufficient arbiting and supervision of the juniors.

Garvinator
26-01-2005, 11:58 PM
And I will also repeat..there was insufficient arbiting and supervision of the juniors.
and i repeat, why didnt you bring up your concerns with either myself or the arbiters? If you were dissatisfied with their performance, they cant improve if they dont know they are doing badly or not performing well.

Mischa
27-01-2005, 12:14 AM
Garvin, honey, lay off. This is not a reflection on you or anyone. This is just junior chess. Arbiters need to be roaming and visible, kinda like the police, not stuck at computers where I'm sure they don't want to be.

As for the arbiters, my only wish was for a closer supervision of the top 8 boards on the 2 occasions the juniors were allowed to use them

Kevin Bonham
27-01-2005, 12:19 AM
I broadly agree with Garvin - without naming names, it would help if the kinds of "cheating" that are supposed to have occurred could be described.

However I also agree with noidea's comment about reading the rules before play being next to useless. Many juniors have short attention spans for that stuff and as Reuben says (though he exaggerates slightly) "no player ever listens". My experience is that the players who listen are usually the ones who do not need to be told.

Ian Rout
27-01-2005, 08:34 AM
What sort of cheating are we talking about? Trivial infractions of procedure or major dishonesty? If it's the latter then, given there is a witness, it's not too late to do something. In any event it would be good to know for reference what is the infraction de jour so it can be stamped out.

As I may have mentioned before, juniors often play other sports where sledging, gamesmanship, cribbing a few centimetres offside etc are part of the game, or are weighed up as the cost of the penalty vs benefit of the infringement in the same way as the risk of throwing an optimistic pass is evaluated. It needs a little early intervention to circumvent this.

Mischa
27-01-2005, 08:55 AM
Just young kids taking advantage of situations, nothing too serious, and I as said the matter was taken care of.
I agree that sometimes the infringement is not worth the penalty that may occur. As it was in this case. Most parents would intervene themselves if they observed this behaviour in their children.

JGB
27-01-2005, 10:31 AM
After returning to this thread after a few weeks I see much conversation has taken place. I admit I must be wrong when stating that an 'opponent may only offer a draw once'? I thought in a game once the offer to draw was spoken, that player is unable to ask again. It would only be the opponent who is then in a position to ask the question, and if he does and it is declined then the offer falls back to 'player no.1'. Of course the draw can only be accepted on the move. This may not be the rule, but it is definetly the way I have seen chess played over the last four years in Germany. Perhaps it is a form of respect but it was well know that once offered, to ask again is only insulting.

pax
27-01-2005, 10:49 AM
After returning to this thread after a few weeks I see much conversation has taken place. I admit I must be wrong when stating that an 'opponent may only offer a draw once'? I thought in a game once the offer to draw was spoken, that player is unable to ask again. It would only be the opponent who is then in a position to ask the question, and if he does and it is declined then the offer falls back to 'player no.1'. Of course the draw can only be accepted on the move. This may not be the rule, but it is definetly the way I have seen chess played over the last four years in Germany. Perhaps it is a form of respect but it was well know that once offered, to ask again is only insulting.

That is certainly not the rule, but I think a lot of players regard that as being as ettiquette for draw offers. I'd say that it's poor ettiquette to repeat a draw offer unless the game really has changed substantially, or your opponent has offered one in the meantime. In certain endgame situations, one player (with no winning chances) may believe the position is dead drawn, while the other wishes to play on to search for a win. In that situation it normally is understood that the second player will offer the draw when he has given up on the win.

Pax

shaun
27-01-2005, 10:52 AM
After returning to this thread after a few weeks I see much conversation has taken place. I admit I must be wrong when stating that an 'opponent may only offer a draw once'? I thought in a game once the offer to draw was spoken, that player is unable to ask again. It would only be the opponent who is then in a position to ask the question, and if he does and it is declined then the offer falls back to 'player no.1'. Of course the draw can only be accepted on the move. This may not be the rule, but it is definetly the way I have seen chess played over the last four years in Germany. Perhaps it is a form of respect but it was well know that once offered, to ask again is only insulting.

The FIDE rules are flexible enough to allow you to ask again (without an intervening offer) but the accepted practice is if the position has either become more drawn or nothing has happened in the last X moves (where X can be anything from 10 moves up). This in part is to deal with the flip side of the coin where an opponent plays on in a clearly drawn position.
OB Olympiad story: In my Rd 2 game at the 2004 Olympiad I had recovered from a bad position to construct a position where I didn't think my opponent could break through. I offered a draw which my opponent declined. In pressing for more he overstreteched and was about to lose a pawn, so I thought it opportune to offer another draw, which he immeadiatley accepted. I'm sure he didn't think I was being rude offering a second time (just cowardly).

pax
27-01-2005, 11:47 AM
OB Olympiad story: In my Rd 2 game at the 2004 Olympiad I had recovered from a bad position to construct a position where I didn't think my opponent could break through. I offered a draw which my opponent declined. In pressing for more he overstreteched and was about to lose a pawn, so I thought it opportune to offer another draw, which he immeadiatley accepted. I'm sure he didn't think I was being rude offering a second time (just cowardly).

bok bok bok!

Woodstocker
27-01-2005, 12:20 PM
Mr Bonham,

A draw offer may appear ridiculous to you but since your opponent offered the draw he most probably does not agree with your assessment.

We ought to assume the offer was not made out of disrespect. If he then resigns we can assume the offer was made in jest.

The only remaining reason for the draw offer is your opponent honestly believes by mistake the position warrants a draw offer.

The reason for the honest mistake may be inexperience or lesser ability or blunder and you should still respect your opponent.

That is why you should "be nice to such an opponent."

Woodstocker
27-01-2005, 12:42 PM
James is at the perfect age to learn that it is perfectly legal and accepted to call for the arbiter when he believes a rule has been infringed.

Mr Gray,

Something perfectly legal is not necessarily perfectly mannered.

Accepted behaviour is not necessarily well mannered.

Calling the TD in these cases is overtly confrontational and ill-mannered.

Polite discussion usually leads to a convivial outcome.


IW

pax
27-01-2005, 01:30 PM
I would regard it as perfectly ethical to offer a draw in a losing position, unless it is obviously and substantially losing (e.g piece down, no compensation, no time pressure). We all know of situations where a draw has been agreed where one player is clearly winning under analysis.

Alan Shore
27-01-2005, 01:35 PM
I would regard it as perfectly ethical to offer a draw in a losing position, unless it is obviously and substantially losing (e.g piece down, no compensation, no time pressure). We all know of situations where a draw has been agreed where one player is clearly winning under analysis.

I remember in the QLD Juniors '99... One player (higher-rated) offered his opponent a draw when he was about to be mated in 1. The lower-rated player, so excited with the prospect of a draw with a player rated so much higher accepted immediately, only to have us immediately point out after the game his missed opportunity.

Suffice to say, his opponent was surprised and delighted at the acceptance and the lower player was the butt of many jokes for a long time to come after that ;)

Garvinator
27-01-2005, 01:37 PM
I remember in the QLD Juniors '99... One player (higher-rated) offered his opponent a draw when he was about to be mated in 1. The lower-rated player, so excited with the prospect of a draw with a player rated so much higher accepted immediately, only to have us immediately point out after the game his missed opportunity.

Suffice to say, his opponent was surprised and delighted at the acceptance and the lower player was the butt of many jokes for a long time to come after that ;)
was the lower rated player yourself ;)

Garvinator
27-01-2005, 01:39 PM
Mr Gray,

Something perfectly legal is not necessarily perfectly mannered.

Accepted behaviour is not necessarily well mannered.

Calling the TD in these cases is overtly confrontational and ill-mannered.

Polite discussion usually leads to a convivial outcome.


IW
you cant discuss draw matters with your opponent during the game as you would be distracting the other boards around you. Also remember we are talking about an acf national title tournament, not a casual club event or social game.

Regarding draw offers and what to do about repeated draw offers, I wonder why James hasnt been told about what to do from his club or coach. He had a coach at the juniors, maybe the coach should have told him what he should do correctly.

WhiteElephant
27-01-2005, 01:46 PM
Mr Gray,

Something perfectly legal is not necessarily perfectly mannered.

Accepted behaviour is not necessarily well mannered.

Calling the TD in these cases is overtly confrontational and ill-mannered.

Polite discussion usually leads to a convivial outcome.


IW

In the case where James' opponent has offered a draw 7 times in 1 game, I would consider that he has forfeited his right to polite discussion and his behaviour should be drawn to the attention of the arbiter.

WE

Mischa
27-01-2005, 02:00 PM
Possibly, but these are kids. James found it amusing in the end, although a bit distracting. He didn't feel it necessitated the presence of an arbiter. Have the coaches of the 2 kids who offered him repeated draws explained to their kids about what is correct behaviour? It is they who trangressed, not James.

James wasn't aware of his rights here because it has never come up before.

Alan Shore
27-01-2005, 02:01 PM
was the lower rated player yourself ;)

As if... it was actually a certain Mr Gray (!)

It was David Gray vs. Anthony Lam, final round.

I actually had a very good tournament QLD Juniors '99, was the runner up for the title to Matt Sonter. (Zong Zhao played that year but was ineligible).

Bill Gletsos
27-01-2005, 02:12 PM
Mr Gray,

Something perfectly legal is not necessarily perfectly mannered.

Accepted behaviour is not necessarily well mannered.
It is not bad manners to play by the rules.
In fact it could be argued that is bad manners not to play by the rules.
If your opponent is breaking the rules you should summon the arbiter.


Calling the TD in these cases is overtly confrontational and ill-mannered.

Polite discussion usually leads to a convivial outcome.
I would suggest you are incorrect.

In general what happens is that one player knows the rules and the other doesnt. When the player who knows the rules attempts to explain it to his opponent, the player who does not know the rules generally begins to argue, a bun fight starts, which in turn disrupts not only their game but those surrounding them. (Note this same scenario occurs when neither player knows the rules but think they do).

The correct action is to summon the arbiter.

Bill Gletsos
27-01-2005, 02:16 PM
Possibly, but these are kids. James found it amusing in the end, although a bit distracting. He didn't feel it necessitated the presence of an arbiter. Have the coaches of the 2 kids who offered him repeated draws explained to their kids about what is correct behaviour? It is they who trangressed, not James.
I dont think anyone is suggesting James transgressed in anyway whatsoever.
All they are doing his pointing out his rights under the Laws of Chess.


James wasn't aware of his rights here because it has never come up before.
Yes, that makes complete sense.
If the kids are not taught it, then they cannot be expected to know it.

Rincewind
27-01-2005, 02:17 PM
I remember in the QLD Juniors '99... One player (higher-rated) offered his opponent a draw when he was about to be mated in 1. The lower-rated player, so excited with the prospect of a draw with a player rated so much higher accepted immediately, only to have us immediately point out after the game his missed opportunity.

Higher rated players will (generally) only offer draws if they believe they are worse. Players of all standards should therefore be highly suspicious of such offers.

This is also true in general but not always. One tactic a low rated player might employ if they somehow get some advantage (say, win a pawn or wreck their opponent's formation) against a high rated player, is to offer the draw before they have a chance to stuff up. My experience is this tactic is generally unsuccessful as the higher rated player will back themselves over their opponent despite the material/positional disadvantage.

shaun
27-01-2005, 02:27 PM
Higher rated players will (generally) only offer draws if they believe they are worse. Players of all standards should therefore be highly suspicious of such offers.

This is also true in general but not always. One tactic a low rated player might employ if they somehow get some advantage (say, win a pawn or wreck their opponent's formation) against a high rated player, is to offer the draw before they have a chance to stuff up. My experience is this tactic is generally unsuccessful as the higher rated player will back themselves over their opponent despite the material/positional disadvantage.

The most hilarious draw offer I ever saw was based on this premise. Last round of a Greater Sydney Open in about 1994(?) saw Bolens v Sandler. Sandler needed a win to hopefully catch the leader. Unfortunatley he loses a piece early in the game. Bolens, who only needed half a point for some prize or other, instantly offers the draw. Sandler thinks for a while, accepts the draw, and then gets up from his chair and begins to complain how unfair it was of Bolens to offer him a draw. He really was annoyed that Bolens 'forced' him to take the draw, rather than play on and hopefully stuff up.

WhiteElephant
27-01-2005, 02:30 PM
Higher rated players will (generally) only offer draws if they believe they are worse. Players of all standards should therefore be highly suspicious of such offers.

This is also true in general but not always. One tactic a low rated player might employ if they somehow get some advantage (say, win a pawn or wreck their opponent's formation) against a high rated player, is to offer the draw before they have a chance to stuff up. My experience is this tactic is generally unsuccessful as the higher rated player will back themselves over their opponent despite the material/positional disadvantage.

Heh I remember when I was a junior, Darryl Johansen told me a story about a game where he blundered a rook and his lower-rated opponent immediately offered him a draw!

After some consideration, he decided that his opponent did not believe he could win the game with an extra rook so he decided to play on and ended up winning :)

The lesson was that by offering the draw in a superior position, you are showing your doubt, and your opponent will have a psychological advantage after declining your offer.

Woodstocker
27-01-2005, 03:01 PM
you cant discuss draw matters with your opponent during the game as you would be distracting the other boards around you.

Mr Gray,

You can discuss anything with anyone as long as you do not disturb other players by doing so.

For you to say it *would* be distracting is an assumption that cannot be made because quiet discreet whispers are used acceptably at all tournaments by most of us.

IW

Bill Gletsos
27-01-2005, 03:24 PM
Mr Gray,

You can discuss anything with anyone as long as you do not disturb other players by doing so.
Incorrect.
You cannot for example discuss your game with anyone whilst it is in progress.

As well as that you are not permitted to annoy or distract your opponent in any manner whatsoever. Therefore if your oppoent considers it disturbing and if the arbiter agrees then what you think doesnt matter and you may well find yourself penalised in some manner by the arbiter.


For you to say it *would* be distracting is an assumption that cannot be made because quiet discreet whispers are used acceptably at all tournaments by most of us.
Actually its up to the arbiter and not the players/spectators to decide what is acceptable and what is not.

Woodstocker
27-01-2005, 03:42 PM
It is not bad manners to play by the rules.

Mr Gletsos,

Your compatriot Chapel brothers were not showing good manners by bowling underarm by the rules.


In fact it could be argued that is bad manners not to play by the rules.

Most people use the more accurate word cheating for the practise of not playing by the rules.


If your opponent is breaking the rules you should summon the arbiter.

Is this your position for every issue between players?

Is there no room in your world for discretion manners and practical social interaction?

Unfortunately black letter law is not the most practical method of social organisation.



In general what happens is that one player knows the rules and the other doesnt. When the player who knows the rules attempts to explain it to his opponent, the player who does not know the rules generally begins to argue, a bun fight starts, which in turn disrupts not only their game but those surrounding them. (Note this same scenario occurs when neither player knows the rules but think they do).


Your "in general" proposition of "bun fights" starting may not be entirely correct.

In general we only see the bun fights.

We do not see the hundreds of small negotiations that occur throughout the tournament without the need to call the TD.

I personally have never had occasion to call the TD to arbiter a dispute as tolerance kindness and patience have always been sufficient to displace misunderstanding and aggression.

In the case in point had he (James) been aware of the rule on repetitive draw offers he should have quietly and gently explained to his opponent the rules in such circumstances.

To call the TD would be vinegar.

IW

DoroPhil
27-01-2005, 03:44 PM
Oh, come on now! What is this a world championship decider or something? If one feels like talking during the game, he should definitely be able to do so, provided he behaves reasonably and ethically.

And there's nothing wrong with offering draws either whenever you feel like it. Chances are neither you, nor your opponent really know who's in better position! You know why? 'Cause it's not a world championship decider or something!

DoroPhil
27-01-2005, 03:54 PM
I reckon what Gletsos, Gray and the rest of those computer-like individuals don't get is that the rules were written for top tournaments, for people who play chess for a living and/ or those who are actually good at chess. The rest just enjoy the game and dealing with all those rules, laws and the rest of that non-sense doesn't really add to the enjoyment.

Woodstocker
27-01-2005, 03:55 PM
Actually its up to the arbiter and not the players/spectators to decide what is acceptable and what is not.

Mr Gletsos,

Acceptable to whom?

Surely what two mutually agreeing players get up to in the privacy of there own game is entirely their business and not the TDs

If two players have the good grace to resolve their dispute without causing a spectacle and disturbance which usually accompanies the arrival of the TD then we should encourage them to do so.

Calling the TD for minor infractions is poor manners and ought to be discouraged in favour of respectful self resolution.

Woodstocker
27-01-2005, 04:21 PM
Incorrect.
You cannot for example discuss your game with anyone whilst it is in progress.

Mr Gletsos,

True but unfortunately irrelevant to the substance of this matter.

The point I was making was that verbal communication between players is possible without disturbing other games.



As well as that you are not permitted to annoy or distract your opponent in any manner whatsoever. Therefore if your oppoent considers it disturbing and if the arbiter agrees then what you think doesnt matter and you may well find yourself penalised in some manner by the arbiter.

Again true but unfortunately irrelevant to the substance of this matter.

Again the point I was making was that verbal communication between players is possible without disturbing other games.


Please confine your arguments to the matter at hand.

Use of extraneous argument looks much like the rightly derided red herring debating technique.

Bill Gletsos
27-01-2005, 05:26 PM
Mr Gletsos,

Your compatriot Chapel brothers were not showing good manners by bowling underarm by the rules.
Irrelevant to the discussion.
We are talking about players breaking the rules and what action their opponents should take.
By all means mention it to your opponent, but if he wants to argue then you should call the arbiter.


Most people use the more accurate word cheating for the practise of not playing by the rules.
Not necessarily.
e.g. to call making a draw calim in an invalid manner isnt cheating would be a long strectch of the bow, however instead of getting into an argument about it with your opponent you should just call the arbiter.


Is this your position for every issue between players?
If Player A believes player B broke the rules and when player A raises it with Player B, Player B agrees then no problem (unless of course the rules require an enforced penalty, in whcih case the arbiter should be summoned as the players are not permitted to change the clocks e.g. 2 minute added to opponents clock if you make an illegal move.)
However if Player B disagrees with Player A's claim that he had broken the rules then the arbiter should be summoned. To not do so is likely to simply see the disagreement escalate.


Is there no room in your world for discretion manners and practical social interaction?
We are talking about situations where the players disagree.
Obviosuly there is no need to summon the arbiter, if the players agree.
e.g. Player A castles through check. Player B points this out and insists Player A moves his King. Player A agrees and the game continues without incident.
However if Player A disagrees, then Player B should summon the arbiter.


Unfortunately black letter law is not the most practical method of social organisation.
Summoning the arbiter is the only solution when the players disagree.
The players failing to do so generally causes an escalation in the argument.



Your "in general" proposition of "bun fights" starting may not be entirely correct.

In general we only see the bun fights.

We do not see the hundreds of small negotiations that occur throughout the tournament without the need to call the TD.
Most irregularites can be handled by the players provided they agree.
However if they dont they should summon the arbiter


I personally have never had occasion to call the TD to arbiter a dispute as tolerance kindness and patience have always been sufficient to displace misunderstanding and aggression.
Good for you.
However perhaps you have never had to face an argumentative SOB, who would just not accept your point of view.


In the case in point had he (James) been aware of the rule on repetitive draw offers he should have quietly and gently explained to his opponent the rules in such circumstances.
In which case if his opponent did not believe him, he has only two choices.
Shut up and do nothing and allow his opponent to annoy him with his continual draw claims or summon the arbiter.


To call the TD would be vinegar.
It could just as easily stop an argument from starting as opposed to starting one.

WhiteElephant
27-01-2005, 05:33 PM
Hello,

Everyone around here seems to be assuming that the person making multiple draw offers is oblivious to the fact that that he or she is disturbing their opponent, and the simple solution is to inform/ remind that person of the rules.

I reckon that no one in their right mind would make, say, 7 draw offers (whether they are a kid or adult) without the full knowledge that they are in some way annoying their opponent.

It is commen sense - making repeated draw offers has one purpose and that is to be annoying.

Therefore saying to your opponent 'your draw offers are distracting me' is playing right into their hands. As if they didn't know - that is precisely what they intended!!!

Such a rude opponent needs be talked to by the arbiter to make sure this behaviour is not repeated in another game. James may have found such tactics 'amusing' but they may genuinely distract another player and even affect the result of a game.

Bill Gletsos
27-01-2005, 05:37 PM
Mr Gletsos,

True but unfortunately irrelevant to the substance of this matter.

The point I was making was that verbal communication between players is possible without disturbing other games.
That is not what you said.
You said:

You can discuss anything with anyone as long as you do not disturb other players by doing so.
You used the word "anyone".
I responded to what you typed.
Its not my fault you didnt mean what you typed.

If you meant the two players involved in the game then you should have said so.


Again true but unfortunately irrelevant to the substance of this matter.

Again the point I was making was that verbal communication between players is possible without disturbing other games.
If thats what you meant then thats what you should have said.
Unfortunately for you you didnt.
You made an all encompassing statement with the word "anyone".


Please confine your arguments to the matter at hand.
I was.
If you cannot say what you mean that is hardly my fault.

If you didnt mean "anyone" then you shouldnt have said "anyone".


Use of extraneous argument looks much like the rightly derided red herring debating technique.
The plaintive cry of the poster who has made an incorrect statement and then been caught out.
If you meant the two players then that is what you should have said and not used the word "anyone".

Bill Gletsos
27-01-2005, 05:37 PM
Hello,

Everyone around here seems to be assuming that the person making multiple draw offers is oblivious to the fact that that he or she is disturbing their opponent, and the simple solution is to inform/ remind that person of the rules.

I reckon that no one in their right mind would make, say, 7 draw offers (whether they are a kid or adult) without the full knowledge that they are in some way annoying their opponent.

It is commen sense - making repeated draw offers has one purpose and that is to be annoying.

Therefore saying to your opponent 'your draw offers are distracting me' is playing right into their hands. As if they didn't know - that is precisely what they intended!!!

Such a rude opponent needs be talked to by the arbiter to make sure this behaviour is not repeated in another game. James may have found such tactics 'amusing' but they may genuinely distract another player and even affect the result of a game.
Exactly.

Bill Gletsos
27-01-2005, 05:40 PM
Mr Gletsos,

Acceptable to whom?

Surely what two mutually agreeing players get up to in the privacy of there own game is entirely their business and not the TDs

If two players have the good grace to resolve their dispute without causing a spectacle and disturbance which usually accompanies the arrival of the TD then we should encourage them to do so.

Calling the TD for minor infractions is poor manners and ought to be discouraged in favour of respectful self resolution.
We arent discussing the situation where the players agree.
We are discussing where they dont.

Bill Gletsos
27-01-2005, 05:42 PM
I reckon what Gletsos, Gray and the rest of those computer-like individuals don't get is that the rules were written for top tournaments, for people who play chess for a living and/ or those who are actually good at chess. The rest just enjoy the game and dealing with all those rules, laws and the rest of that non-sense doesn't really add to the enjoyment.
If a player is annoying his opponent by making repeated draw claims (or any other annoying or distracting behaviour for that matter), the opponent has every right to summon the arbiter.

Woodstocker
27-01-2005, 07:34 PM
Mr Gletsos,

You replied to a post I actually made directly to Mr Gray who said [James should call the TD] when he believes a rule has been infringed.


It is not bad manners to play by the rules.
In fact it could be argued that is bad manners not to play by the rules.
If your opponent is breaking the rules you should summon the arbiter.


At no time was the scenario of players disagreeing mentioned.

Your ingenuous attempts as shown in the quotes below to post hoc add caveats is not appreciated.

You made the dogmatic statement “If your opponent is breaking the rules you should summon the arbiter.”

I have taken you to task on that.


By all means mention it to your opponent, but if he wants to argue then you should call the arbiter.
and

However if Player B disagrees with Player A's claim that he had broken the rules then the arbiter should be summoned.
and

We are talking about situations where the players disagree. However if Player A disagrees, then Player B should summon the arbiter.

I find now that you wish to redirect the discussion by repeatedly reminding us and me of my own acknowledged inaccuracy in stating “You can discuss anything with anyone as long as you do not disturb other players by doing so,” in the hope that you can in some way discredit my position that more manners OTB results in fewer disturbances to other boards.


Good for you.
However perhaps you have never had to face an argumentative SOB, who would just not accept your point of view.

I have had to deal with “SOBs” and it is good for me that I would rather lose a game than call on TD to fight my battles.

Others require mommy to repair the wounds of life.

My approach is called having some dignity and manners.

To demonstrate how effective this approach is in saving my time and emotional balance I bid you adieu.

Mischa
27-01-2005, 07:45 PM
and this happened twice to james. Both in critical games. It is the offer for a draw in his last game during the opening that really threw James. This offer was repeated, I think 5 times during the game and at this point annoyed James as his opponent only needed a draw to win.

In the end he accepted, because although he thought he was in a winning position, he had time pressures{like 10 seconds left].

Mind you he did mention quietly that every time he was offered a draw he had to consider the game from all angles and also take the time to check out the game of the player on equal points with him. It also managed, I think to disrupt his train of thought,
I heard, perhaps incorrectly , that his oppponent was instructed to do this?

would someone explain what his rights would have been? I mean the rules and the rules of behaviour, or just what is "cricket".

On another not, this may not be a grand international event, but the issue still remains. these kids need to understand not only the rules, but the ethics.

Garvinator
27-01-2005, 10:17 PM
In the end he accepted, because although he thought he was in a winning position, he had time pressures{like 10 seconds left].

You fail to mention two things, 1) James had to win that game to be any chance of winning the under 12 title 2) even though he had ten seconds on the clock, he was receiving 1 minute per move.

To this day I dont understand why James accepted a draw. He had no reason to, a draw was like a loss to him. It did him no good and as it turned out, had he won that game he would have made the playoff.

James would have been aware I imagine that William Xu had already drawn on board two. Also a person cant blame time pressures for accepting a draw, that is a weak argument. James had 60 minutes plus 1 minute per move. He got himself into time trouble, that is his fault. :doh:


Mind you he did mention quietly that every time he was offered a draw he had to consider the game from all angles and also take the time to check out the game of the player on equal points with him. It also managed, I think to disrupt his train of thought,
I heard, perhaps incorrectly , that his oppponent was instructed to do this?Now you are getting into specifics. James's opponent was Rengan Vijayakumar in the final round. Do you really want to continue with this line? Think carefully.


would someone explain what his rights would have been? I mean the rules and the rules of behaviour, or just what is "cricket".

On another not, this may not be a grand international event, but the issue still remains. these kids need to understand not only the rules, but the ethics.
James's rights have already been explained at length to you, to stop the clocks and summon the arbiter.
That is his right and basically his only right. He cant summon or ask anyone else. To summon someone else would be akin to coaching and would then have the arbiters/organisers looking into James's conduct, not his opponents.

Again I repeat, we are talking about the Australian Under 12 Championship, not a social game. If fault doesnt lie with James for not summoning the arbiter, which is his right, then fault lies with his coach and related ppl for not making him aware of the rules and his rights before playing in such a prestigious tournament.

Bill Gletsos
27-01-2005, 11:58 PM
Mr Gletsos,

You replied to a post I actually made directly to Mr Gray who said [James should call the TD] when he believes a rule has been infringed.
If you are going to be that picky then it is obvious that this whole issuse started when noidea made it clear that James's opponent had offered him a draw on 7 occasions.
All Garvin's comments are in response to that.
In fact it is clear that Garvin was simply saying that if a player believes his opponent is breaking the rules then the player has every right to call the arbiter.
This right is indisputable.


At no time was the scenario of players disagreeing mentioned.
Common sense indicates that you wouldnt need to call the arbiter unless there was a disagreement about the interpretation of the rules.

However your argument is spurious at best beacuse if it is as you suggest bad manners to call the arbiter then it is equally bad manners for a player not to play by the rules in the first place.


Your ingenuous attempts as shown in the quotes below to post hoc add caveats is not appreciated.
I dont care whether you appreciate it or not.
I dont appreciate your pompus tone suggesting that players who follow the rules and call the arbiter are in any way showing bad manners.


You made the dogmatic statement “If your opponent is breaking the rules you should summon the arbiter.”

I have taken you to task on that.
Knock yourself out.

The player is simply exerting his rights under the rules.
For you to criticise him for doing so is the height of pompus arrogance.


I find now that you wish to redirect the discussion by repeatedly reminding us and me of my own acknowledged inaccuracy
I can see no clear acknowledgement by you that you considered it an inaccuracy in any previous post.
I will however accept that you obviously are acknowledging this fact now.


in stating “You can discuss anything with anyone as long as you do not disturb other players by doing so,” in the hope that you can in some way discredit my position that more manners OTB results in fewer disturbances to other boards.

I have had to deal with “SOBs” and it is good for me that I would rather lose a game than call on TD to fight my battles.
Then you are simply allowing the rule breaker to get away with it, if your so called "SOBs" are not called to task. In fact your failure to summon the arbiter may affect the result of your game which could in fact affect the resultant placings of other players in the tournament.


Others require mommy to repair the wounds of life.
No, its called playing by the rules.


My approach is called having some dignity and manners.
No, all you are doing is allowing cheats to prosper.


To demonstrate how effective this approach is in saving my time and emotional balance I bid you adieu.
You know what they say. If you cant take the heat stay out of the kitchen. :hand:

Garvinator
28-01-2005, 12:08 AM
Mr woodstocker sir, who are you in real life? At least I know who noidea is so i can have a sensible debate with her. But who are you?

Bill Gletsos
28-01-2005, 12:09 AM
Mr woodstocker sir, who are you in real life? At least I know who noidea is so i can have a sensible debate with her. But who are you?
Some pommie it would appear.

Garvinator
28-01-2005, 12:14 AM
This right is indisputable. apparently woody is disputing your indisputable fact ;)


Then you are simply allowing the rule breaker to get away with it, if your so called "SOBs" are not called to task. In fact your failure to summon the arbiter may affect the result of your game which could in fact affect the resultant placings of other players in the tournament. hey we could start an identity hunt :P

ursogr8
28-01-2005, 07:30 AM
In the case where James' opponent has offered a draw 7 times in 1 game, I would consider that he has forfeited his right to polite discussion and his behaviour should be drawn to the attention of the arbiter.

WE

HNY to you WE

pax says it is ethical to offer a draw in a losing position

"I would regard it as perfectly ethical to offer a draw in a losing position, unless it is obviously and substantially losing (e.g piece down, no compensation, no time pressure). We all know of situations where a draw has been agreed where one player is clearly winning under analysis."

shaun says it is OK to offer draw offers more than once
"The FIDE rules are flexible enough to allow you to ask again (without an intervening offer) but the accepted practice is if the position has either become more drawn or nothing has happened in the last X moves (where X can be anything from 10 moves up)."

Bill offers us advice on the politeness
"It is not bad manners to play by the rules.
In fact it could be argued that is bad manners not to play by the rules."


My guess is that in the U12's, shaun's X could reasonably be 5 since the kids are not expert in judging 'nothing has happened '.
So, if a 1/2 point gets you the title, then how many offers are OK in a 60 move game? Quite a few judging by the pundits here.


starter

ps As I understand Woodie's approach might be to quietly say during the game "...listen mate, I only need 1/2 a point for the title, so at any time you want a draw, just extend the duke". A diplomatic idea.

(Sorry Mr Woodstocker, but eventually we ((Colonials)) are going to call you Woodie', so I thought I would get in early).

Ian Rout
28-01-2005, 08:05 AM
Bill Gletsos speculates that Woodstocker is


Some pommie it would appear.

But beyond his waving a Union Jack and calling people "Mr" is there a lot of evidence? To the contrary

1) Isn't someone who has a "mommy" more likely to be American?

2) Do the British have a "TD"? I have only heard of Americans using this term.

3) Most convincingly, even after all these years the British would know the correct spelling of the "Chapel" brothers' surname, especially if they are keeping the incident polished up to wheel out in any context, whereas an American is more likely to only know of the underarm incident second-hand and not have seen the name written down.

So I'm not convinced at this stage. The flag and the "Mr" are pretty easy, anglifying your English usage is a bit harder to do faultlessly.

Even the Union Jack is a double-edged clue. Americans express themselves by flag-waving, the British, except for the National Front, exhibit a broader range of symbols of Britishness.

Bill Gletsos
28-01-2005, 08:19 AM
Bill Gletsos speculates that Woodstocker is



But beyond his waving a Union Jack and calling people "Mr" is there a lot of evidence? To the contrary

1) Isn't someone who has a "mommy" more likely to be American?

2) Do the British have a "TD"? I have only heard of Americans using this term.

3) Most convincingly, even after all these years the British would know the correct spelling of the "Chapel" brothers' surname, especially if they are keeping the incident polished up to wheel out in any context, whereas an American is more likely to only know of the underarm incident second-hand and not have seen the name written down.

So I'm not convinced at this stage. The flag and the "Mr" are pretty easy, anglifying your English usage is a bit harder to do faultlessly.

Even the Union Jack is a double-edged clue. Americans express themselves by flag-waving, the British, except for the National Front, exhibit a broader range of symbols of Britishness.
I also noted his reference to mommy and TD's and considered American.
However I based my comment on Woodstocker's comment to starter in the Non-Chess section where he said "As a boy I did live for a short period in Surrey but far from there at times before and after."

ursogr8
28-01-2005, 08:23 AM
Bill Gletsos speculates that Woodstocker is



But beyond his waving a Union Jack and calling people "Mr" is there a lot of evidence? To the contrary

1) Isn't someone who has a "mommy" more likely to be American?

2) Do the British have a "TD"? I have only heard of Americans using this term.

3) Most convincingly, even after all these years the British would know the correct spelling of the "Chapel" brothers' surname, especially if they are keeping the incident polished up to wheel out in any context, whereas an American is more likely to only know of the underarm incident second-hand and not have seen the name written down.

So I'm not convinced at this stage. The flag and the "Mr" are pretty easy, anglifying your English usage is a bit harder to do faultlessly.

Even the Union Jack is a double-edged clue. Americans express themselves by flag-waving, the British, except for the National Front, exhibit a broader range of symbols of Britishness.


Ian

Do the British have a "TD"?...............= Ted Dexter ;)

(However, I tend to agree with your analysis...but the Chappell spelling...not sure an American would know the incident..... :confused: )

Jury is out as to whether he is a pom.

starter

Rincewind
28-01-2005, 08:35 AM
Even the Union Jack is a double-edged clue. Americans express themselves by flag-waving, the British, except for the National Front, exhibit a broader range of symbols of Britishness.

I like a good personality hunt as much as the next man and my money is on Woodstocker being born and/or spending some childhood years in England, but now living in North America and for some time.

Regarding the Union Jack, you do see it a bit. One that springs immediately to mind is a streaker at the Rugby some years ago who had here dignity covered by a well meaning member of the crowd's Union Jack. Another is Tim Brooke-Taylor's waistcoat. :)

Ian Rout
28-01-2005, 09:42 AM
I like a good personality hunt as much as the next man and my money is on Woodstocker being born and/or spending some childhood years in England, but now living in North America and for some time.

Regarding the Union Jack, you do see it a bit. One that springs immediately to mind is a streaker at the Rugby some years ago who had here dignity covered by a well meaning member of the crowd's Union Jack. Another is Tim Brooke-Taylor's waistcoat. :)
I considered saying "North American" rather than just "American", but I though it was tactically better not to - a Canadian might prefer to own up to their real identity rather than be suspected of being American.

I'll agree that the flag is a difficult one to analyse. The other puzzle is the inconsistency - if you feel a British flag is what best symbolises you then why wouldn't you also choose a quintessentially English name like "Lord Lucan", "Beefeater", "Jack the Ripper", "Toad of Toad Hall","Mrs Slocum" etc rather than a name best associated with a music festival in the US. The initials IW may suggest that Wood is part of the surname (or it may be just a red herring).


(However, I tend to agree with your analysis...but the Chappell spelling...not sure an American would know the incident..... :confused: )
Anyone who has spoken to a New Zealander for five minutes has ample opportunity to hear about the underarm accident and hear the name "Chapel" but without being told the spelling, so I still think that's a clue.

shaun
28-01-2005, 12:40 PM
It's probably just Sweeney messing with your heads.

Garvinator
28-01-2005, 12:59 PM
It's probably just Sweeney messing with your heads.
im sure if that is the case that karths would have banned him already, forever.

Ian Rout
28-01-2005, 02:17 PM
It's probably just Sweeney messing with your heads.

In that case he has used the break to improve his spelling.

Incidentally (re starter's comment) I think it was Bill who first employed "SOB" or I would have cited it as another Americanism (unless he meant it in the Bob Hawke sense).

ursogr8
28-01-2005, 02:39 PM
In that case he has used the break to improve his spelling.

Incidentally (re starter's comment) I think it was Bill who first employed "SOB" or I would have cited it as another Americanism (unless he meant it in the Bob Hawke sense).


hi Ian

Yes it was Bill.
In fact they were both Bill's. :rolleyes:

I know my jokes have fallen flat when I have to explain them. ;)

starter

Kevin Bonham
29-01-2005, 12:24 AM
A draw offer may appear ridiculous to you but since your opponent offered the draw he most probably does not agree with your assessment.

We ought to assume the offer was not made out of disrespect. If he then resigns we can assume the offer was made in jest.

The only remaining reason for the draw offer is your opponent honestly believes by mistake the position warrants a draw offer.

The reason for the honest mistake may be inexperience or lesser ability or blunder and you should still respect your opponent.

That is why you should "be nice to such an opponent."

Being nice to an opponent is a social grace, am I correct?

Another well known social grace in chess is called draw etiquette. Some of the aspects of draw etiquette include:

* A player should not normally offer a draw in a position so bad that their opponent has clear winning chances and they have none.

* If the position is more or less even, a player should not normally offer a draw to a much higher rated player. The much higher rated player, being still the clear favourite from any given even-ish position, will decide when they would like a draw and offer it accordingly.

* Once a draw offer has been refused another should not be offered by the same player unless the position has massively changed, or the opponent has offered one in turn.

Many of the draw offers I would call "ridiculous" violate this sort of draw etiquette. If the player offering a draw will not bother learning the right social graces (and may even be engaging in gamesmanship), why should their opponent display them in turn?

I also think that if a player offers a draw that displays ignorance of the position then that should be discouraged. Players should be encouraged to only offer draws in positions that they are good enough to know merit draw offers, not fish for draws in positions they don't understand and which often turn out to be lost.

PS If you must use the form Mr (surname) instead of the common BB forms of either using first name or firstname with surname, then you may as well know it's Dr Bonham. :lol:

Kevin Bonham
29-01-2005, 01:00 AM
Oh, come on now! What is this a world championship decider or something? If one feels like talking during the game, he should definitely be able to do so, provided he behaves reasonably and ethically.

To give an example of why talking should be kept to a minimum, I had one game in a fairly casual environment where my opponent had talked four times during the game, all unnecessary and some vaguely annoying. We got into a time scramble where he was totally winning but very short of time. He played a move that I thought was mate in two, I said "oh, is that it then?" (the first time I had spoken all game). He took that as a resignation and got up to record his victory; meanwhile his flag fell so I claimed a win. My point is not to defend my conduct (indeed as an arbiter if I came across a game like this 0-0 would be tempting result, and I'm not talking castling here) but to point out that when players engage in a little bit of "harmless chatter" it is easy for messy situations to develop. This is why the situations in which players talk to each other should be regulated.

Woodstocker
29-01-2005, 10:57 AM
Dr Bonham,


Being nice to an opponent is a social grace, am I correct?

Whether or not this is a rhetoric question or genuine query the answer is the same.


If the player offering a draw will not bother learning the right social graces (and may even be engaging in gamesmanship), why should their opponent display them in turn?

The answer to this question is contained in the first quote.


PS If you must use the form Mr (surname) instead of the common BB forms of either using first name or firstname with surname, then you may as well know it's Dr Bonham. :lol:

I will act upon your request complying despite of its dubious impuraturic nature.

Brandishing your honorific as either sword or shield is especially poor form from one with such letters.

IW

Bill Gletsos
30-01-2005, 11:47 AM
It's probably just Sweeney messing with your heads.
Well done.

shaun
30-01-2005, 10:01 PM
Well done.

It gives me no pleasure, as my position on banning posters is well known.

pax
31-01-2005, 11:08 AM
* If the position is more or less even, a player should not normally offer a draw to a much higher rated player. The much higher rated player, being still the clear favourite from any given even-ish position, will decide when they would like a draw and offer it accordingly.

I agree with your other two points, but this one I feel is way off.

Why shouldn't the lower rated player feel entitled to offer a draw if he believes the position drawn? Perhaps the higher rated player will almost invariably decline, but this does not remove the right of the lower rated player to offer.

I hate to see it when higher rated players brush off draw offers from lower rated players, with an attitude of "I am the stronger player, and I will tell you when it's a draw".

Rincewind
31-01-2005, 01:03 PM
I hate to see it when higher rated players brush off draw offers from lower rated players, with an attitude or "I am the stronger player, and I will tell you when it's a draw".

Me too, especially when I'm the lower rated player. :(

pballard
02-02-2005, 03:25 PM
I hate to see it when higher rated players brush off draw offers from lower rated players, with an attitude of "I am the stronger player, and I will tell you when it's a draw".

In a tournament many years ago, a strong player offered me a draw in a semi-ending. He had no chance of a high place (which is probably why he offered), while I had a chance of a rating prize, so I refused. A few moves later I returned the offer, but he felt insulted that I dared refuse, and proceeded to outmaneuvre me and press for a win (though I hung on for the draw).

At the time I was told it was the price I paid for daring to turn down his generous offer (and didn't question that, probably because I was feeling smug about drawing it anyway). But looking back, I now wonder whether it was bad etiquette on his part. Any thoughts?

--
Peter

Alan Shore
02-02-2005, 03:41 PM
In a tournament many years ago, a strong player offered me a draw in a semi-ending. He had no chance of a high place (which is probably why he offered), while I had a chance of a rating prize, so I refused. A few moves later I returned the offer, but he felt insulted that I dared refuse, and proceeded to outmaneuvre me and press for a win (though I hung on for the draw).

How do you know he was insulted? Perhaps he thought you may have felt yourself to be in an inferior position after those few moves or suddenly felt like playing the game after all once a few more moves were played.. you can't really assume these things.


At the time I was told it was the price I paid for daring to turn down his generous offer (and didn't question that, probably because I was feeling smug about drawing it anyway). But looking back, I now wonder whether it was bad etiquette on his part. Any thoughts?

Not in the slightest.. he doesn't have to accept a draw offer just because he offered one a few moves ago.

Ian Rout
02-02-2005, 03:44 PM
Not in the slightest.. he doesn't have to accept a draw offer just because he offered one a few moves ago.
I agree - declining a draw offer means that both players are then free to play for a win, not just one. Otherwise why would anybody accept a draw?

pballard
02-02-2005, 04:18 PM
How do you know he was insulted? Perhaps he thought you may have felt yourself to be in an inferior position after those few moves or suddenly felt like playing the game after all once a few more moves were played.. you can't really assume these things.

Because he said so. Well maybe "insulted" isn't the word, but he said that he was punishing me for daring to refuse his draw offer (or words to that effect).

Perhaps it was not so much a case of bad etiquette as bad attitude. After I didn't collapse quickly, he was too tired or lazy to fight for a win... until I refused his draw offer, and that gave him the motivation to play hard. It just seems a strange attitude to me.

--
Peter

Garvinator
02-02-2005, 06:04 PM
Because he said so. Well maybe "insulted" isn't the word, but he said that he was punishing me for daring to refuse his draw offer (or words to that effect).

Perhaps it was not so much a case of bad etiquette as bad attitude. After I didn't collapse quickly, he was too tired or lazy to fight for a win... until I refused his draw offer, and that gave him the motivation to play hard. It just seems a strange attitude to me.

--
Peter
sometimes it is just gamesmanship. Some players need a reason to get motivated to try and play well. The attitude you witnessed above is a case in point.

Rincewind
02-02-2005, 07:35 PM
I'm currently playing in our clubs handicap event. This is not an easy event for a player in the top half of the draw as it goes for 9 rounds and one or two "upsets" usually puts the front runner out of reach of the top half players.

Anyway this format encourages some bottom half players to play for a draw because a draw will get them quite a good result. Last night a draw would have meant I would have scored 20 point and my opponent 40 points. A win for him would have made the differential 5-55 but that is a more dangerous proposition and it is perceived that this risks losing more and then the scores would have been 35-25 in my favour.

Anyway after an early swap of queens, 2 minor pieces and relatively early swapping off of the rooks we wound up with 7 pawns each. I had 2 bishops and he had 2 knights and at this point my opponent said to me "Do you think there is a win in it?" Does this constitute a draw offer or is it just testing the waters? If so is it (strictly speaking) the done thing?

It certainly didn't bother me at the time. I replied something like "We'll play on for a bit and see" or words to that effect. I was looking at my scoresheet just now and noticed that I didn't mark any move with an "=".

Perhaps I should of... :hmm:

ursogr8
02-02-2005, 07:47 PM
^
Handicap in the sense that you give up the KBP, or similar?
If so, then the rules of chess probably don't apply, and the = is just local custom or not.

Rincewind
02-02-2005, 09:03 PM
^
Handicap in the sense that you give up the KBP, or similar?
If so, then the rules of chess probably don't apply, and the = is just local custom or not.

No it is ony a handicap in the way in which the points are allocated for a win/loss or draw. The games themselves are bog standard chess 40/90 all 30 games.

shaun
02-02-2005, 09:31 PM
Anyway after an early swap of queens, 2 minor pieces and relatively early swapping off of the rooks we wound up with 7 pawns each. I had 2 bishops and he had 2 knights and at this point my opponent said to me "Do you think there is a win in it?" Does this constitute a draw offer or is it just testing the waters? If so is it (strictly speaking) the done thing?

It certainly didn't bother me at the time. I replied something like "We'll play on for a bit and see" or words to that effect. I was looking at my scoresheet just now and noticed that I didn't mark any move with an "=".

Perhaps I should of... :hmm:

As I said earlier in this thread, if it was a player noted for his gamesmanship, and I felt the position was draw, I would claim without hesitation.
If I was an arbiter having to rule on a draw claim based on such an utterance I would probably award the draw, but it may depend on other information.
But no, it isn't the done thing as it either distracts the second player or has unfortunate consequences for the first.

Spiny Norman
02-02-2005, 09:38 PM
... at this point my opponent said to me "Do you think there is a win in it?" Does this constitute a draw offer or is it just testing the waters?

In that situation, if one is acutally uncertain whether a draw has or has not been offered because of the unusual comment made, is it appropriate to stop the clock and summon the arbiter to rule on it?

That would still leave the option of accepting or rejecting the offer subsequently I assume.

Rincewind
02-02-2005, 10:11 PM
As I said earlier in this thread, if it was a player noted for his gamesmanship, and I felt the position was draw, I would claim without hesitation.
If I was an arbiter having to rule on a draw claim based on such an utterance I would probably award the draw, but it may depend on other information.
But no, it isn't the done thing as it either distracts the second player or has unfortunate consequences for the first.

I certainly don't think there was any gamesmanship in it. I gave a brief synopsis of the game and situation because it was obvious to me that he would accept a draw without hesiation and played the whole game along the lines of reducing of material in the belief this would assist in this cause. I think the nature of his utterance was due to a belief that a fully fledged draw offer might have been a breach of edicit - as the position was even and he the lower rated player. Although one draw after after 30-odd moves certainly wouldn't have offended me.

Kevin Bonham
03-02-2005, 02:50 AM
Why shouldn't the lower rated player feel entitled to offer a draw if he believes the position drawn?

If the position is clearly dead drawn and the higher rated player's being vexatious in playing on I think that's fine, that's an exception. If there's still play in the position though, then the lower rated player is probably lower rated for a reason, and should be showing OTB that they are good enough to draw rather than offering a draw in hope. (Indeed, in my experience the kind of low-rated player who will offer a draw in a seemingly even ending is the sort who knows their endgame is the worst part of their game.)


I hate to see it when higher rated players brush off draw offers from lower rated players, with an attitude of "I am the stronger player, and I will tell you when it's a draw".

That's pretty much my attitude when I am playing a lower-rated player although I try not to be too obviously arrogant about it - a lower-rated player should expect that I will keep trying to beat them unless I am worse or there is no play left at all. In a dead even ending with a fair amount of play in it against a 1500s player, my practical chances of winning are at least as high as in a technically drawn but practically +/- ending against a player of my own rating. I wouldn't consider a draw in the latter case (and would take an offer of one as a sign that the opponent does not understand the practical chances), why do so in the former?

And when I'm playing someone who is stronger than me, I know that if I want that half-point I'm going to have to prove that I really know how to draw it. Players of my rating do make mistakes in even endings sometimes, after all. The opponent's completely within his rights to make sure my game is up to it.

Spiny Norman
03-02-2005, 07:01 AM
Interesting comments Kevin. I recall back when I was a junior rated around 1200 playing a guy rated 1680. We got into an endgame which I thought might be drawn ... but I was too "scared" to offer the draw because I thought he'd be dismissive. As it turned out, he miscalculated around move 50 and I ended up winning. It seems therefore that there's a whole lot of things that come into play: precedent, "the done thing", emotions, ego, etc.

Rincewind
03-02-2005, 08:30 AM
Interesting comments Kevin. I recall back when I was a junior rated around 1200 playing a guy rated 1680. We got into an endgame which I thought might be drawn ... but I was too "scared" to offer the draw because I thought he'd be dismissive. As it turned out, he miscalculated around move 50 and I ended up winning. It seems therefore that there's a whole lot of things that come into play: precedent, "the done thing", emotions, ego, etc.

I remember a similar situation in my very early days the strengths would have been aronud 1800-1300. It was a pawn race (K+1P v K+1P) and I had calculated that although my opponent queened first there was no check and then I queened and the position was drawn provided I didn't skewer my myself. So around 4 moves before queening I offered the draw. He declined.

We played on, he checked me a number of times while I managed to move my king closer and closer to my queen. Eventually they were adjacent and so no skewer winnnig my queen was possible, I offered a draw again and agani he declined. After a few more checks I was was able to interpose my queen and evetually the checks ran out.

Then my checks started after a few of those we got to a position where I was able to force of queens. There was a collective sigh in the largish crowd which had formed around our game. However, playing to the crowd I didn't swap off immediately. I played a couple more checks first. After another half a dozen checks I then swapped off queens and the position was dead.

The post-game handshake was curt and analysis was skipped. :)

This player has since "retired" from club competitions (many years after this incident) but I still see him quite regularly at the big board in Wollongong mall. We get on quite well. But we don't talk about this game.

Rincewind
04-02-2005, 10:09 PM
I like to break into maniacal laughter. I find that always makes it abundantly clear :D

I saw Dilbert today and thought of this comment. This link will work for a month or so I think. After that, too bad.

http://www.comics.com/comics/dilbert/archive/images/dilbert2005073234204.gif

Bob1
07-02-2005, 08:56 PM
In the August Weekender in Sydney this year, I observed Bolens offer Zong-Yuan Zhao a draw. When Zong-Yuan didn't put the "=" sign on the scoresheet, he pointed out that this was required. Bolens is not widely known as a stickler for the laws of chess. I suspect he just wanted some excuse to show a bit of gamesmanship.
Never underestimate Johnny !

pax
08-02-2005, 12:48 PM
If the position is clearly dead drawn and the higher rated player's being vexatious in playing on I think that's fine, that's an exception. If there's still play in the position though, then the lower rated player is probably lower rated for a reason, and should be showing OTB that they are good enough to draw rather than offering a draw in hope. (Indeed, in my experience the kind of low-rated player who will offer a draw in a seemingly even ending is the sort who knows their endgame is the worst part of their game.)

But wait a minute Kevin. We're talking about when it would be rude or not for the lower rated player to offer a draw right? Ignore for a minute the probability of that draw being accepted.

Are you saying that a lower rated player should only offer a draw when the higher rated player is being vexatious by playing on? That's a very tight standard, and one that wouldn't be maintained by many players under 1600.

If the position is even, and the lower rated player would like to offer a draw what is the problem? The higher rated player will almost certainly say no, but as long as the other player does not continue to make draw offers I don't see the slightest problem. Hell, he can even offer a draw on move ten if he wants. Who knows, maybe I'm really tired and it's my son's birthday and I really want to get home early?

Kevin Bonham
23-08-2005, 06:18 PM
[EDIT: this and the following 5 posts were originally posted as a new thread under the title "draw offer etiquette" and then merged back into this one when this one was pointed out. Hence the level of repetition of previous comments in the post below. - KB]

Surprised there was not a thread on this already (at least I can't find one using the search function, although there is When is a draw OK? (http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=1985). This is more like "when is a draw offer OK?"). If anyone can find a previous version of this thread please post a link to it. This one was sparked by the following comments in the MCC U2000/U1600 reports:


This game was interesting to me in that it was one of the very few occasions that someone has asked me how often can their opponent offer a draw.
Bob has a lot of draws compared to other people, and had offered one about every 7 moves or so, being mindful that the position is very even.
I mention Adel's concern's and afterwards hear that Adel has finally offered one back, which Bob naturally accepted.

There are two questions here, one of which could be an arbiter's corner question, one of which isn't. I think the one that isn't will probably attract more interest, so I've posted this here, but I'll move it to arbiter's corner if it becomes more suitable for there.

(i) When is it bad etiquette to offer a draw?
(ii) When is it so unreasonable to offer a draw that the DOP should take action under Article 12.6: "It is forbidden to distract or annoy the opponent in any maner whatsoever. This includes unreasonable claims or unreasonable offers of a draw."

Concerning (i), I believe it is bad etiquette to offer a draw from an inferior position unless the opponent is much weaker, is precariously short of time or has something obvious to gain from it like a prize or a norm (and even then it depends on the situation - eg offering a draw to someone 300 points below you when you are queen down isn't on). I also believe it is poor form to repeat a draw offer without a counter-offer from the opponent first, unless the complexion of the game has changed considerably or your position has become significantly better. For instance, suppose you offer a draw in a messy, roughly even position and the opponent declines. 15 moves later the position simplifies to one where you are slightly better and there is not that much play left. It is reasonable for you to re-offer as the opponent may feel it is poor etiquette to re-offer in an inferior position after refusing in an even one.

An area I find interesting is the offering of draws for strategic reasons. For instance your opponent has been totally winning but has blown it and the position is roughly even, or they're still better but running out of time. You offer a draw that is reasonable in isolation (considering the position and the clock) but you know that they're very unlikely to take it because they still feel they are the moral victor. I think this kind of thing is just OK and recently won a game after doing it - but I'd be interested to see whether others disagree.

I often get offered "hope draws" - I am up on material and higher rated and the opponent offers a draw because they hope the position might be drawn. In many cases it is actually a forced win. Can't say they especially bug me but they do make me more determined to not only win that game but also crush the same opponent in all future encounters. A weaker opponent should be able to tell that if I have more pieces I will decide when I want a draw.

Concerning (ii), I think macavity's action described (advising the player of his opponent's concern) was correct. There is no excuse for draw offers this persistent even if the player offering the draws is in a totally won position, let alone a "very even" one (unless it was so dead that playing on was completely ridiculous).

pballard
24-08-2005, 11:15 AM
Surprised there was not a thread on this already (at least I can't find one using the search function, although there is When is a draw OK? (http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=1985). This is more like "when is a draw offer OK?"). If anyone can find a previous version of this thread please post a link to it.

This all seems familiar. Aha! The "inaudible mutterings" thread: http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=1828

pax
24-08-2005, 02:00 PM
A draw offer every 7 moves is getting pretty close to deliberate distraction of the opponent, and seems to warrant an arbiter's warning.

tom
24-08-2005, 02:19 PM
i offered a draw when opponent had 15 minutes left realizing if he thought
about it he would put him self in time trouble. after thinking for 12 minutes
he was under so much pressure he felt he had to accept draw.

Later he thought he had a winning game and called me a cheat. the DOP agreed
with him and said i would not be welcome back. I was also stalked by his gang for months afterwards who made up stories of bad sportsmanship.

pax
24-08-2005, 02:29 PM
i offered a draw when opponent had 15 minutes left realizing if he thought
about it he would put him self in time trouble. after thinking for 12 minutes
he was under so much pressure he felt he had to accept draw.

Later he thought he had a winning game and called me a cheat. the DOP agreed
with him and said i would not be welcome back. I was also stalked by his gang for months afterwards who made up stories of bad sportsmanship.

If he thought he was winning why think for 12 minutes?

PHAT
24-08-2005, 03:29 PM
i offered a draw when opponent had 15 minutes left realizing if he thought
about it he would put him self in time trouble. after thinking for 12 minutes
he was under so much pressure he felt he had to accept draw.

Later he thought he had a winning game and called me a cheat. the DOP agreed
with him and said i would not be welcome back. I was also stalked by his gang for months afterwards who made up stories of bad sportsmanship.

Name the DOP.

Kevin Bonham
24-08-2005, 04:58 PM
This all seems familiar. Aha! The "inaudible mutterings" thread: http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=1828

Thankyou. Serves me right for giving it such an obscure title, no wonder I could not find it.

pballard
24-08-2005, 05:26 PM
Thankyou. Serves me right for giving it such an obscure title, no wonder I could not find it.

Well I knew I'd posted to the thread so it wasn't hard to find using the search function. Having few posts can have its advantages!

tom
24-08-2005, 08:49 PM
i am sure it would make trouble if i name people
but i will say it was at box hill

Garvinator
24-08-2005, 09:45 PM
i am sure it would make trouble if i name people
but i will say it was at box hill
I hope Matt Sweeney doesnt mind me doing this as I am going to have to employ his copyrighted material :eek: but Tom, name names. Dont give or airy fairy answers. Just name the arbiter and say specifically what was the situation in DETAIL.

Trent Parker
25-08-2005, 09:52 AM
DOP? Dope would be more like it....... Its a tactical part of chess. :D

Spiny Norman
26-08-2005, 02:18 PM
In last night's game, after some fluctuating fortunes against an opponent of roughly the same rating as myself, we reached an approximately equal position that I judged as "drawn with correct play" (K+R+2p vs K+R+2p). I had an outside passed pawn, but my opponent's rook was behind the pawn.

I played a couple of checks backwards and forwards with my rook and we started to repeat the position (we repeated twice). My opponent then shrugged and lifted his hands in the air ... he paused for a few seconds, looking at me eye-to-eye ... when I said/did nothing (his clock was running and we were both getting very short on time (~3mins) he eventually muttered "Draw?" in a quizzical fashion.

I let a few more seconds run off his clock, then eventually said to him "I'd like to see your next move first, then I'll think about it". Several onlookers heard this exchange.

He played his king out of check and pressed the clock. I re-examined the position, concluded it drawn with best play, but decided to play on. Without saying anything further I made my next move (Rook taking a pawn, giving up my outside passed pawn in the hope of winning a pawn and getting to a R+P vs R ending). This is in fact what happened. My suspicion was that he would not know as much endgame theory as myself (not that I know that much anyway) and if I was the person with the extra pawn then at worst I could take a draw. As it turns out, I did know more about the ending and I managed to win, despite only having 10-15 seconds on the clock a couple of times in the process.

After the game was over my opponent protested that he thought the game had been drawn by three-fold repetition (in my opinion, it had not, and I believe the game score bears this out). I suggested to him that in future, if he wishes to claim a 3-fold repetition draw, he ought to stop the clock and summon the arbiter, and announce his intention to play the drawing move, then let the arbiter decide, rather than just muttering "Draw?" under his breath and rolling his eyes heavenward. ;)

Is what I suggested correct?

Kevin Bonham
26-08-2005, 04:55 PM
After the game was over my opponent protested that he thought the game had been drawn by three-fold repetition (in my opinion, it had not, and I believe the game score bears this out). I suggested to him that in future, if he wishes to claim a 3-fold repetition draw, he ought to stop the clock and summon the arbiter, and announce his intention to play the drawing move, then let the arbiter decide, rather than just muttering "Draw?" under his breath and rolling his eyes heavenward. ;)

Is what I suggested correct?

Absolutely. I had a similar incident in 1997 when a game ultimately got down to K+R+RP vs K+R and my opponent (with K+R) lost on time then claimed after the game that when he had said "draw" slightly earlier he was claiming a draw (under 10.2) not offering one. You have to go through all the protocol to claim a draw otherwise just saying "draw" or "draw?" is only an offer.

As it happened the position in which he said "draw" was like this: we each had a king and a rook, he had a knight, I had a bishop, he had a pawn, I had two, but I could only keep my pawn lead by swapping pawns and going into K+R+B+RP vs K+R+N. I really doubt that any arbiter would award a 10.2 in that position but I think my opponent was disgusted that I did not offer a draw when later, in the dying seconds of his time-trouble, he scrambled to the defending side of a K+R+RP vs K+R position that probably was dead drawn.

My opponent, a volatile and eccentric chap, was so annoyed there was quite a big argument after the game and he never played a rated tournament again.

Spiny Norman
26-08-2005, 06:44 PM
My opponent, a volatile and eccentric chap, was so annoyed there was quite a big argument after the game and he never played a rated tournament again.
One part of that outcome is sad. I'd prefer to see more people playing chess than less ... but then again, if they're not informed about the rules of the game and create disturbances as a result, then perhaps its best.

My opponent was very nice about it. I don't think it was really much more than genuine disappointment on his part, plus a bit of misunderstanding of the procedure. I'll post the game in my other thread. My middle game play is horrible, but I suppose "winning ugly" is preferable to "losing prettily".

ElevatorEscapee
26-08-2005, 11:42 PM
I recall a similar incident a few years back in Victoria, involving a Fide Master (and International Master Elect) playing against a tournament sponsor's computer.

The player and computer had repeated moves several times, and the computer repeated the next move and displayed "draw by threefold repetition" on the screen.

The computer operator played the move over the board and said "draw by threefold repetition".

The computer's opponent successfully argued to the arbiter that this was an invalid draw claim as the claim should have been made before actually playing the move on the board. (The poor old computer operator could hardly be blamed for not knowing this!)

This caused some trouble for the computer program, which was adamant that the position was drawn, and apparently refused to accept the arbiter's decision... (much to the amusement of the spectators!)

Eventually the computer was restarted, and the position entered under a faster time limit (to allow for the time it had left)... an imperfect solution perhaps, but one that showed up the limitations of machines when it comes to the finer points of interpreation of the rules. :)

Garvinator
27-08-2005, 12:44 AM
I recall a similar incident a few years back in Victoria, involving a Fide Master (and International Master Elect) playing against a tournament sponsor's computer.

The player and computer had repeated moves several times, and the computer repeated the next move and displayed "draw by threefold repetition" on the screen.

The computer operator played the move over the board and said "draw by threefold repetition".

The computer's opponent successfully argued to the arbiter that this was an invalid draw claim as the claim should have been made before actually playing the move on the board. (The poor old computer operator could hardly be blamed for not knowing this!)

This caused some trouble for the computer program, which was adamant that the position was drawn, and apparently refused to accept the arbiter's decision... (much to the amusement of the spectators!)

Eventually the computer was restarted, and the position entered under a faster time limit (to allow for the time it had left)... an imperfect solution perhaps, but one that showed up the limitations of machines when it comes to the finer points of interpreation of the rules. :)


The operator could have tried arguing that the computer had actually claimed the draw before making the move on the board ;) :P

ElevatorEscapee
27-08-2005, 03:13 AM
The computer operator could have tried doing so... however, I had the same program on my 386/486 (one of the early Fritzes, I think it was) which always played the move first, before laying claim to a draw by repetition.

I believe that the game in question was played with the computer move being played first, the operator playing the move over the board and after making it, pressing the clock.

In any case, the computer's opponent, Mr S, was well within his rights to point out an illegetimate draw by threefold repetition claim (and he didn't need to take off his kid gloves to do so! ;) :P ).

Bereaved
28-08-2005, 12:12 AM
Hello everyone,

Given that I have apparently led to this topic being of interest at the moment, perhaps it would be useful to qualify my assessment of very even.

The players each were in possession of two minor pieces I think, and no more than 5 pawns each. Bob was if anything slightly better, and they were the 12th and 13th seeded players in the tournament, respectively.

It would be a fair comment to say that there are still chances of winning in such positions, as it was what one could describe as, in the event of a flagfall, that a player has sufficient mating material, and my assessment of the position was such that I thought it drawn with minimal accuracy. That is not necessarily the players assessment.

If it would help matters, I will get a copy of the game and post it here. The chances of it showing when each draw was offered are doubtful though, as the process of doing so does not seem to be well developed among all at MCC yet.

Take care and God Bless, Macavity

Lucena
28-08-2005, 01:32 PM
Has anyone read the section on how to offer a draw in "How to Cheat At Chess" (or it might be the other book, "Soft Pawn") by Hartston?

Davidflude
28-08-2005, 05:31 PM
Players have the right to play on and on and on in drawish positions. If it is done to you I suggest that you follow the following procedure.

1) offer the draw just once following the correct procedure

- play a move on the board
- offer the draw
- start your opponents clock
- write your move on the scoresheet followed by an equals to indicate that
a draw was offered.

2) now play as well as you can. Take the view that this gives you a chance to practice your endgame technique. Try and exude a feeling of complete calm and that you do not care if the game lasts until breakfast.

3) Check your opponents scoresheet. If it is not up to date speak to the DOP about having him or her fix it up with their clock ticking. If they now offer a draw state that you will accept or decline it after they bring their scoresheet up to date.

4) watch out for chances to turn the tables. Some players will take risks trying to win drawn positions. If you are not alert you will miss wins. Hint. if you see lots of players looking at the position and then running out of the room they have probably seen a shot.

5) when your opponent finally offers the draw consider turning it down. Even better if you have lots of time on your clock is to take your time before accepting the draw offer.

The long term solution to this problem is work hard at your end game technique.

Denis_Jessop
28-08-2005, 10:34 PM
Has anyone read the section on how to offer a draw in "How to Cheat At Chess" (or it might be the other book, "Soft Pawn") by Hartston?

Actually, it's both. There's a whole Chapter - 10 - on "How to Offer a Draw" in "HTCAC" and 3 paragraphs in Ch6 - "Etiquette for Chessplayers" - in "Soft Pawn" but these are confined to offers to Grandmasters and to Royalty.

DJ

pax
28-08-2005, 11:03 PM
I reckon very few club level players know the correct procedure for claiming a threefold repetition draw.

I think arbiters in amateur tournaments should be fairly generous in their interpretation of the rule. E.g the player plays the move on the board, and summons the arbiter before pressing his clock? Or claims the draw to the opponent while making the move, and summons the arbiter after completing it? I'd give these if the scoresheets are unambiguous.

Professional events are another matter and the absolute letter of the law should be observed.


I recall a similar incident a few years back in Victoria, involving a Fide Master (and International Master Elect) playing against a tournament sponsor's computer.

The player and computer had repeated moves several times, and the computer repeated the next move and displayed "draw by threefold repetition" on the screen.

The computer operator played the move over the board and said "draw by threefold repetition".

The computer's opponent successfully argued to the arbiter that this was an invalid draw claim as the claim should have been made before actually playing the move on the board. (The poor old computer operator could hardly be blamed for not knowing this!)

This caused some trouble for the computer program, which was adamant that the position was drawn, and apparently refused to accept the arbiter's decision... (much to the amusement of the spectators!)

Eventually the computer was restarted, and the position entered under a faster time limit (to allow for the time it had left)... an imperfect solution perhaps, but one that showed up the limitations of machines when it comes to the finer points of interpreation of the rules. :)

Kevin Bonham
28-08-2005, 11:37 PM
The players each were in possession of two minor pieces I think, and no more than 5 pawns each. Bob was if anything slightly better, and they were the 12th and 13th seeded players in the tournament, respectively.

It would be a fair comment to say that there are still chances of winning in such positions, as it was what one could describe as, in the event of a flagfall, that a player has sufficient mating material, and my assessment of the position was such that I thought it drawn with minimal accuracy. That is not necessarily the players assessment.

Thanks. That's more than enough information for me to be quite happy to stand by my earlier comment that the multiple draw offers were excessive.

Players of 1500-1600 level can and often do lose these positions. Indeed I have just annotated an old game between myself and another 1900s player. It got down to knight and three pawns vs bishop and three pawns with all the pawns on the same side of the board but we played on and I somehow managed to drop a pawn, which would have given him winning chances had my technique not been good enough to still hold it.

Phil Bourke
29-11-2005, 01:08 PM
Just a quick revisit to the subject of "Adjust" which was raised very early in the thread. I make it a practise when needing to adjust the pieces, off actually asking my opponent, that means he acknowledges my request, before touching any piece. I also noticed that Raymond Song did the same thing in our recent game at Coffs Harbour. This would seem to be safest course to eliminate any confusion and/or argument. So perhaps a sentence or two in the coaching manuals would see the younger kids speaking up loud enough for us old fogies to acknowledge their request :)
As to draw offers, I note that everyone seems to be falling back on that old adage, if your opponent offers a draw, look at the position to see why he thinks he stands so badly.
I only offer a draw, if I consider that the position is just that, drawn. If my opponent considers it otherwise, that is their prerogative. I feel that it actually increases the pressure on the player declining such draw offers because they then have to show where the win is, and often make mistakes trying to do so.
As to the childish offers of a draw in a losing position, I just acknowledge them and play on with the knowledge that my opponent even sees the game as a lost one for them.
One question that has arisen for me out of this discussion.
In the last round at the recent Coffs Harbour Open, the game Bolens v ? had reached an obviously drawn position, they even repeated position at least 8 times, but because of both players having less than 5 minutes remaining, no record of moves was being kept, so therefore everyone thought that it couldn't be claimed. Finally the lower rated player asked the DOP CZ about a draw by the 50 move rule. Bolens argued that there was no game record, CZ said that seeing as how the player had asked, he could keep score of moves played from that moment on and adjudicate if the situation arose.
Bolens finally played a risky move that would have still seen it drawn if ? had replied correctly, but it payed off, a mistake saw Bolens emerge as winner.
My question is, could the DOP called the game a draw at the time of the request from the player, even though this was after the repetition had occurred?
Again a situation of players not knowing the rules, as if the DOP or an arbiter is watching the game, they can rule on such things as repetition of moves, even though the game isn't being recorded.

Ian Rout
29-11-2005, 01:21 PM
My question is, could the DOP called the game a draw at the time of the request from the player, even though this was after the repetition had occurred?

No - rule 9.4

If the player makes a move without having claimed the draw he loses the right to claim, as in Article 9.2 or 9.3, on that move.

A more interesting one is whether a player has to say why they are claiming a draw or if a claim covers all possible draws, as in a cricket appeal.

The layout of the rules implies that you do have to say why you are claiming the draw but I don't think it's explicitly stated.

Garvinator
29-11-2005, 01:35 PM
In the last round at the recent Coffs Harbour Open, the game Bolens v ? had reached an obviously drawn position, they even repeated position at least 8 times, but because of both players having less than 5 minutes remaining, no record of moves was being kept, so therefore everyone thought that it couldn't be claimed. Finally the lower rated player asked the DOP CZ about a draw by the 50 move rule. Bolens argued that there was no game record, CZ said that seeing as how the player had asked, he could keep score of moves played from that moment on and adjudicate if the situation arose.

I have never seen Charles in this situation, start recording moves once both players have stopped recording, which I do believe to be incorrect.

8.4 If a player has less than five minutes left on his clock at some stage in a period and does not have additional time of 30 seconds or more added with each move, then he is not obliged to meet the requirements of Article 8.1. Immediately after one flag has fallen the player must update his scoresheet completely before moving a piece on the chessboard.

8.5. 1. If neither player is required to keep score under Article 8.4, the arbiter or an assistant should try to be present and keep score.(my bolding) In this case, immediately after one flag has fallen, the arbiter shall stop the clocks. Then both players shall update their scoresheets, using the arbiter`s or the opponent`s scoresheet.

From reading this, I have always believed that the arbiter should make every effort to start recording, in part because of the example situation given above. I would like to know why this isnt done.

Trent Parker
29-11-2005, 02:53 PM
One question that has arisen for me out of this discussion.
In the last round at the recent Coffs Harbour Open, the game Bolens v ? had reached an obviously drawn position, they even repeated position at least 8 times, but because of both players having less than 5 minutes remaining, no record of moves was being kept, so therefore everyone thought that it couldn't be claimed. Finally the lower rated player asked the DOP CZ about a draw by the 50 move rule. Bolens argued that there was no game record, CZ said that seeing as how the player had asked, he could keep score of moves played from that moment on and adjudicate if the situation arose.
Bolens finally played a risky move that would have still seen it drawn if ? had replied correctly, but it payed off, a mistake saw Bolens emerge as winner.
My question is, could the DOP called the game a draw at the time of the request from the player, even though this was after the repetition had occurred?
Again a situation of players not knowing the rules, as if the DOP or an arbiter is watching the game, they can rule on such things as repetition of moves, even though the game isn't being recorded.

I'm not sure the actual position was drawn...... Yes they had repeated 3 times but i think it was something like KQ2connected pawns against KQ. I believe that in normal time johny would have won the game anyhow.....

But what do i know......

shaun
29-11-2005, 06:48 PM
I have never seen Charles in this situation, start recording moves once both players have stopped recording, which I do believe to be incorrect.

8.4 If a player has less than five minutes left on his clock at some stage in a period and does not have additional time of 30 seconds or more added with each move, then he is not obliged to meet the requirements of Article 8.1. Immediately after one flag has fallen the player must update his scoresheet completely before moving a piece on the chessboard.

8.5. 1. If neither player is required to keep score under Article 8.4, the arbiter or an assistant should try to be present and keep score.(my bolding) In this case, immediately after one flag has fallen, the arbiter shall stop the clocks. Then both players shall update their scoresheets, using the arbiter`s or the opponent`s scoresheet.

From reading this, I have always believed that the arbiter should make every effort to start recording, in part because of the example situation given above. I would like to know why this isnt done.

But if you read the rules in their entirety, it is easy to see why Charles (and almost all other arbiters) do not keep a record of the game, in these circumstances.
Firstly, the games had a single time control. The rules in section 8 imply that the purpose of an arbiter keeping a record of the moves is to judge whether a player has lost on time, and if not, what move are the players up to for the 2nd or subsequent time control. Clearly this does not apply in this case.
Secondly, the rules for claiming draws by repetition or the via the 50 move rule clearly refer to the players scoresheet, not the arbiters scoresheet, implying that if a player chooses not to keep a record of the game they lose the right to claim draws on these grounds.
This is the commonly accepted practice amongst arbiters in Australia for events of these types, and in fact Charles (and myself) make announcements specifying exactly this at the start of these sort of tournaments.

Garvinator
29-11-2005, 07:29 PM
But if you read the rules in their entirety, it is easy to see why Charles (and almost all other arbiters) do not keep a record of the game, in these circumstances.
Firstly, the games had a single time control. The rules in section 8 imply that the purpose of an arbiter keeping a record of the moves is to judge whether a player has lost on time, and if not, what move are the players up to for the 2nd or subsequent time control. Clearly this does not apply in this case.
Secondly, the rules for claiming draws by repetition or the via the 50 move rule clearly refer to the players scoresheet, not the arbiters scoresheet, implying that if a player chooses not to keep a record of the game they lose the right to claim draws on these grounds.
I will agree with this for rule 8.

This shows two things:

1) how much I am missing by not having International Arbiters or similiar to learn from and regularly ask questions, face to face.
2) Why I dont organise and run tournaments with a 10 second increment ;)

Edit: in reply of my posting, Bill has disagreed with part of Shaun's reply. I shall await further discussion.

Bill Gletsos
29-11-2005, 07:35 PM
But if you read the rules in their entirety, it is easy to see why Charles (and almost all other arbiters) do not keep a record of the game, in these circumstances.
Firstly, the games had a single time control. The rules in section 8 imply that the purpose of an arbiter keeping a record of the moves is to judge whether a player has lost on time, and if not, what move are the players up to for the 2nd or subsequent time control. Clearly this does not apply in this case.Agreed.

Secondly, the rules for claiming draws by repetition or the via the 50 move rule clearly refer to the players scoresheet, not the arbiters scoresheet, implying that if a player chooses not to keep a record of the game they lose the right to claim draws on these grounds.Disagree.

This is the commonly accepted practice amongst arbiters in Australia for events of these types, and in fact Charles (and myself) make announcements specifying exactly this at the start of these sort of tournaments.In a discussion I had with Stewart Reuben a few years back regarding an appeal to the NSWCA Appeals committee regarding a 3 fold repetiton claim where neither player was legally required to record the moves he said that if the arbiter observed the triple repetiton and the player made a valid claim then the arbiter should award the draw.

I even queried him at the time regarding the wording of article 9.2a which states:
is about to appear, if he first writes his move on his scoresheet and declares to the arbiter his intention to make this move, or
that this requires the player to record the move on his scoresheet.
His response was that the player could legally stop the clock, write that move and that move only on the scoresheet and make the claim however that since there was no legal requirement for the players to be recording he would not hold a players failure to do so against him under the circumstances.

Geurt in one of his arbiters notebooks makes it clear that a complete scoresheet is not required for a valid draw claim.

He says

Yes, a player with an incomplete scoresheet may claim a draw. Let us check the Laws of Chess and especially Article 9.5:

If a player claims a draw as in Article 9.2 or 9.3, he shall immediately stop both clocks. He is not allowed to withdraw his claim.
a. If the claim is found to be correct the game is immediately drawn.
b. If the claim is found to be incorrect, the arbiter shall add three
minutes to the opponent’s remaining time. Additionally, if the claimant
has more than two minutes on his clock the arbiter shall deduct half of
the claimant’s remaining time up to a maximum of three minutes. If the
claimant has more than one minute, but less than two minutes, his
remaining time shall be one minute. If the claimant has less than one
minute, the arbiter shall make no adjustment to the claimant’s clock.
Then the game shall continue and the intended move must be made.

As you can see, a claim is made to the arbiter who then must verify it and
impose a penalty if it is wrong. That the claimant needs to present a complete
scoresheet or has to prove that his claim is correct is not mentioned in the
Laws of Chess.
If the triple repetition occurs and is witnessed by the arbiter then he is in fact clearly able to verify that the claim is correct. In line with article 9.5a the game is therefore immediately drawn.

Kevin Bonham
29-11-2005, 09:37 PM
I don't see why a rule can't have multiple purposes and an obvious secondary purpose of 8.4 and 8.5 is to attempt to ensure a complete record of the game. If the sole purpose of 8 was determining whether players had lost on time then the arbiter could tick off moves instead of scoring them. If I'm arbiting a G90 and both players are below five minutes I will attempt to keep score if I am able. (Much easier for me since I run much smaller tournaments - in a hall of 100 players it would be impossible unless you had a lot of assistants.) There is nothing in the rules that says an arbiter is not allowed to keep score in this manner and nothing in the rules that says an arbiter cannot use the information so obtained in ruling on a claim, so why not?

Article 10.1 allows a game to be interpreted as having phases even though the game actually only has one phase. I apply the same to "period" in Art 8.4 and hence apply Art 8.5(a) to games of the G/x form - but I wouldn't want to interfere with other arbiters' judgements about whether doing so interfered too much with other duties.

Phil Bourke
30-11-2005, 06:59 PM
I'm not sure the actual position was drawn...... Yes they had repeated 3 times but i think it was something like KQ2connected pawns against KQ. I believe that in normal time johny would have won the game anyhow.....

But what do i know......

I am referring to earlier in the game when it was KQRP v KQR3P and white's pawn was on the 7th rank.
White King was on e1 and they repeated the position many times with Black's Queen checking and the White's Queen interceding on d1 d2 e2 c1 c2.
The point you refer to came later in the game after Bolens played his Queen to behind White's pawn, and White mistakenly played RxR check instead of promoting the pawn which would have seen the game drawn again.
As to what you do know, you are right, at the point you mention it was a Black win through and through, and White's claims at this point were only a desperate hope that Bolens wouldn't execute him promptly enough.

Phil Bourke
30-11-2005, 07:05 PM
If the triple repetition occurs and is witnessed by the arbiter then he is in fact clearly able to verify that the claim is correct. In line with article 9.5a the game is therefore immediately drawn.

What would the likely ruling be if the draw that was claimed was only backed by the audience, which in the case was about 8-10 other players playing in the tournament?

ElevatorEscapee
20-01-2006, 09:56 PM
Should arbiters really be asked to ascertain whether or not a position is "theoretically drawn"?

If so, does this not assume a certain amount of theoretical chess knowledge on the behalf of the arbiter under the microscope?

Bill Gletsos
20-01-2006, 10:17 PM
What would the likely ruling be if the draw that was claimed was only backed by the audience, which in the case was about 8-10 other players playing in the tournament?The arbiter is not obliged to listen to the audience. He may of course decide to but equally he may determine that they have a biased as the result affects their placings or that they dont really know if it repeated or not.

Kevin Bonham
20-01-2006, 10:42 PM
Should arbiters really be asked to ascertain whether or not a position is "theoretically drawn"?

No. No rule requires an arbiter to determine this. 10.2 only requires an arbiter to decide whether a position can be won by normal means, which is totally different and generally far easier. Most theoretically drawn positions can be "won by normal means."

Bill Gletsos
20-01-2006, 10:48 PM
Should arbiters really be asked to ascertain whether or not a position is "theoretically drawn"?When are arbiters asked to make such a determination. After all there is no such draw claim under the rules of chess.

Maybe you are thinking of Article 10.2, but even it does not refer to theoretically drawn positions. The player must claim that that their opponent opponent is making no effort to win the game by normal means, or that it is not possible to win by normal means.

As Geurt often says as a player he knows what "a theoretical draw" is but as an arbiter he doesnt.

Capablanca-Fan
14-07-2010, 02:00 AM
Incidentally the draw etiquette at Mt B especially from some of the juniors was abysmal - players offering draws while behind on material against opponents outrating them by hundreds of points, for instance.
I've also seen the reverse in junior tourneys: a player who is creaming an opponent, asks, "Do you want a draw?" "Yes," "Can't have it/Just kidding!" But they are usually cured of that crap when the arbiter rules that this counts as a valid draw offer and acceptance.

Kevin Bonham
14-07-2010, 02:20 AM
I've also seen the reverse in junior tourneys: a player who is creaming an opponent, asks, "Do you want a draw?" "Yes," "Can't have it/Just kidding!" But they are usually cured of that crap when the arbiter rules that this counts as a valid draw offer and acceptance.

:lol: Oh dear. I've never had that one, which is a pity, as it sounds most entertaining for the arbiter.

FM_Bill
01-10-2010, 01:39 PM
I do like the idea of draw ideas being standardized though.

Not sure about the card idea though.

As it stands a player can ask for a draw in a different ways.

One player said to me "Bill, would you like a draw?", he said it so nicely I took the draw in a clearly better position.

Also:
"How amenable are you to draw?'

I had a bad experience when I was leading an Australian Junior
when my opponent repeatedly rudely asked for draws making comments like
he was slightly better and his friend came over and told me to take a draw. No arbiter was in sight. I got annoyed, blundered and lost.

Some players have used draw offers as a psychological weapon.

I think when offering a draw the only legal draw offer should be one word "Draw?"

Likewise, declines of draw should be standardized. Not sure how?
Maybe "play on", "no thanks" not sure what is best wording.

Smart remarks like
"I like to win"
"You don't deserve a draw"
"You have to earn a draw"
"We have come here to play chess"
etc etc should be discouraged.

Igor_Goldenberg
11-10-2010, 10:53 AM
I was taught in very earlier age that if your draw offer was rejected, you can't offer a draw until your opponent offers a draw.
Another rule I was taught is that you can only offer a draw immediately after you made the move before pressing the clock.
And "offer a draw" is probably the best way wording.

MichaelBaron
11-10-2010, 11:05 AM
One player said to me "Bill, would you like a draw?", he said it so nicely I took the draw in a clearly better position.

.
:lol: How I wish my voice was sweeter, It would save me a lot of half-points in inferior positions :lol:

antichrist
11-10-2010, 01:04 PM
when playing grade I offered a few draws that were all rejected but then won all games - shows some of us underestimate and others overestimate our capacities

ER
11-10-2010, 03:04 PM
I love David Flude's way of rejecting peace offers even in inferior positions:
"You have to play for the draw"! I was present when it once happened at the old Melbourne Chess Club in Peel St. Judging by his current approach - still hard fighing over the board, still playing for a win regardless who the opponent is, Fludey must be the symbol of draw rejectors who fight to the point where only Kings still stand on the board!

WhiteElephant
11-10-2010, 10:01 PM
I had a bad experience when I was leading an Australian Junior
when my opponent repeatedly rudely asked for draws making comments like
he was slightly better and his friend came over and told me to take a draw. No arbiter was in sight. I got annoyed, blundered and lost.

Years ago I had an opponent repeatedly ask me for a draw when he and I were equal first in the Vic Juniors. I think I was a pawn up but with all the draw offers, I played a few inaccurate moves and dropped a piece.

Someone sitting at the board next to me saw what had happened and said very loudly to my opponent so the whole room could hear - 'you try dirty tricks every game, it's the only way you can win'. My opponent was so embarrassed, he blundered a few moves later and lost :D

antichrist
11-10-2010, 11:15 PM
In grade grame I was way behind so planned to sac 3 or 4 pieces to force a draw, after the 3rd sac my opponents friends laughed loudly that I intrepreted as a warning not to take the last piece - that woke the opponent up so I abused them all and never seen them again.

Tony Dowden
12-10-2010, 08:26 PM
Some players have used draw offers as a psychological weapon.



Yes ... but repeated offers (i.e 2 or 3) don't necessarily amount to 'intentional harrassment' - as was loudly claimed by a visting international player to an NZ championships I competed in several years ago.

Santa
26-11-2011, 02:15 AM
Yes ... but repeated offers (i.e 2 or 3) don't necessarily amount to 'intentional harrassment' - as was loudly claimed by a visting international player to an NZ championships I competed in several years ago.

I concur. Whatever Igor was taught, I see no problem with making another offer when matters might be clearer. A player, thinking the position drawn after a few trades, might offer a draw. If the draw is declined, and the trades take place as planned, then another offer might be in order if the position still seems drawn..

I might propose a draw too, even if I seemed worse, if my opponent demonstrates an inability to win it. It would, for example, not surprise me find an opponent inable to checkmate with two bishops, or with knight and bishop.