PDA

View Full Version : Short draws: a fact of chess, or do we need rules to try to stop them?



Capablanca-Fan
24-03-2008, 10:54 PM
This poll has the third option, i.e. FIDE rules ;)

To clarify, the Sofia rule is:


"The players should not offer draws directly to their opponents. Draw-offers will be allowed only through the Chief-Arbiter in three cases: a triple-repetition of the position, a perpetual check and in theoretically drawn positions."

Garvinator
24-03-2008, 10:56 PM
Does it, currently it has no options :P

Capablanca-Fan
24-03-2008, 10:58 PM
Does it, currently it has no options :P
Gimme a chance to post the poll questions ;) :P I dunno why it posted before I was ready.

Garvinator
24-03-2008, 10:59 PM
Gimme a chance to post the poll questions ;) :P I dunno why it posted before I was ready.
When posting polls, the first post (your original comment) is posted and then the poll comes up after you have completed the poll options and time frame.

Capablanca-Fan
24-03-2008, 11:01 PM
When posting polls, the first post (your original comment) is posted and then the poll comes up after you have completed the poll options and time frame.
Righto, thanx.

Ian Rout
25-03-2008, 08:05 AM
This seems somewhat tendentious in that no draws of any sort before move 30 is clearly ridiculous. Surely the option "No agreed draws before move 30" should be included either instead of in addition to the third choice.

Capablanca-Fan
25-03-2008, 11:07 AM
This seems somewhat tendentious in that no draws of any sort before move 30 is clearly ridiculous. Surely the option "No agreed draws before move 30" should be included either instead of in addition to the third choice.
Yeah. I'm happy if a mod wants to make this change. But in practice, as we saw in the Doerbel, some draws that were validly claimed under Article 5.2b were denied, in contravention of Article 9.5a. So despite some disagreement with me, I maintain that the Doerbel rules were in conflict with FIDE Laws (http://www.fide.com/official/handbook.asp?level=EE101), and thus not binding.

Basil
25-03-2008, 12:40 PM
I maintain that the Doerbel rules were in conflict with FIDE Laws (http://www.fide.com/official/handbook.asp?level=EE101), and thus not binding.
I'd like some clarification from some of the greater lights than me, please.

Is there a difference between the rules (guidelines) and Laws of Chess? Are there rules which are optional or discretionary for the conduct of tournaments (as distinct from the Laws of Chess)? Are the recent discussions on this board regarding what constitutes a draw (specifically the 30 move rule) captured by The Laws of Chess or some other mechanism?

The reason for asking is assess the extent to which FIDE's rules/ laws/ and similar prevail and which ones may be waived in a tournament and yet for the tournament to still be eligible for ratings.

Bill Gletsos
25-03-2008, 01:20 PM
I'd like some clarification from some of the greater lights than me, please.

Is there a difference between the rules (guidelines) and Laws of Chess? Are there rules which are optional or discretionary for the conduct of tournaments (as distinct from the Laws of Chess)? Are the recent discussions on this board regarding what constitutes a draw (specifically the 30 move rule) captured by The Laws of Chess or some other mechanism?

The reason for asking is assess the extent to which FIDE's rules/ laws/ and similar prevail and which ones may be waived in a tournament and yet for the tournament to still be eligible for ratings.See my response to Jono's original post on this here (http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=188478&postcount=297).

I would add that the 30 move draw rule at Doeberl is more of a tournament condition than an actual modification of the FIDE laws.
In fact all it is really doing is requiring the arbiters consent before the players can claim under Articles 5.2d and 9.2 etc.

Capablanca-Fan
25-03-2008, 01:37 PM
I would add that the 30 move draw rule at Doeberl is more of a tournament condition than an actual modification of the FIDE laws.
In fact all it is really doing is requiring the arbiters consent before the players can claim under Articles 5.2d and 9.2 etc.
What about 9.5a:


If the claim is found to be correct the game is immediately drawn.

Bill Gletsos
25-03-2008, 01:49 PM
What about 9.5a:


If the claim is found to be correct the game is immediately drawn. As I said the arbiters are placing a tournament condition that all draws under 30 moves must be approved by the arbiters.
This tournament condition pre-empts the application of the FIDE rules and in my opinion is a valid.

Clearly FIDE consider the Gibraltar rules valid along with the Sofia rules.

The issue I have with the 30 move rule is the potential subjective nature of its application.

Kevin Bonham
25-03-2008, 01:53 PM
I think FIDE need to word the Laws more carefully to clearly allow for such tournament conditions. It is likely there will be something about this in the next set of Laws.

Sunshine
25-03-2008, 02:29 PM
Make a win worth 1.5 points (maybe even 1.1 might be enough).

At the elite level agreed draws are a nonsense.

I want to see the best players trying to win every game and from
just about every position.

Kevin Bonham
25-03-2008, 02:39 PM
Make a win worth 1.5 points

Incidentally, this is mathematically the same as making a draw worth 1/3 of a point.

Capablanca-Fan
25-03-2008, 02:51 PM
Make a win worth 1.5 points (maybe even 1.1 might be enough).
It would be unfair to those making genuine draws. A win and a loss is just as much 50% as two draws, so the points should not penalize one unfairly.


At the elite level agreed draws are a nonsense.
It's nonsense to try to second guess the reasons the elites may have for the small fraction of short draws.


I want to see the best players trying to win every game and from just about every position.
Then you'd get bored out of your tree by games as per the one in this thread, How far can you push a drawn position? (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=6609).

And again, that's fine if you are paying them to play.

IIRC, Jan Hein Donner had a go at Milan Vidmar who was promoting Doerbel-like rules long after he had retired from serious play—Donner documented that when Vidmar was active, he was also not averse to the occasional short draw. And neither was Rogers, when he was active, e.g.

Ian Rogers vs Krunoslav Hulak, Reggio Emilia 1983, 10 moves (http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1117083)
Murray Chandler vs Ian Rogers Nis (Yugoslavia) 1983, 17 moves (http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1095500)
Ian Rogers vs Denny Juswanto, 1st Asean Open 2001, 10 moves (http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1181792)
Ian Rogers vs Lubomir Ftacnik, Australian Championships 2005, 18 moves (http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1400291)
Ian Rogers vs Jan Werle, Bremen win the Bundesliga 2005 (27 moves, i.e. <30, and less dead than the game where West was forced to play on) (http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1374954)
Ian Rogers vs Jonathan Rowson, 37th Chess Olympiad 2006, 14 moves (http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1416936)

Sunshine
25-03-2008, 04:06 PM
It would be unfair to those making genuine draws. A win and a loss is just as much 50% as two draws, so the points should not penalize one unfairly.

I disagree. It is harder to win a game at the elite level than it is to get two draws.


It's nonsense to try to second guess the reasons the elites may have for the small fraction of short draws..

The suggestion is all about providing an incentive to win. I can fully understand many reasons why a draw is all that is required under the current system.



Then you'd get bored out of your tree by games as per the one in this thread, [URL="http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=6609"]How far can you push a drawn position?

There are potential downsides to any rule - there is currently an incentive to play for a win in a slightly better system, so that is not changed greatly.


And again, that's fine if you are paying them to play.

I'm not sure what difference this makes. It is just rewarding the winner - a draw is a valid result but it is not the objective of the contest.



IIRC, Jan Hein Donner had a go at Milan Vidmar who was promoting Doerbel-like rules long after he had retired from serious play—Donner documented that when Vidmar was active, he was also not averse to the occasional short draw. And neither was Rogers, when he was active,

Obviously there was insufficient incentive to play for a win - so everyone misses out.

Capablanca-Fan
25-03-2008, 04:10 PM
I disagree. It is harder to win a game at the elite level than it is to get two draws.
OK, imagine a two round match: what is a better score: a win and loss, or two draws? Obviously neither, since both suggest equality in strength.


There are potential downsides to any rule — there is currently an incentive to play for a win in a slightly better system, so that is not changed greatly.
There is an incentive under the current system: a whole point is better than a half!


I'm not sure what difference this makes. It is just rewarding the winner — a draw is a valid result but it is not the objective of the contest.
It is the valid result of a perfectly played game. A win requires a mistake from the opponent.


Obviously there was insufficient incentive to play for a win — so everyone misses out.
Obviously the players concerned thought that the best result was a draw. All top players have done it.

Kevin Bonham
25-03-2008, 04:27 PM
IIRC, Jan Hein Donner had a go at Milan Vidmar who was promoting Doerbel-like rules long after he had retired from serious play—Donner documented that when Vidmar was active, he was also not averse to the occasional short draw.

A player might think something should be done about short draws while also being not averse to accepting them themselves until such time as the rules require otherwise. I don't think there is any great inconsistency there.

And in this case, was Rogers an advocate for the rule or was he simply providing advice on how to apply it?

Capablanca-Fan
25-03-2008, 05:06 PM
A player might think something should be done about short draws while also being not averse to accepting them themselves until such time as the rules require otherwise.
Surely they should lead by example. If anyone thinks that short draws are so bad, then he shouldn't make any.


I don't think there is any great inconsistency there.
There might be, if they accepted draws in the past under board or prize conditions they condemn in the present.


And in this case, was Rogers an advocate for the rule or was he simply providing advice on how to apply it?
Seemed like an advocate.

Kevin Bonham
25-03-2008, 06:33 PM
Surely they should lead by example. If anyone thinks that short draws are so bad, then he shouldn't make any.

I'm not sure about that. At least in multi-game-per-day events, taking the odd short draw seems to be a competitive advantage. So I can see a player arguing "we shouldn't be allowed to take these short draws, but while the rule exists, I'm not going to disadvantage myself by refusing them."


There might be, if they accepted draws in the past under board or prize conditions they condemn in the present.

Certainly if the conditions are the same in each event.

road runner
25-03-2008, 07:18 PM
I agree with Jono!

Capablanca-Fan
25-03-2008, 10:40 PM
I'm not sure about that. At least in multi-game-per-day events, taking the odd short draw seems to be a competitive advantage. So I can see a player arguing "we shouldn't be allowed to take these short draws, but while the rule exists, I'm not going to disadvantage myself by refusing them."
But from what Michael Baron says, Rogers took quick last round draws in the same tournament position as Antić. And rightly so in my view. So it doesn't look good when he and fellow Remismeister Press moralizes against them now. The above would also not apply to the Olympiads.

Kevin Bonham
25-03-2008, 10:44 PM
But from what Michael Baron says, Rogers took quick last round draws in the same tournament position as Antić. And rightly so in my view. So it doesn't look good when he and fellow Remismeister Press moralizes against them now. The above would also not apply to the Olympiads.

I can't find any moralising by Rogers on the Doeberl thread. He has said:


Shaun Press' opinion is probably closest to mine - the Gibraltar rule isn't perfect but it's overall effect on a tournament is positive.

....but that is not the same thing as criticising a player for taking a short draw in an event where the rules do not attempt to prohibit it.

Capablanca-Fan
25-03-2008, 10:54 PM
I can't find any moralising by Rogers on the Doeberl thread. He has said:
Sounded a bit like it on the video, and in advising the arbiter that Akobian and Antić should play on.


Shaun Press' opinion is probably closest to mine — the Gibraltar rule isn't perfect but it's overall effect on a tournament is positive.
Ah, so two drawing masters agree do they? Yet clearly a number of players and administrators think it was negative.

Kevin Bonham
25-03-2008, 11:11 PM
Sounded a bit like it on the video,

Not in the slightest to me (if you mean the round 9 video) and I don't see how anyone would see it that way. He's generally just describing what happened, and at one point at the end he throws in the view that the event was "a big success for the Gibraltar rules". That's all; I don't detect any ticking off of the players.


and in advising the arbiter that Akobian and Antić should play on.

In that case Ian is just providing expert advice on how he thinks the rule (given that it exists for the event) should be implemented.

Denis_Jessop
26-03-2008, 08:47 PM
The problem I have with Ian's video summary is that he said that Antic claimed a draw by repetition (which clearly he did) and the arbiter told him to play on because short draws were forbidden by the rules. It may have been a slip of the tongue on Ian's part but the decision as he described it was clearly wrong as a draw based on repetition can only be turned down under the Gibraltar rules if it is not "genuine" and Ian said nothing about the arbiter's view on the genuineness of the draw. So far from being the success for the Gibraltar rules claimed by Ian, this seems to be prima facie yet another case of their misapplication.

DJ




Policy on Short Draws

Draws by mutual agreement in under 30 moves are not allowed without the agreement of the arbiter. No pre-arranged / tacit agreements to draw are allowed (of any length, by repetition or otherwise). Genuine draws by repetition or stalemate are acceptable.

Garvinator
26-03-2008, 09:33 PM
The problem I have with Ian's video summary is that he said that Antic claimed a draw by repetition (which clearly he did) and the arbiter told him to play on because short draws were forbidden by the rules. It may have been a slip of the tongue on Ian's part but the decision as he described it was clearly wrong as a draw based on repetition can only be turned down under the Gibraltar rules if it is not "genuine" and Ian said nothing about the arbiter's view on the genuineness of the draw. So far from being the success for the Gibraltar rules claimed by Ian, this seems to be prima facie yet another case of their misapplication.

DJ
My understanding in chess terms for genuine in this case would be, is the repetition of position the natural course for the game, or have the players just decided they don't feel like playing any more.

The position being discussed from the final round really does seem like the latter. I would feel that it is exactly these type of draws (repetition or not) that are why the rule was introduced in the first place.

Kevin Bonham
26-03-2008, 10:40 PM
The problem with the wording of the rule is that draws like the one attempted by Akobian and Antic are neither fish nor fowl. They're not "genuine draws by repetition" (provided you assume that there can be any such thing as a non-genuine repetition, they qualify). But there is also no evidence of pre-arrangement and how the heck do you prove "tacit agreement"? And what about draws that are genuine for one player but not the other?

As I commented on the Doeberl thread, some of the decisions appeared to be about the spirit of the rule rather than what the rule literally says, and AR reported that there was more waffle about the spirit of the rule, with some players wanting more specifics, pre the SIO. If this is correct (and I am open to corrections), then this creates the risk of an appeal, and is unwise.

I'm copying here my proposed rewording of the Gibraltar rule to say what I think it is meant to say. I also posted this on the Doeberl thread. Suggestions welcome.

Draws by mutual agreement in under 30 moves are not allowed. Draws by agreement or repetition will be disallowed whenever the arbiters believe that one or both players would be intentionally failing to play the position on its merits and to the best of their ability by accepting a draw in that position.

Capablanca-Fan
26-03-2008, 11:00 PM
The position being discussed from the final round really does seem like the latter. I would feel that it is exactly these type of draws (repetition or not) that are why the rule was introduced in the first place.
I'd hate to have an Arbiter or Rogers try to second guess me about agreeing a draw in this line (http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1411338). I genuinely believe that Black gets a worse position by the other move ...Ne7 instead of ...Na5. An arbiter may be too weak to know that, and Rogers might think that I should accept this disadvantage to avoid a draw, but it's MY game! And as I've mentioned, White can get a bad game trying to avoid the repetition too. Neither of us should be forced to play what we think are inferior continuations.

Kevin Bonham
26-03-2008, 11:37 PM
Based on the cases where Rogers advised giving the benefit of the doubt I strongly suspect he would do so in that game too. But yes, the danger of any version of the rule is that the arbiter has to be really sure they are not making a player deviate into a worse position. The Akobian-Antic case was blatant; of course you are not making a player deviate into a worse position if he has white and you are effectively on move 6-7 of a popular theoretical line.

FWIW, match practice doesn't seem to provide any support to the idea that 10...Nce7 is inferior. I found 29 games where both sides exceeded 2300 with it, and in these black did outrate white by c.75 points on average, but scored nine wins to white's three. Of course, such statistics are often not the full story, the sample size is modest, and it could be that those playing black and picking that line were better prepared.

Capablanca-Fan
27-03-2008, 01:19 AM
FWIW, match practice doesn't seem to provide any support to the idea that 10...Nce7 is inferior. I found 29 games where both sides exceeded 2300 with it, and in these black did outrate white by c.75 points on average, but scored nine wins to white's three. Of course, such statistics are often not the full story, the sample size is modest, and it could be that those playing black and picking that line were better prepared.
Yeah. I still assess the position as +/=. I doubt that the black wins were due to the opening.

Denis_Jessop
27-03-2008, 05:27 PM
My understanding in chess terms for genuine in this case would be, is the repetition of position the natural course for the game, or have the players just decided they don't feel like playing any more.

The position being discussed from the final round really does seem like the latter. I would feel that it is exactly these type of draws (repetition or not) that are why the rule was introduced in the first place.

I suspect that the only person who could say what "genuine" means in this context is Stewart Reuben who wrote the rule. I do not think that there is any test that one could apply that would enable any other arbiter to use effectively. I am pretty sure that a draw along the lines of 1.e4;e5 2. Nf3;Nc6 3.Ng1;Nb8 4.Nf3;Nc6 etc would not be"genuine" in that it is just silly and no reasonable person would play such moves. But beyond that sort of example, how can anyone rule on the "genuineness" of a series of moves. Moreover the inclusion of stalemate in the same provision raises even more problems of interpretation.

I note that Ian Rogers now says in his US Article referred to elsewhere that Dejan actually moved before making his draw claim so that, unless he made his claim before completing his move, he may not have made it according to the FIDE Laws. But, if that were so, the arbiter;s ruling would not have been a ruling under the "Short draws" provision but under the FiDE Laws and so far nobody has said that that was the case. The whole thing is a mess.

DJ

Basil
27-03-2008, 05:35 PM
I do not think that there is any test that one could apply that would enable any other arbiter to use effectively.
And that's the ball game. The more I think about this, the clearer it is to me that the rule is unworkable (in any form and for the reasons already exhaustively covered). Ergo it's time for some Mountain Mohammed type thinking.

Put through grinder ... percolate whizz bang pop ... answer = score slightly less than 1/2 point for draws under 30 moves. This is where it will end up (if the rule is ever to be effectively appied). Word.

Kevin Bonham
27-03-2008, 06:10 PM
Put through grinder ... percolate whizz bang pop ... answer = score slightly less than 1/2 point for draws under 30 moves. This is where it will end up (if the rule is ever to be effectively appied). Word.

And then players will just repeat until move 30.

Plus sometimes the lower rated player forces a genuine draw before move 30 - should they be punished? After all, being able to force a genuine draw so early in the game against a high-rated opponent is actually more impressive than drawing later.

For instance I was very pleased when I (Black) forced this against an opponent rated >200 points above me (and a former state champion too) when I was only in the 1400s. Opponent was not happy:

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.dxc5 Bxc5 5.Qg4 Ne7!? 6.Qxg7 Ng6! 7.Nf3 Bf8 8.Qf6 Be7 9.Qg7 Bf8 ˝-˝

Aaron Guthrie
27-03-2008, 06:11 PM
There are lots of kinds of draws by repetition under 30 moves. There are the I don't want to play that line- well I don't want to play that line draws (e.g. Bg5-Qa5-Bd2-Qd8-Bg5 in the Pelikan), there are the book perpetuals (e.g. the Pirc 4 pawn one), and there are games that get out of book but still end in repetition.
For example this game between me and Song Yang (from an interclub game), Song Yang is white.
1. Nf3 c5 2. e4 d6 3. Bb5+ Nd7 4. a4 Ngf6 5. Nc3 g6 6. O-O Bg7 7. d4 cxd4 8.
Nxd4 O-O 9. Be3 Nc5 10. f3 Bd7 11. Bc4 Rc8 12. Qd2 Ncxe4 13. Bxf7+ Rxf7 14.
fxe4 Ng4 15. Rxf7 Kxf7 16. Nd5 e6 17. Rf1+ Kg8 18. Bg5 Bxd4+ 19. Kh1 Rxc2 20.
Qxd4 Qxg5 21. Rf8+ 1/2-1/2

edit-hmm me and Kevin posted similar things at the same time.

Capablanca-Fan
27-03-2008, 11:00 PM
On both of these, it would be a travesty for an arbiter to second-guess the players.

Zwischenzug
27-03-2008, 11:30 PM
Wouldn't providing a brilliancy prize in each division give players some incentive to NOT have short draws?

Capablanca-Fan
27-03-2008, 11:36 PM
Wouldn't providing a brilliancy prize in each division give players some incentive to NOT have short draws?
Short draw and brilliancy are not mutually exclusive ;)

If organizers don't want short draws, then they should pay appearance money to the drawcards. But those who pay their own way are not drawcards, so no-one should care what they do in their games except obey the FIDE Laws.

Kevin Bonham
27-03-2008, 11:47 PM
Short draw and brilliancy are not mutually exclusive ;)

Indeed. One of the best games I was ever involved in (NZS-Tas, correspondence, Australasian Internet Challenge) was drawn by repetition on move 27.

Capablanca-Fan
28-03-2008, 11:56 AM
I presume that the SIO hasn't this crass rule, since the all-GM class Akobian–Gagunashvili just ended in a 12-move draw, and there was plenty of play in the position and no trace of a repetition.

Garvinator
28-03-2008, 12:06 PM
I presume that the SIO hasn't this crass rule, since the all-GM class Akobian–Gagunashvili just ended in a 12-move draw, and there was plenty of play in the position and no trace of a repetition.
It has a variation on it.


Regulations

1. This 9 round individual chess tournament is open to all players.
2. The tournament will be ACF and FIDE rated.
3. The Swiss Manager program will be used for pairings.
4. Time control is 90 minutes plus 30 seconds increment from move 1.
5. All mobile phones and electronic devices are banned in the tournament hall.
6. Draws in under 30 moves allowed only with consent of the arbiter.
7. Players rated U2000 may enter the Open (SIO) or Challengers (SIC)

Capablanca-Fan
28-03-2008, 12:16 PM
It has a variation on it.
Draws in under 30 moves allowed only with consent of the arbiter.
So how can that 12-move draw have been consented to, while the repetitions in the Doerbel that were drawn under FIDE article 9.5 disallowed. This is a mess; no consistency anywhere. Akobian seems like quite the opportunist.

Garvinator
28-03-2008, 12:20 PM
So how can that 12-move draw have been consented to, while the repetitions in the Doerbel that were drawn under FIDE article 9.5 disallowed. This is a mess; no consistency anywhere. Akobian seems like quite the opportunist.
Have no idea. I am not there ;)

Capablanca-Fan
28-03-2008, 12:33 PM
Have no idea. I am not there ;)
Neither am I, but I can compare the games. The rule is unworkable if arbiters don't interpret it consistently.

CameronD
28-03-2008, 12:44 PM
Maybe its different because

1. When it occured (last round)
2. Different organizing body has had a word to the arbiters concerning this.

The rule will only work if people are removed from the equation. Either heavily exampled guidelines or a program to work it out. The rule needs to be like 20 pages long instead of a sentence.

Bill Gletsos
28-03-2008, 12:48 PM
The 30 move rule is not in use at the SIO.

Capablanca-Fan
28-03-2008, 01:23 PM
The 30 move rule is not in use at the SIO.
According to GGray's post #41, it is.

Bill Gletsos
28-03-2008, 01:32 PM
According to GGray's post #41, it is.He is wrong.
Shaun told me last night that it wasnt being used and TCG reported on his blog that Shaun told him it wasnt.

Capablanca-Fan
28-03-2008, 01:41 PM
He is wrong.
Shaun told me last night that it wasnt being used and TCG reported on his blog that Shaun told him it wasnt.
Right you are.

GGray was reporting in good faith about what was written on the site, though.

Denis_Jessop
28-03-2008, 05:19 PM
Short draw and brilliancy are not mutually exclusive ;)

If organizers don't want short draws, then they should pay appearance money to the drawcards. But those who pay their own way are not drawcards, so no-one should care what they do in their games except obey the FIDE Laws.

Absolutely. I have seen at least one brilliancy quoted that involved a combination forcing stalemate though I can't find it at the moment.

DJ

Kevin Bonham
28-03-2008, 05:45 PM
Another option for dealing with this issue is to award combativity bonuses. For instance provide x% of prizemoney to the highest placed player who has not had a single short or otherwise dubious-looking draw, entirely at the discretion of the organisers.

Capablanca-Fan
28-03-2008, 05:53 PM
Another option for dealing with this issue is to award combativity bonuses. For instance provide x% of prizemoney to the highest placed player who has not had a single short or otherwise dubious-looking draw, entirely at the discretion of the organisers.
Certainly better than the big stick, especially one that's so inconsistently used.

Davidflude
30-03-2008, 10:55 AM
One way to cut down on agreed draws might be

win for white white gets four points black gets one point.

win for black white gets zero points black gets five points.

draw white gets 2 points black gets three points.

bye player gets 2 points

I want to know whether if an arbiter turns down a draw then the players can repeat moves enough times to reach move thirty. I do not see how anybody can insist a player make a different move to the one that he wants to play.

Kevin Bonham
31-03-2008, 12:29 AM
I want to know whether if an arbiter turns down a draw then the players can repeat moves enough times to reach move thirty. I do not see how anybody can insist a player make a different move to the one that he wants to play.

There was some comment about whether the disrepute rule could be used to deal with players who tried to make short draws despite rules seeking to prohibit the practice.

I like the comment I saw somewhere that it was unclear whether the players would thus bring the game into disrepute or only themselves ... though I have myself once been guilty of applying the disrepute rule (and having my invoking of struck down upon appeal!) in a case where the latter was much closer to the truth. :D

I don't really think players should be blamed too much for seeking to test the limits of a rule that was extremely badly worded to begin with.

CameronD
01-04-2008, 03:32 AM
Mr. Press in his columns is now pushing for resignations to be removed from chess.

Short draw
resignations
whats next.

the more I hear this, the more I think the next person who wants to touch a letter of the laws needs to be hit with a 10.2 disrepute ruling.

Bill Gletsos
01-04-2008, 09:17 AM
Mr. Press in his columns is now pushing for resignations to be removed from chess.I took it that he was being sarcastic.

Short draw
resignations
whats next.

the more I hear this, the more I think the next person who wants to touch a letter of the laws needs to be hit with a 10.2 disrepute ruling.You mean 12.1, not 10.2

Adamski
01-04-2008, 03:32 PM
One way to cut down on agreed draws might be

win for white white gets four points black gets one point.

win for black white gets zero points black gets five points.

draw white gets 2 points black gets three points.

bye player gets 2 points

I want to know whether if an arbiter turns down a draw then the players can repeat moves enough times to reach move thirty. I do not see how anybody can insist a player make a different move to the one that he wants to play.Why should Black get a point for losing?:whistle:

Kevin Bonham
21-04-2008, 12:10 AM
Shaun Press has pointed out the following regulations for the FIDE GrandPrix on his blog:


Players will not be allowed to offer draws directly to their opponents. Any draw claim will be permitted only through the Chief Arbiter in the following cases:

* a triple-repetition of the position,
* a perpetual check,
* in theoretically drawn position and
* Applying the rule of 50 moves (he writes his move on his scoresheet, and declares to the arbiter his intention to make this move which shall result in the last 50 moves having been made by each player without the movement of any pawn and without any capture, or the last 50 consecutive moves have been made by each player without the movement of any pawn and without any capture).

The Chief Arbiter may consult with the Technical Adviser before accepting any claim by players for a draw. The Chief Arbiter is the only authority who can acknowledge the final result of the game in these cases.

4.5 The Technical Adviser must be a Grandmaster, rated at least 2500, who has held the title of Grandmaster for at least ten years and is an active player as defined by the rating system.

Denis_Jessop
21-04-2008, 04:57 PM
Shaun Press has pointed out the following regulations for the FIDE GrandPrix on his blog:

Looking at this again it seems clear that it applies only to draws involving a claim and so does not apply to draws by agreement as they do not involve a claim.

DJ

Garvinator
21-04-2008, 06:01 PM
Is anyone able to get access to the fide Baku gp website that starts tonight?

Kevin Bonham
21-04-2008, 06:06 PM
Looking at this again it seems clear that it applies only to draws involving a claim and so does not apply to draws by agreement as they do not involve a claim.

As I have noted in my latest post to Shaun's blog thread on this (http://chessexpress.blogspot.com/2008/04/fide-grand-prix-special-draw-rules.html) this version differs from Sofia 2005 where draw agreements were explicitly verboten.

I'm not sure whether the omission of that clause from this version is deliberate or accidental though.

Garvinator
21-04-2008, 06:09 PM
As I have noted in my latest post to Shaun's blog thread on this (http://chessexpress.blogspot.com/2008/04/fide-grand-prix-special-draw-rules.html) this version differs from Sofia 2005 where draw agreements were explicitly verboten.

I'm not sure whether the omission of that clause from this version is deliberate or accidental though.
I am trying to get the exact wording and paragraphing from the fide gp website, cause I suspect that:

Players will not be allowed to offer draws directly to their opponents. Any draw claim will be permitted only through the Chief Arbiter in the following cases:
will be two completely different rules ie:
1) Players will not be allowed to offer draws directly to their opponents.
2) Any draw claim will be permitted only through the Chief Arbiter in the following cases (insert rest of rule here).

Could be wrong though ;)

Kevin Bonham
21-04-2008, 06:25 PM
Is anyone able to get access to the fide Baku gp website that starts tonight?

Is that http://baku2008.fide.com/ ?

By the way the quote of the rules I gave above is from http://grandprix.fide.com/regulations.html

Garvinator
21-04-2008, 06:27 PM
Is that http://baku2008.fide.com/ ?Yes


By the way the quote of the rules I gave above is from http://grandprix.fide.com/regulations.html
Both sites are still down for me on firefox.

Kevin Bonham
21-04-2008, 06:28 PM
Both are working for me, also on Firefox.

Garvinator
21-04-2008, 06:57 PM
Both are working for me, also on Firefox.
All three time out for me:

Baku
grandprix
and fide.com

Denis_Jessop
21-04-2008, 08:13 PM
As I have noted in my latest post to Shaun's blog thread on this (http://chessexpress.blogspot.com/2008/04/fide-grand-prix-special-draw-rules.html) this version differs from Sofia 2005 where draw agreements were explicitly verboten.

I'm not sure whether the omission of that clause from this version is deliberate or accidental though.

Since my post, I've had a look at the Grand Prix regs. I've also put a note on Shaun's blog as I see you have too. My view is that the rule is basically about players not speaking to each other. Shaun conveniently omitted to quote the opening words of the rule that are :


4.4 The players are not permitted to speak to their opponents during the games. Appropriate sporting behaviour is expected from all participants and FIDE rules of conduct are to be strictly followed at all times.

The passage quoted by Shaun follows.

It does prohibit players from offering draws directly to their opponents but that is pretty clearly in furtherance of the "silence" rule.

The rest is a little odd as draws of the kind mentioned must, if made properly, be made to the arbiter. It seems to me that it is there so as to support the provision allowing the arbiter to consult a Technical Adviser, a matter not specifically permitted by the Laws of Chess.

It is likewise fairly clear that the rule has nothing to do with the Gibraltar Rules. Nowhere does it mention short draws or the need for a draw to be "genuine". Its first purpose is to prohibit players speaking to their opponents and to provide for the consequences of that prohibition. Its supplementary purpose is to allow the Arbiter to have technical assistance in making his or her decision.

Additional material: I have noticed a possible reason for the bit that I said is odd. One thing it does is ensure that all decisions on claims are made by the Chief Arbiter, not an assistant, and that only the Chief Arbiter may have the assistance of the Technical Adviser. I think that, in certain top-level events, that is the practice anyway but it is not written in the FIDE Laws of Chess.

DJ

Garvinator
21-04-2008, 09:40 PM
About to be a triple rep inside 20 moves between Shak and Svidler.

Kevin Bonham
22-04-2008, 12:07 AM
About to be a triple rep inside 20 moves between Shak and Svidler.

They didn't take the first opportunity to do it but it's rather hard to argue with the second one!

Denis_Jessop
22-04-2008, 05:48 PM
Another oddity about this rule is that it seems to introduce into the game a new ground upon which to claim a draw, namely, that the position is "theoretically drawn". There is no such ground in the Laws of Chess though I've had one or two players try it on me when I was arbiting.

DJ

eclectic
22-04-2008, 06:23 PM
"theoretically drawn" would be claimed by the player who didn't wish to have it shown they would not know how to hold the draw :whistle:

Kevin Bonham
22-04-2008, 07:36 PM
Another oddity about this rule is that it seems to introduce into the game a new ground upon which to claim a draw, namely, that the position is "theoretically drawn". There is no such ground in the Laws of Chess though I've had one or two players try it on me when I was arbiting.


Same here. As I noted in my last comment on Shaun's blog, it may be the case that they are using the concepts of draw claim and draw offer interchangeably, ie only allowing the players to agree a draw when the position is theoretically drawn. If so this is either bad wording or sloppy translation.

Denis_Jessop
22-04-2008, 08:17 PM
Same here. As I noted in my last comment on Shaun's blog, it may be the case that they are using the concepts of draw claim and draw offer interchangeably, ie only allowing the players to agree a draw when the position is theoretically drawn. If so this is either bad wording or sloppy translation.

As I have indicated both here and on Shaun's blog, my view of the provision about draws by agreement is a little different. I believe that the provision is there just to ensure that draw offers are made through the arbiter and that there is no intention to limit draw offers. The use of the word "directly", otherwise redundant, in the relevant sentence supports this view.

You raise the interesting question of the drafting of the provision. Clearly it is not good. But is it a translation, that is, in what language was it originally written? The authentic version of the Laws of Chess is the English one. What language is being used in the event? The majority of the players appear probably to be Russian speakers but the players include an Englishman, a Chinese, a Frenchman and a Norwegian. The lingua franca for FIDE these days is English as appears from the Laws. Perhaps FIDE needs to hire a good drafter.

DJ

Kevin Bonham
22-04-2008, 08:31 PM
I believe that the provision is there just to ensure that draw offers are made through the arbiter and that there is no intention to limit draw offers.

If this is the case we can expect to see some draws agreed in positions that are not "theoretically drawn" as the tournament progresses.

Denis_Jessop
22-04-2008, 08:56 PM
If this is the case we can expect to see some draws agreed in positions that are not "theoretically drawn" as the tournament progresses.

There were 5 draws out of 7 games in round 1 but I haven't played them through yet. The Bulletin describes two of them as "perpetuals" but at a glance they actually seem to be three times repetitions. I don't know about the others as there is no mention in the Bulletin of the process or of the rule. That may indicate that things are pretty much as normal. If the rate of draws keeps up we should see something before too long!

DJ

Phil Bourke
22-04-2008, 09:23 PM
I cannot recall where I read this first to correctly attribute it, but perhaps this is simply another example of "FIDE rules first and thinks later."

Kevin Bonham
22-04-2008, 09:48 PM
Just played

GM Grischuk,Alexander(RUS) (2716) - GM Karjakin,Sergey(UKR) (2732) [D43]
FIDE Grand Prix 2008/09 Baku/Azerbaijan (2), 22.04.2008

1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 e6 5.Bg5 h6 6.Bh4 dxc4 7.e4 g5 8.Bg3 b5 9.Ne5 Bb7 10.h4 Rg8 11.hxg5 hxg5 12.Nxf7 Kxf7 13.e5 Nd5 14.Rh7+ Bg7 15.Qh5+ Kf8 16.Qf3+ Ke8 17.Qh5+ Kf8 18.Qf3+ Ke8 19.Qh5+ ˝-˝

Once the repetition starts white can't really stop it. Black could try 16...Nf4 but it looks risky and probably doesn't lead to an advantage.

So rules can try to stop short draws, but what rule stops players from preparing lines like this?

Aaron Guthrie
23-04-2008, 12:05 AM
So rules can try to stop short draws, but what rule stops players from preparing lines like this?There are certainly book draws that go a higher number of moves. This makes things very hard.

Ignoring that, here are some random possibilities, ban sharp lines, ban games with no new moves, ban white from playing moves that lead to a quick draw, ban repeating moves more than 3 times before a certain move number.

But why should these draws be banned?

Kevin Bonham
23-04-2008, 01:37 AM
Ignoring that, here are some random possibilities, ban sharp lines, ban games with no new moves, ban white from playing moves that lead to a quick draw, ban repeating moves more than 3 times before a certain move number.

Or just ban them moving chess pieces altogether and require them to toss a coin for the win.

I've been thinking a bit about the whole philosophy of repetitions in chess being draws. In Go, IIRC, you're not allowed to endlessly repeat and call it a draw; someone is obliged to back off.

In chess, the implications of making someone back off would dramatically alter the evaluation of some positions. If the rule is that you can't play a repetition before move X then that gets rid of a whole lot of lines where a player sacrifices material for a perpetual. If the rule is that you can't allow a repetition before move X then there would be positions where a player was forced to throw the game away by moves that would otherwise only draw. Opening theory in a lot of lines would be turned on its ear either way.

By the way one of the Laws of Chess proposals currently doing the rounds (forget whose) proposes abolishing the right to claim a draw by repetition on the grounds of a repetition being about to appear, in which case a player could only claim if a repetition actually had appeared before their move. (I'm not sure I agree with this as it seems to increase the scope for players to needlessly/carelessly repeat moves without punishment.)

Aaron Guthrie
23-04-2008, 02:09 AM
Or just ban them moving chess pieces altogether and require them to toss a coin for the win.Now that is going too far!
In chess, the implications of making someone back off would dramatically alter the evaluation of some positions. If the rule is that you can't play a repetition before move X then that gets rid of a whole lot of lines where a player sacrifices material for a perpetual. If the rule is that you can't allow a repetition before move X then there would be positions where a player was forced to throw the game away by moves that would otherwise only draw. Opening theory in a lot of lines would be turned on its ear either way.Yes, and I think this is likely to have the effect of "ban sharp lines". It just seems to me an unavoidable side-effect of playing sharp lines that you get these draws happening. Point being, the normal risk that Black finds the line you don't have anything prepared for and gets a draw becomes the much higher risk of getting a loss in that circumstance.

It would be interesting to see a rule that could banning white from going into, say, the very quick Pirc perpetual without banning other things, and without it being something like "White cannot play the very quick Pirc perpetual".

Denis_Jessop
23-04-2008, 12:41 PM
Or just ban them moving chess pieces altogether and require them to toss a coin for the win.

This is equivalent to, though more radical than, my ideas for shortening other sports, for example confining football (soccer) games to a penalty shoot-out and tennis to tie-breakers. :hmm:

DJ

Aaron Guthrie
24-04-2008, 07:08 PM
In the Chessbase report (http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4584) they discuss the quick draw.


Hang on, were the special rules for the Grand Prix not supposed to rule this kind of short draw out? At the press conference after the game there was discussion initiated by Global Chess CEO Geoffrey Borg and FIDE Vice President Zurab Azmaiparashvili, who argued that there's no point in having anti-draw measures and even a technical advisor present at the tournament, when players avoid moves that continue the fight but instead go for perpetual.

Grischuk didn't agree said that in the game he had felt like he was playing a football match "with two or maybe even three players with a red card". That to describe the handicap he felt of being less well prepared than his opponent. He saw the possibility to continue with Ne4, with or without check, but he "saw no reason not to expect his opponent to play perfectly". Grischuk argued that he was punished enough for having prepared worse, with a quick draw with White.

Grischuk and Karjakin in the press conference after the game. The last third of the interview is interesting since it contains the discussion on players using a perpetual to circumvent the anti-draw rules. Grischuk calls that bullsh*t.

Kevin Bonham
26-04-2008, 01:37 PM
Yes, and I think this is likely to have the effect of "ban sharp lines". It just seems to me an unavoidable side-effect of playing sharp lines that you get these draws happening.

Yes - though those draws are sometimes more interesting than the sort you get when someone plays a Petroff or French Exchange and winds up in a very drawish if prolonged ending.

It's quite clear from the Chessbase comments that early draws by agreement are being policed despite the failure of the rules as written to eliminate them, but draws by repetition, even where early and avoidable, are not.

Denis_Jessop
26-04-2008, 11:27 PM
Yes - though those draws are sometimes more interesting than the sort you get when someone plays a Petroff or French Exchange and winds up in a very drawish if prolonged ending.

It's quite clear from the Chessbase comments that early draws by agreement are being policed despite the failure of the rules as written to eliminate them, but draws by repetition, even where early and avoidable, are not.

Here's an interesting bit from the official bulletin for round 5:


In Navara-Bacrot, the Chebanenko
Variation of the Slav Defence was
played. Navara wasn't satisfied
about his preparation but hey, what
can you do when Black comes up
with a strong novelty as 12...Be7!.
Both players thought Black was
better after the opening. But then
Navara just played very accurately
and a dead drawn position was
reached in which the players had to
make many more moves, to "obey
the local law". "I just decided to play
on and create some little threats.
The Sofia rule isn't bad, but
sometimes it's a bit ridiculous,"
Navara said. "But we always find a
way to draw anyway." Etienne
Bacrot could only agree with those
words.

to add to the dry humour of a comment in round 3


Although this new tournament series
is experimenting with more anti-
drawing measures than just the
Sofia rule, the Petroff Defence is still
allowed. It served Wang Yue well,
who drew his Black game with
Radjabov comfortably.

DJ

eclectic
21-05-2008, 01:39 AM
i thought you all might like to see today's quite expansive article at the chessbase site concerning this topic

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4644

Garvinator
21-05-2008, 04:14 PM
Here is another reason why rules are required to ensure that games are fully played and not just packed up after 10 moves or the players decide to finish while there is still plenty of play in a position.

From the spectator entry conditions for the Anand/Kramnik match:


Tickets are now on sale and cost 35 Euro (= US $54.80) per round. Special VIP tickets are also available, at 280 Euro (US $438) per round. Here is everything you need to know.

eclectic
21-05-2008, 04:23 PM
they could include in the ticket price the option of participating in "suggest-a-move" or better still "compel-a move" whereby you can vote for what move you would like the about to be drawn game to be continued with ... :rolleyes:

road runner
21-05-2008, 04:35 PM
they could include in the ticket price the option of participating in "suggest-a-move" or better still "compel-a move" whereby you can vote for what move you would like the about to be drawn game to be continued with ... :rolleyes:
Yeah, scribble your suggestions on the dunny wall. ;)

Capablanca-Fan
21-05-2008, 10:04 PM
Here is another reason why rules are required to ensure that games are fully played and not just packed up after 10 moves or the players decide to finish while there is still plenty of play in a position.
I must have missed the reason why rules are required even for Anand/Kramnik, let alone for the Gap Open, say. If spectators don't like it, then don't pay the money in future. But since no one would pay to see me play, why shouldn't I draw in 10 moves if I think it best from the viewpoint of the tournament as a whole?

Zwischenzug
22-05-2008, 12:06 PM
How about this as a rule: for anyone with more than two draws in the tournament, future draws in that tournament is subject to sofia rules.

Kevin Bonham
23-05-2008, 09:06 PM
In the US Championship Shulman and Friedel drew in round 11 giving them the title and a final GM norm respectively.


UPDATE: I'm told that before the final round the TDs announced that the no-short-draw rules that had been in effect were being suspended for the final round so Friedel and Shulman could play their non-game for the GM norm and title. A minute later, draw. Bizarre, horrible, and pointless favoritism. It's a little surprising that changing the rules like that is even allowed. I'm sure the players trailing Shulman by a point would have appreciated a real game by the leader, who had black against a dangerous opponent. I know you can never force players to play to win, and 30 moves of swapping wouldn't have entertained or fooled anyone, but announcing the suspension of the rules before the round, followed by the draw a minute later, is a little too cynical for me. This is the US championship, not a First Saturday tourney. As I explain more in the comments (and have said many times), this isn't a criticism of the players, who are only exploiting the rules and acting in their best interests.

Any comments on the veracity or otherwise of the above would be much appreciated.

Garvinator
24-05-2008, 03:40 PM
Ok, assuming that everything said in the quoted section is correct, lets see:

1) Result collusion
2) Unfair treatment for the rest of players in tournament
3) TD favouritism and chooses to ignore rules set out by the USCF board (I assume).

Do people really want to read what I think should happen ;)

Kevin Bonham
24-05-2008, 03:52 PM
I have tried, without success, to find a copy of the draw rules for the tournament. They are not included in the so-called tournament regulations.

Bill Gletsos
24-05-2008, 04:02 PM
Comments by posters on Mig's blog.

When Frank Berry was making his announcement about suspension of the anti short draw rules before the last round, he further qualified it by saying he did it, so that he didn't have to argue with the players about it.


Here is a list of draws in the event that had 30 moves or less:

Fedorowicz - Shulman, rd 1, 22 moves
Akobian - Ippolito, rd 1, 20 moves
Ludwig - Perelshteyn, rd 1, 28 moves
Yermo - Gulko, rd 2, 15 moves
Finegold - Ludwig, rd 2, 26 moves
Kaidanov - Kudrin, rd 3, 19 moves
Kraai - Finegold, rd 3, 21 moves
Becerra - Kaidanov, rd 4, 30 moves
Perelshteyn - Fedorowicz, rd 4, 20 moves
Langer - Galant, rd 4, 30 moves
Akobian - Yermolinsky, rd 5, 25 moves
Gulko - Vigorito, rd 5, 24 moves
Onischuk - Becerra, rd 6, 26 moves
Shabalov - Finegold, rd 6, 16 moves
Fedorowicz - Kaidanov, rd 8, 15 moves
Friedel - Shulman, rd 9, 11 moves
Vigorito - Yermolinsky, rd 9, 14 moves
Becerra - Akobian, rd 9, 17 moves

Kevin Bonham
24-05-2008, 04:29 PM
I've posted a query on Mig's blog asking what kind of draw rule they were using in the event.

Kevin Bonham
20-06-2008, 07:15 PM
I'd be interested in posters' views of the merits or otherwise (as attempts to control draws go) of requiring that a draw may only be agreed between the players when there are less than a certain number of pieces on the board. It is possible that artificial exchanges leading to drawn positions would occur, but players would have to be very careful how they went about it.

Of course, players could still draw by repetition.

Please note: I am not advocating such a rule, or indeed that draws should be restricted at all - just raising it for comparative discussion.

eclectic
20-06-2008, 07:38 PM
if those complaining don't like those high rated players taking such draws then perhaps they should shut up improve their own rating and so get to be able to enter such tournaments instead

Basil
20-06-2008, 10:33 PM
I'd be interested in posters' views of the merits or otherwise (as attempts to control draws go) ...
As you know from a thread elsewhere, I am interested in assessing the merits thereof (attempting). I have no suggestions to put forward as to how one might achieve that end ATM. The caveat, at all times, being that my comments are in regard to soft (so-called GM) draws.

Basil
21-06-2008, 12:05 AM
I think if the change comes, it will come about more as a change of culture than a change rules.

Dougy
24-09-2008, 08:47 PM
For those who really want a draw: here (http://www.chess-poster.com/english/notes_and_facts/shortest_stalemate/the_shortest_stalemate.htm)'s a 10 move stalemate.

Kevin Bonham
24-09-2008, 09:33 PM
For those who really want a draw: here (http://www.chess-poster.com/english/notes_and_facts/shortest_stalemate/the_shortest_stalemate.htm)'s a 10 move stalemate.

The page you links to asks:

“Does anyone know the story behind this game? A stalemate in 10 moves. From the bizarre moves made by both players at the Swedish Junior Championship 1995, it looks like they had all of the moves planned beforehand.”

The game is an alternative version of the famous 10-move stalemate discovered by Sam Loyd in the late 19th or early 20th century. All the moves are identical except that the Loyd game started 1.e3 a5 2.Qh5 Ra6 3.Qxa5 h5 4.Qxc7 Rah6 5.h4 whereas this one starts 1.c4 h5 2.h4 a5 3.Qa4 Rh6 4.Qxa5 Rah6 5.Qxc7.

I note that the alleged Swedish version was first posted on Chessgames.com (http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1339137) on April Fool's Day 2007.

Here's (http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=2982) a game where I forced my opponent to repeat moves or be losing on move seven!

Ivanchuk_Fan
24-09-2008, 09:33 PM
I personally do not have any qualms about short "grandmaster" draws, at least not at Grandmaster level. The top players are either paid to play or have all their expenses paid, so I feel that they should be able to play as they wish.

Obviously this is not popular with all chess spectators, but usually there are other high-level games to observe other than these quick draws, so I don't really see the problem as far as the spectators/observers are concerned.

Basil
24-09-2008, 09:57 PM
I personally do not have any qualms about short "grandmaster" draws, at least not at Grandmaster level. The top players are either paid to play or have all their expenses paid, so I feel that they should be able to play as they wish.

Obviously this is not popular with all chess spectators, but usually there are other high-level games to observe other than these quick draws, so I don't really see the problem as far as the spectators/observers are concerned.
Hi IF

My issue with your (well-reasoned) position is that it shifts the onus (which I claim exists and/ or should exist) from players to the shoulders of spectators.

That is to say, your position is one of "if that's games is boring/ a copout/ staged, move along to the next game".

Look, there are no provable rights and wrongs here, just perspectives. It's clear that I disagree with yours and vice versa.

1. I maintain there is an onus on top performers to not cruise and instead give each performance/ game/ professional time, their all
2. I maintain there is an onus for players to put back in (as is demanded of players in other endeavours).

As I and others have variously said previously, this all moot, hard to enforce, and I acknowledge unpalatable to some, but the fact remains (IMO) that the increasing demand for participation rates/ commercial viability will demand (perhaps beyond our lifetime) a cessation of GM draws.

Duff McKagan
24-09-2008, 10:07 PM
Rule changing in the last round is just an aberration. Trust the yanks to come up with something like that.

Miranda
24-09-2008, 10:09 PM
Yeah, I think the rules are fine as they are.

I mean, if the players have made a pre-arranged draw agreement, there's not much you can do about it - they can just go over 30 moves and that's it.

Basil
24-09-2008, 10:15 PM
Yeah, I think the rules are fine as they are.

I mean, if the players have made a pre-arranged draw agreement, there's not much you can do about it - they can just go over 30 moves and that's it.
True enough. My issue with that line is that it shifts the argument from 'what is the best course' to the 'too hard basket'. As I have previously conceded that I don't have a better basket, I'm hoping for a (global) cultural change to support my position.

ER
26-09-2008, 09:15 AM
..., I'm hoping for a (global) cultural change to support my position.

yet another bloody lefty? :P

CAGLES :)

Kevin Bonham
04-10-2008, 11:23 PM
Enforcement of these kinds of rules in the 2008 Doeberl was just a touch controversial as many will recall.

In 2008 the Doeberl had the following:


Policy on Short Draws
Draws by mutual agreement in under 30 moves are not allowed without the agreement of the arbiter. No pre-arranged / tacit agreements to draw are allowed (of any length, by repetition or otherwise). Genuine draws by repetition or stalemate are acceptable.

For 2009 it has been changed to:


Policy on Short Draws

For games on any of the top 10 boards in the Premier Tournament, agreed draws in under 30 moves are banned. This includes tacit advance agreements to draw (ie deliberate repetitions) and pre-arranged draw agreements. The aim of this rule is to encourage a competitive, fighting tournament, and we trust all players will adhere to this in a sportsmanlike manner. Genuine draws by repetition are allowed.

Apart from the restriction of the rule to the top 10 boards, it's not immediately clear to me that this adds a heck of a lot by way of clarity. "...and pre-arranged draw agreements" seems unnecessary when you've already declared that all agreed draws in <30 moves are banned.

The term "tacit advance agreements to draw (ie deliberate repetitions)" is vague - at what point does the decision by the players to have a draw have to be evident to constitute "tacit agreement"? What are "deliberate repetitions"? Surely all repetitions, forced or otherwise, are in some sense deliberate excepting those where someone repeats unaware that they have done so (for instance when there are several moves between the repetitions). Something like "easily avoidable repetitions" would be clearer to me.

CameronD
04-10-2008, 11:32 PM
why is it restricted to only the top 10 boards. Surly a tournament cant operate under 2 different rules. If chess want competitive fighting chess, then the no draw under 30 moves rule will not achieve that.

Phil Bourke
05-10-2008, 12:25 AM
I have toyed with the following idea, even discussed it with a few knowledgable people and think that something could be worked from it.
Here it is for all to ponder :)
Have a stipulation that the players will receive a percentage of the prizemoney corresponding to their score in the event.
Example: Purely to illustrate how it works, 1st Prize is $10,000 Player scores 8.5/10 to be 1st, he takes home $8,500. This offers an incentive to decline an easy draw, as in this case, an easy draw takes $500 off your prize. Therefore two players agreeing to share a prize with an easy draw in the last round are also agreeing to accept $250 less in their share of the money.
There is the basic idea, I am sure that with some working it could be a workable way to encourage fighting chess that everyone wants.
For the record, I am not against agreed draws, if two players want to end the game after six moves with an agreed draw, then so be it, why go through the sham of making them play 31 moves before submitting the same result.

CameronD
05-10-2008, 12:33 AM
I have toyed with the following idea, even discussed it with a few knowledgable people and think that something could be worked from it.
Here it is for all to ponder :)
Have a stipulation that the players will receive a percentage of the prizemoney corresponding to their score in the event.
Example: Purely to illustrate how it works, 1st Prize is $10,000 Player scores 8.5/10 to be 1st, he takes home $8,500. This offers an incentive to decline an easy draw, as in this case, an easy draw takes $500 off your prize. Therefore two players agreeing to share a prize with an easy draw in the last round are also agreeing to accept $250 less in their share of the money.
There is the basic idea, I am sure that with some working it could be a workable way to encourage fighting chess that everyone wants.
For the record, I am not against agreed draws, if two players want to end the game after six moves with an agreed draw, then so be it, why go through the sham of making them play 31 moves before submitting the same result.

interesting concept, payment per point

Basil
05-10-2008, 12:37 AM
For the record, I am not against agreed draws, if two players want to end the game after six moves with an agreed draw, then so be it, why go through the sham of making them play 31 moves before submitting the same result.
Hi Phil

You've made two points:
1. You're not against short draws (I disagree)
2. The sham of the 30 moves (I agree)

The sham of 30 moves is not a reason (I don't believe) to be against short draws. Just because that particular remedy doesn't work, doesn't mean that the illness isn't there.

MichaelBaron
05-10-2008, 10:20 AM
We can have 4 players on boards 10 and 11 with the same number of points. Yet two of them can take a quick draw while others have to play on...

Even a controversial rule of having all drawn games replayed as blitz would be better!

Kevin Bonham
05-10-2008, 05:20 PM
why is it restricted to only the top 10 boards.

I think the reason for that is that they would be hoping to transmit up to that many boards over the internet. During the last Doeberl it was clear that they were concerned about short draws on the higher boards damaging sponsor revenue by leaving them with less by way of nominally fighting chess to transmit.


Example: Purely to illustrate how it works, 1st Prize is $10,000 Player scores 8.5/10 to be 1st, he takes home $8,500. This offers an incentive to decline an easy draw, as in this case, an easy draw takes $500 off your prize. Therefore two players agreeing to share a prize with an easy draw in the last round are also agreeing to accept $250 less in their share of the money.

A good try but the reality is that professional (and amateur) players already blow much larger shares of prizemoney in taking grandmaster draws rather than risk losing, and would probably do so even if the prizes were scaled by score in the way you suggest.

A quite common situation is one in which a GM is first outright or tied with one other GM, with a small group half a point behind and a medium-sized group another half a point back. A draw for the leader is a guaranteed equal first (at least) which might be shared with, say, one to three others. A loss is a financial wipeout. It's in the GM's financial interests to take the draw.

Payment per point also gives players a disincentive to lose just as it gives them an incentive to win. A better way in theory is to pay high appearance monies then make the prizemoney gradient very steep at the pointy end and pay win bonuses. But this can lead to contrived results.

Kevin Bonham
05-10-2008, 07:22 PM
I have noticed that the Doeberl crew are also trying this:


Fighting Chess Fund

In 2009 Round 9 of the Premier Tournament will include a Fighting Chess Fund valued at $1000.

* Eligibility runs down to the last board with a player who has a score equal to the lowest score on board four.
* Winners on eligible boards in Round 9 equally share the Fund.
* Surplus prize money will be allocated at the organisers discretion.
* Players are only eligible to participate in the Fighting Fund if they have not recorded a draw in less than 30 moves for the tournament.

So in 2008, the lowest score on board four going into the last round was 5.5/8, meaning that all players on the top six boards would have been eligible if they won (in 2009 only two of the six did, one of them after being prevented from drawing).

I have no objection to this and give them credit for trying at least some of the carrot approach rather than just a poorly worded stick.

MichaelBaron
06-10-2008, 10:48 AM
I have no objection to this and give them credit for trying at least some of the carrot approach rather than just a poorly worded stick.

Neither do I. I think this is a far more positive approach rather than forcing players to play on by threatening forfeight.

Denis_Jessop
06-10-2008, 02:49 PM
Enforcement of these kinds of rules in the 2008 Doeberl was just a touch controversial as many will recall.

In 2008 the Doeberl had the following:



For 2009 it has been changed to:



Apart from the restriction of the rule to the top 10 boards, it's not immediately clear to me that this adds a heck of a lot by way of clarity. "...and pre-arranged draw agreements" seems unnecessary when you've already declared that all agreed draws in <30 moves are banned.

The term "tacit advance agreements to draw (ie deliberate repetitions)" is vague - at what point does the decision by the players to have a draw have to be evident to constitute "tacit agreement"? What are "deliberate repetitions"? Surely all repetitions, forced or otherwise, are in some sense deliberate excepting those where someone repeats unaware that they have done so (for instance when there are several moves between the repetitions). Something like "easily avoidable repetitions" would be clearer to me.

The wording here is slightly bizarre. It refers both to "tacit advance agreements to draw (ie deliberate repetitions)" and "pre-arranged draw agreements". One would think that both were the same. But the first contains the highly menacing and undesirable implication that draw repetitions will be considered as prima facie "deliberate" unless proved otherwise. There is as welll the point made by Kevin to the effect that "deliberate" as used here is badly used. Also note that the first is limited to deliberate repititions as it says "ie" = "that is" rather than "eg" = "for example". How the arbiters, to whom the rule gives probably unnecessary prominence, are to determine the application of the rule is, at best, a moot point. Moreover, the whole rule is unnecessary as, if collusion can be established, there are already provisions in the Laws of Chess (Arts 12.1 and 12.8) to deal with that.

DJ

Denis_Jessop
06-10-2008, 02:58 PM
I have toyed with the following idea, even discussed it with a few knowledgable people and think that something could be worked from it.
Here it is for all to ponder :)
Have a stipulation that the players will receive a percentage of the prizemoney corresponding to their score in the event.
Example: Purely to illustrate how it works, 1st Prize is $10,000 Player scores 8.5/10 to be 1st, he takes home $8,500. This offers an incentive to decline an easy draw, as in this case, an easy draw takes $500 off your prize. Therefore two players agreeing to share a prize with an easy draw in the last round are also agreeing to accept $250 less in their share of the money.
There is the basic idea, I am sure that with some working it could be a workable way to encourage fighting chess that everyone wants.
For the record, I am not against agreed draws, if two players want to end the game after six moves with an agreed draw, then so be it, why go through the sham of making them play 31 moves before submitting the same result.

Quite some years ago (2000 - the year, not ago :)) a four-person subcommittee of the ACTCA including myself as President of the ACTCA and Keith Robertson, a life member of the ACTCA and former long-serving member of the Doeberl Cup Organising Committee recommended, in a comprehensive report, a system of prize distribution very much like that suggested by Phil. Unfortunately, the conservative elements of the organisation did not accept the idea. There is little to suggest that things have changed.

DJ

Igor_Goldenberg
06-11-2008, 10:38 AM
I put in Doeberl Cup thread originally:

1. Short draw rules - to avoid possible conflicts and clashes with law of chess on one side, and to make grandmasters work for the appearance money on the other, organiser can enter into an agreement with them that assistance (or part of it) will be paid after the tournament is finished if the contract (which might include short draw) clause is fulfilled.
This way a grandmaster can still make a short draw if he wants to, but should be ready to forego appearance payment from organiser.
IMHO, it will help to avoid ugly scenes like the one from this year last round and enforce "no short draw" rules.

To generalise it my opinion is:
- No changes to official rules related to draws should be made.
- Organiser (especially if it's not a qualifying tournament) have right to discourage short draws, as long as it does not clash with rules of chess
- Players who are paid to play (as oppose to those that pay their way) are more justified to be subjected to that discouragement.
- It is best implemented through a "carrot", i.e. certain portion of "appearance money" is paid if a player made no draw under 30 moves (unless approved by whoever organiser authorised to approve, be it an arbiter, a special expert, etc.)
- GMs are free to accept those conditions or not. My feeling is that most of them will accept.


Disclaimer (sort of): Elwood Bendigo Bank 2008 did not pay any appearance money or provide special conditions (apart from free entry to GM/IM) to anyone. Therefore, no discouragement of short draws was implemented.

Garvinator
06-11-2008, 05:43 PM
To those who dislike rules against short draws. What would you guys think if fide were to implement ant short draw rules into the 2009 fide laws of chess?

Such as the 30 move rule/sofia rules or some other form.

Basil
06-11-2008, 05:46 PM
To those who dislike rules against short draws. What would you guys think if fide were to implement ant short draw rules into the 2009 fide laws of chess?

Such as the 30 move rule/sofia rules or some other form.
As I've said before, I'd be happy to see the rule implemented. It's just that we don't have a rule yet! In principle yes, but not until it has been modelled and tested.

I don't believe the Sofia Rule is workable as it stands.

Igor_Goldenberg
06-11-2008, 06:36 PM
To those who dislike rules against short draws. What would you guys think if fide were to implement ant short draw rules into the 2009 fide laws of chess?

Such as the 30 move rule/sofia rules or some other form.
Negative

eclectic
06-11-2008, 07:17 PM
i want the no draw before move 30 upped to a no draw before move 300 so i can see players being tortured by eclectic ;) endgame configurations

:evil:

Denis_Jessop
14-11-2008, 03:05 PM
The whole problem with the short draws policy in the Doeberl Cup is that it is the brainchild of Shaun Press who is one of the arbiters and thereby gains added power to satisfy his ego. Poor Charles Bishop doesn't know a bee from a bull's foot in this regard and is in the thrall of Press, never something to be recommended as those who know Shaun's track record will attest.

I'm sure that Jono will be interested to note that SP drew again in Round 1 at Dresden though that was half a point better than the rest of the team and his opponent was higher rated.

DJ

Miranda
14-11-2008, 03:26 PM
Hm... those 10-move ones looked pre-arranged - they're so short with lots of play!

Capablanca-Fan
14-11-2008, 04:40 PM
Hm... those 10-move ones looked pre-arranged — they're so short with lots of play!
It would be rare to prearrange positions like that with lots of play. Prearranged games usually result in repetition of sterility. In these cases it's more like mutual "can't be bothered today"/fear.

Capablanca-Fan
14-11-2008, 04:42 PM
i want the no draw before move 30 upped to a no draw before move 300 so i can see players being tortured by eclectic ;) endgame configurations

:evil:
Piker, make it 530 to take into account this 524-move KQN v KRBN position (http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=wxIaMcO2amE&feature=related). :P

Capablanca-Fan
14-11-2008, 04:46 PM
The whole problem with the short draws policy in the Doeberl Cup is that it is the brainchild of Shaun Press who is one of the arbiters and thereby gains added power to satisfy his ego. Poor Charles Bishop doesn't know a bee from a bull's foot in this regard and is in the thrall of Press, never something to be recommended as those who know Shaun's track record will attest.
Don't tell me that we agree on something ;)


I'm sure that Jono will be interested to note that SP drew again in Round 1 at Dresden though that was half a point better than the rest of the team and his opponent was higher rated.
Thanx, but at least this was played out.

Garvinator
14-11-2008, 04:50 PM
The whole problem with the short draws policy in the Doeberl Cup is that it is the brainchild of Shaun Press who is one of the arbiters and thereby gains added power to satisfy his ego. Poor Charles Bishop doesn't know a bee from a bull's foot in this regard and is in the thrall of Press, never something to be recommended as those who know Shaun's track record will attest.
Sorry Denis, but this looks very suspicious to me. You have chosen to post this right when Shaun most likely will not see it, unless it is pointed out to him.

You have had at least a couple of weeks to reply and right when Shaun might miss it, you choose to reply.

Please explain why your reply should not be viewed with suspicion?

Miranda
14-11-2008, 04:52 PM
I'm sorry for my lack of knowledge, but what happened at Doberl with the short draws thing?

Capablanca-Fan
14-11-2008, 05:12 PM
I'm sorry for my lack of knowledge, but what happened at Doberl with the short draws thing?
It's complicated, but start here (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=7035&page=19). In short, in the last round of last year's Doerbel, a draw would give two GMs a share of a high first prize, first outright is a bit better still, but a loss would mean at best a tie for a minor prize, so they played an opening with an early repetition to share first. The arbiter, assisted by two players who, when they were active had a lot of short draws themselves (one was especially notorious for it, the hypocrite), ordered one GM to vary. The other GM lost, meaning a huge loss of prize money, bad feelings on his part, and bad feelings by other players who thought it was appalling treatment. Telling a GM, or any player for that matter, that he may not play a legal move, is an atrocious overstepping of arbiterial powers.

Miranda
14-11-2008, 05:43 PM
Ouch :/

Yeah, it's a bit... dodgy, not letting them play a legal move. It's a game of chess, there's not allowed to be any interferance from anyone....

Capablanca-Fan
14-11-2008, 05:50 PM
Exactly!

Denis_Jessop
14-11-2008, 07:56 PM
Don't tell me that we agree on something ;)


Thanx, but at least this was played out.

Hello Jono

I tihnk we probably agree on lots of chess-related things. That''s one of the beauties of this forum - you can have agreements and disagreements because the ground we cover is so varied.

Denis

Denis_Jessop
14-11-2008, 08:05 PM
Sorry Denis, but this looks very suspicious to me. You have chosen to post this right when Shaun most likely will not see it, unless it is pointed out to him.

You have had at least a couple of weeks to reply and right when Shaun might miss it, you choose to reply.

Please explain why your reply should not be viewed with suspicion?
Garvin

The answer is quite simple. I had completely overlooked the DC thread and this one until today. Anyway, Shaun is posting on his blog even though overseas and may well be reading CCF too. He hasn't posted on CCF for ages (well over 12 months, nearer 2 years) because of a dummy spit so your point has little weight. Moreover, careful reading of my post will reveal that it is not really directed to Shaun. I'll give you a private tutorial on ACT chess politics if you really want to know what is, and is not, relevant. It's something that, as an ACF Councillor, you may need to know.

DJ

Garvinator
14-11-2008, 11:58 PM
Garvin

The answer is quite simple. I had completely overlooked the DC thread and this one until today. Anyway, Shaun is posting on his blog even though overseas and may well be reading CCF too. He hasn't posted on CCF for ages (well over 12 months, nearer 2 years) because of a dummy spit so your point has little weight. Moreover, careful reading of my post will reveal that it is not really directed to Shaun. I'll give you a private tutorial on ACT chess politics if you really want to know what is, and is not, relevant. It's something that, as an ACF Councillor, you may need to know.

DJ
Actually DJ, I think you might be surprised by how aware I am of ACT chess politics ;) which could either be considered good, or quite sad :uhoh:

CameronD
15-11-2008, 12:10 AM
Shame theres so much politics involved in chess at all levels.

It is the greatest impediment to chess

Kevin Bonham
15-11-2008, 12:22 AM
Shame theres so much politics involved in chess at all levels.

It is the greatest impediment to chess

A very simplistic view that I suspect is totally false. For instance some of my own chess-political experience has been directed at ensuring adequate standards in the game by discouraging bad ideas about how events should be run.

Of course, by complaining about the politics you become another part of it and thereby defeat your own argument anyway.

CameronD
15-11-2008, 07:01 AM
A very simplistic view that I suspect is totally false. For instance some of my own chess-political experience has been directed at ensuring adequate standards in the game by discouraging bad ideas about how events should be run.

Of course, by complaining about the politics you become another part of it and thereby defeat your own argument anyway.

Politics hurts the game. Instead of people working togeather to better the game. They make personal battles and factions that are more concerned with defeating the others instead of improving chess for its members.

CameronD
15-11-2008, 07:05 AM
Of course, by complaining about the politics you become another part of it and thereby defeat your own argument anyway.

No, my statements are extremely general and aimed at absolutely no one. Hence its not a part of politics.

Denis_Jessop
15-11-2008, 12:44 PM
Actually DJ, I think you might be surprised by how aware I am of ACT chess politics ;) which could either be considered good, or quite sad :uhoh:

Garvin

If Shaun Press is your informant, as I suspect is the case as you spent a lot of time with him in Mt Buller and have not to my knowledge ever spoken to any other ACT chess person, especially me, don't ever be silly enough to think that his views represent anything vaguely approaching a dispassionate or balanced view of ACT chess. And don't forget that I was an ACTCA office bearer from 1997 to 2005 (Secretary but mostly President) as well as for many years in the 70s and early 80s while Shaun had no ACTCA involvement at all apart from arbiter at the Doeberl Cup. It's not his practice actually to do anything constructive in chess administration though I note that he occupies the onerous position of Secretary of the PNG Chess Federation according to their website.

DJ

Kevin Bonham
02-01-2009, 12:30 PM
I missed this post by Charles in the Doeberl thread of 8-12-2008:

http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=221266&postcount=51


Shaun has returned from Dresden and, as I committed to previously, he and I have discussed the short draw rule that was implemented by FIDE there. Neither of us feel that what occurred at Dresden will resolve, in the short term, issues raised around attempts at implementing this rule. Therefore we have decided to go with a full carrot approach for 2009. The website will be updated shortly to reflect this new ruling.

A commendable decision as it is clear that FIDE are content with a half-hearted fix attempt on the issue (one that allows organisers to regulate draws by agreement but does not allow limits on draws by repetition, allowing players to bash out blatant repetitions to circumvent anti-draw rules).

I wish them good luck with the carrot and if it doesn't work they can always try making the carrot bigger!

I also missed this:


No, my statements are extremely general and aimed at absolutely no one. Hence its not a part of politics.

Seems to me more like your statements are aimed at pretty much everyone!

Kevin Bonham
13-04-2009, 02:22 PM
Well, the full carrot approach has been implemented and I am not sure how many (if any) top division players ruled themselves out of contention for the fighting fund by taking draws in under 30 moves, but I don't recall any notable cases of them doing so.

Six last round games were eligible for the fund conditions and four of these were decisive. Too small a sample to say that it works, but certainly providing no evidence to the contrary.

OTOH some of the 30-move draws could have been snuffed out earlier without making any real difference to the "fighting" nature of the game, a good example being Kunte-Smerdon in which white probably had whatever chances may have existed but from about move 19 on just swapped any play in the position off the board.

In terms of making the games last longer thus increasing web exposure that objective was certainly achieved - the only problem there being that the website was down quite a lot of the time.

Doesn't seem like the rule has led to any major incidents.

Garvinator
25-07-2010, 11:28 PM
And people wonder why rules like Sofia Rules are discussed quite often, to try and stop short draws.

In the latest tournment from Biel, comprising no player aged over 25 years:


Of the 30 games played in the first six rounds:

21 games = 70% were drawn
5 games = 17% were won by White
4 games = 13% were won by Black

13 games were shorter than 30 moves – 29 of these were drawn. The longest game was Giri-Andreikin, which lasted 109 moves and was drawn. Tomashevsky won a 94-mover against Negi.

What a disgraceful performance.

road runner
26-07-2010, 03:06 PM
13 games were shorter than 30 moves – 29 of these were drawn.
How long were the other -16 games?

Kevin Bonham
16-05-2011, 01:53 AM
In the current Candidates' matches only 2 of 24 regular time games have thus far been decisive.

Instead of trying to discourage draw offers, how about trying to encourage their refusal? An example could be that if the match is tied, the player who has won the most games after declining draw offers wins the match.

road runner
16-05-2011, 06:27 AM
Give each spectator one dart to throw.

Rincewind
16-05-2011, 09:28 AM
Give each spectator one dart to throw.

Sounds good - as long as the darts are not the tranquiliser kind.

Kevin Bonham
06-09-2011, 06:01 PM
http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=7499

Sonas analysis suggesting that:

* The proportion of draws in games by top ten and top 100 players has generally increased over the past several decades, except for a brief decline around the late 80s-early 1990s.

* However, the proportion of draws in games where both players are within 400 points of top ten strength hasn't changed much since about 1995.

* The proportion of short draws (<25 moves) in games involving top-10 players peaked in the early 1980s then dropped sharply, rose gradually from about 1992-2005 (but only to a bit above half the previous level) and has since fallen further, probably because of an increase in rules against such draws.

Thunderspirit
08-09-2011, 05:16 PM
Garvin

If Shaun Press is your informant, as I suspect is the case as you spent a lot of time with him in Mt Buller and have not to my knowledge ever spoken to any other ACT chess person, especially me, don't ever be silly enough to think that his views represent anything vaguely approaching a dispassionate or balanced view of ACT chess. And don't forget that I was an ACTCA office bearer from 1997 to 2005 (Secretary but mostly President) as well as for many years in the 70s and early 80s while Shaun had no ACTCA involvement at all apart from arbiter at the Doeberl Cup. It's not his practice actually to do anything constructive in chess administration though I note that he occupies the onerous position of Secretary of the PNG Chess Federation according to their website.

DJ


I whole heartedly agree with Denis here. ACT Chess has changed a huge amount since the early to mid 1990's when chess politics in Canberra was bitter. For a small chess community (which to be fair I'm no longer really part of, and therefore can't and won't take any credit) Canberra punches well above its weight, when it comes to quality tournaments, strong arbitering (from Shaun, not me) and a very well developed junior chess scene.

While ACT chess isn't above criticism, there are lessons that from ACT chess, while ACT chess can always improve from the lessons from others as well.

Leonid Sandler
06-03-2013, 08:34 PM
Grandmaster Ian Rogers article in American Chess Life magazine www.uschess.org/content/view/12106/702 (http://www.uschess.org/content/view/12106/702) about recently concluded International tournament in Reykjavik have created a lot of interest around the chess world.

The winner of the event Grandmaster Pavel Eljanov have published his opinion about Rogers material.Here is the link http:// http://chess-news.ru/node/11294

A very interesting reading indeed...

Rincewind
06-03-2013, 09:08 PM
As long as the draw was not prearranged I can't see that the players are at fault. If organisers don't like it then it is up to them to set playing conditions that ban or strongly discourage short draws.

MichaelBaron
06-03-2013, 09:12 PM
Many Years ago Rogers offered me a draw on move 5 in the last round of Xmas Swiss...he could have probably played on and crushed me (300 points of rating difference at the time) but as the draw was enough, he did not even bother to play :D. In Reykjavik, both players were rated around 2700 and had a fair amount of money at stake.

Personally, I do not mind offering/agreeing to short draws (never pre-arranged of course). :P

Ian_Rogers
07-03-2013, 07:08 AM
That is a straight-out lie, Michael.
I played hard to beat you, even though a draw would have won the tournament for me, since the result would affect other players just behind you playing for second place. In the end you hung on and we drew when the position became too blocked.

MichaelBaron
07-03-2013, 04:17 PM
That is a straight-out lie, Michael.
I played hard to beat you, even though a draw would have won the tournament for me, since the result would affect other players just behind you playing for second place. In the end you hung on and we drew when the position became too blocked.

Ian, How I wish! I do not remember what the exact moves were. I think It was French but I remember that we just played very few moves (around 5-6) and then I was able to collect my undeserved 0.5. Would it be such an exiting game against someone rated 2550 - I would surely remember!

MichaelBaron
07-03-2013, 04:25 PM
And here are some of Ian's games against other players: btw, I would like to make it clear that I have nothing against short draws.

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1117094 (Sahovic-Rogers - draw in 9 moves)
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1117103 (Johansen-Rogers - draw in 9 moves)
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1117314 (Filipovic-Rogers -draw in 9 moves)
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1117398 (Rogers-Palac - draw in 9 moves)

MichaelBaron
07-03-2013, 05:37 PM
[Event "BCF-ch"]
[Site "Southport"]
[Date "1983.??.??"]
[Round "11"]
[White "Johansen, Darryl Keith"]
[Black "Rogers, Ian"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "A30"]
[WhiteElo "2485"]
[BlackElo "2450"]
[PlyCount "10"]
[EventDate "1983.08.??"]
[EventType "swiss"]
[EventRounds "11"]
[EventCountry "ENG"]
[Source "ChessBase"]
[SourceDate "1998.11.10"]

1. c4 c5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. e3 g6 4. b3 Bg7 5. Bb2 O-O 1/2-1/2

[Event "BCF-ch"]
[Site "Edinburgh"]
[Date "1985.??.??"]
[Round "11"]
[White "Speelman, Jonathan S"]
[Black "Rogers, Ian"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "D26"]
[WhiteElo "2530"]
[BlackElo "2510"]
[PlyCount "11"]
[EventDate "1985.08.??"]
[EventType "swiss"]
[EventRounds "11"]
[EventCountry "SCO"]
[Source "ChessBase"]
[SourceDate "1998.11.10"]

1. Nf3 d5 2. d4 Nf6 3. c4 dxc4 4. e3 e6 5. Bxc4 c5 6. O-O 1/2-1/2


[Event "AUS-ch"]
[Site "Adelaide"]
[Date "1980.01.07"]
[Round "10.1"]
[White "Fuller, Maxwell Leonard"]
[Black "Rogers, Ian"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "A08"]
[WhiteElo "2260"]
[BlackElo "2160"]
[PlyCount "12"]
[EventDate "1979.12.??"]

1. Nf3 c5 2. g3 g6 3. Bg2 Bg7 4. O-O Nc6 5. d3 d5 6. c3 Nf6 1/2-1/2

Ian_Rogers
07-03-2013, 08:23 PM
When you are in a hole Michael, you should not keep digging. Here is the game you claim was a 5 move draw - let the readers judge whether you were lying and why you were doing so.

[Event "Elwood Xmas Swiss"]
[Date "1999.??.??"]
[Round "7"]
[White "Rogers, Ian"]
[Black "Baron, Michael"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "C16"]
[EventDate "1999.12.??"]
[EventType "swiss"]
[EventRounds "7"]
[EventCountry "AUS"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e5 b6 5. Bd2 Qd7 6. Bb5 c6 7. Ba4 Ne7 8. Nce2 Bxd2+ 9. Qxd2 O-O 10. Nf3 Ba6 11. c3 Bxe2 12. Qxe2 Ng6 13. h4 Qb7 14. h5 Ne7 15. h6 g6 16. Nh2 Qa6 17. Qxa6 Nxa6 18. Ng4 Rac8 19. Nf6+ Kh8 20. O-O-O c5 21.Bd7 Rcd8 22. Bb5 Nb8 23. Rh3 Rc8 24. Kb1 a6 25. Be2 c4 26. g4 1/2-1/2

Vlad
07-03-2013, 09:15 PM
- Только что на этом месте стояла моя ладья! - закричал одноглазый,
осмотревшись. - А теперь ее уже нет.
- Нет, значит, и не было! - грубовато сказал Остап.
- Как же не было? Я ясно помню!
- Конечно, не было.
- Куда же она девалась? Вы ее выиграли?
- Выиграл.
- Когда? На каком ходу?
- Что вы мне морочите голову с вашей ладьей? Если сдаетесь, то так и
говорите!
- Позвольте, товарищ, у меня все ходы записаны.
- Контора пишет! - сказал Остап.

Adamski
07-03-2013, 10:45 PM
Csn we have a translation please, Vlad?

MichaelBaron
07-03-2013, 10:49 PM
When you are in a hole Michael, you should not keep digging. Here is the game you claim was a 5 move draw - let the readers judge whether you were lying and why you were doing so.

[Event "Elwood Xmas Swiss"]
[Date "1999.??.??"]
[Round "7"]
[White "Rogers, Ian"]
[Black "Baron, Michael"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "C16"]
[EventDate "1999.12.??"]
[EventType "swiss"]
[EventRounds "7"]
[EventCountry "AUS"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e5 b6 5. Bd2 Qd7 6. Bb5 c6 7. Ba4 Ne7 8. Nce2 Bxd2+ 9. Qxd2 O-O 10. Nf3 Ba6 11. c3 Bxe2 12. Qxe2 Ng6 13. h4 Qb7 14. h5 Ne7 15. h6 g6 16. Nh2 Qa6 17. Qxa6 Nxa6 18. Ng4 Rac8 19. Nf6+ Kh8 20. O-O-O c5 21.Bd7 Rcd8 22. Bb5 Nb8 23. Rh3 Rc8 24. Kb1 a6 25. Be2 c4 26. g4 1/2-1/2

I do not remember the game we played ....but there is no way it lasted for so long. Pretty sure it was just a handful of moves and then I was off to observing other games and getting some useful advice from you to how to play this line.

Why would I deny drawing with black against a strong GM? :)

MichaelBaron
07-03-2013, 10:51 PM
- Только что на этом месте стояла моя ладья! - закричал одноглазый,
осмотревшись. - А теперь ее уже нет.
- Нет, значит, и не было! - грубовато сказал Остап.
- Как же не было? Я ясно помню!
- Конечно, не было.
- Куда же она девалась? Вы ее выиграли?
- Выиграл.
- Когда? На каком ходу?
- Что вы мне морочите голову с вашей ладьей? Если сдаетесь, то так и
говорите!
- Позвольте, товарищ, у меня все ходы записаны.
- Контора пишет! - сказал Остап.
haha lol!

MichaelBaron
07-03-2013, 11:06 PM
Csn we have a translation please, Vlad?
Adamski, it is kind of of hard to translate....it is a quote from one of my favorite books:D

Vlad
07-03-2013, 11:06 PM
Csn we have a translation please, Vlad?

That is a dialog from a very famous 12 chairs novel (movie) by Ilf and Petrov. My favorite phrase from that novel is exactly what Ian said - I have all the moves written.:)

MichaelBaron
07-03-2013, 11:10 PM
[Event "BCF-ch"]
[Site "Southport"]
[Date "1983.??.??"]
[Round "11"]
[White "Johansen, Darryl Keith"]
[Black "Rogers, Ian"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "A30"]
[

1. c4 c5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. e3 g6 4. b3 Bg7 5. Bb2 O-O 1/2-1/2

So how is it different from the Eljanov-So game?

Adamski
07-03-2013, 11:10 PM
That is a dialog from a very famous 12 chairs novel (movie) by Ilf and Petrov. My favorite phrase from that novel is exactly what Ian said - I have all the moves written.:)
Thanks. Very appropriate quote.

MichaelBaron
07-03-2013, 11:22 PM
That is a dialog from a very famous 12 chairs novel (movie) by Ilf and Petrov. My favorite phrase from that novel is exactly what Ian said - I have all the moves written.:)

Actually, the very reason the guy in the novel was claiming that he had all of the moves recorded was that his rook got pinched from the board :D .

Ian_Rogers
07-03-2013, 11:48 PM
Michael
You are unbelievable. Even after being shown the moves of the game you still claim we drew in five moves! Just admit you were not telling the truth (for whatever reason - you can pretend faulty memory if you want to look better) and pull your head in.

Capablanca-Fan
07-03-2013, 11:56 PM
And here are some of Ian's games against other players: btw, I would like to make it clear that I have nothing against short draws.

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1117094 (Sahovic-Rogers - draw in 9 moves)
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1117103 (Johansen-Rogers - draw in 9 moves)
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1117314 (Filipovic-Rogers -draw in 9 moves)
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1117398 (Rogers-Palac - draw in 9 moves)
There was another thread on this, Short draws: a fact of chess, or do we need rules to try to stop them? (http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=7889) I posted (http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=188695&postcount=15):


IIRC, Jan Hein Donner had a go at Milan Vidmar who was promoting Doerbel-like rules long after he had retired from serious play—Donner documented that when Vidmar was active, he was also not averse to the occasional short draw. And neither was Rogers, when he was active, e.g.

Ian Rogers vs Krunoslav Hulak, Reggio Emilia 1983, 10 moves (http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1117083)
Murray Chandler vs Ian Rogers Nis (Yugoslavia) 1983, 17 moves (http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1095500)
Ian Rogers vs Denny Juswanto, 1st Asean Open 2001, 10 moves (http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1181792)
Ian Rogers vs Lubomir Ftacnik, Australian Championships 2005, 18 moves (http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1400291)
Ian Rogers vs Jan Werle, Bremen win the Bundesliga 2005 (27 moves, i.e. <30, and less dead than the game where West was forced to play on) (http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1374954)
Ian Rogers vs Jonathan Rowson, 37th Chess Olympiad 2006, 14 moves (http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1416936)

Michael Baron and I also both participated in another related thread, Doeberl 2008 (and "short draws" discussions) (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?p=188478#post188478). Michael made the pertinent point:

Otherwise — as professional chess players — they have no obligation towards spectators to entertain them when draw is a result that is going to make them happy.
I responded:

Exactly! That's why it's perfectly reasonable for two leading players to agree a quick draw and get a share of first prize. If anyone wants to object, then let the objector pay the difference between the share of first prize and the pittance that a share of 3rd, 4th etc. would give them for a loss.
This applies to GM Rogers' article (http://www.uschess.org/content/view/12106/702):

Shahade should never have resiled from his attitude expressed in an earlier article, namely “What would be much more impressive to me, and would be deserving of a lot more praise than making a norm, would be if one of these players needed a draw in the last round of a tournament to make a norm, yet refused a draw against a Grandmaster opponent.” Perhaps he should have added the words “and lost” since no one is going to criticize a player who goes on to win such a game.
So who is going to put bread on the loser's table the next day, since his courage cost him prize money? Who will invite him to a strong tourney in compensation for all those he now missed through lack of title?

Also on that thread (http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=188722&postcount=403):

Especially as Michael Baron and I have documented that Rogers, before he retired to sit on the sidelines, was happy to take short draws on occasions when it suited him (and I say good on him!). And I now present:


Chukwuka Allor vs Shaun Press 36th Olympiad 2004, 15 moves (http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1315594)
John M Cummins vs Shaun Press, 36th Olympiad 2004, 12 moves (http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1316389)
Jose Pesqueira vs Shaun Press, 37th Chess Olympiad 2006, 19 moves (http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1418072)
Shaun Press vs Jonathan Hawes, 37th Chess Olympiad 2006, 18 moves (http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1415239)


if anything, these short draws are worse than what Agobian and Antić were trying to do, since there was no repetition, and Mr Press was representing his country not just himself. And they are far less dead than the position in which IM West was forced to continue.

Once again, I don't begrudge Messrs. Rogers and Press from taking these draws, since they and their opponents, not third parties, were in the best position to judge whether these were optimal results. But it is galling to see them pontificating from a position of assumed moral superiority over players like Antić.

MichaelBaron
08-03-2013, 12:00 AM
Michael
You are unbelievable. Even after being shown the moves of the game you still claim we drew in five moves! Just admit you were not telling the truth (for whatever reason - you can pretend faulty memory if you want to look better) and pull your head in.
Ian, I do not remember the game. But I do remember it was very very short and I strongly doubt I would forget a fighting draw with a GM - I do not draw with GMs every day.
cheers

MichaelBaron
08-03-2013, 12:03 AM
Once again, I don't begrudge Messrs. Rogers and Press from taking these draws, since they and their opponents, not third parties, were in the best position to judge whether these were optimal results. But it is galling to see them pontificating from a position of assumed moral superiority over players like Antić.[/INDENT]
This is exactly the point. People claim moral superiority and then you log into chessbase....and see their 5 move efforts :)

Ian_Rogers
08-03-2013, 12:12 AM
Ian, I do not remember the game. But I do remember it was very very short and I strongly doubt I would forget a fighting draw with a GM - I do not draw with GMs every day.
cheers

That's not good enough - you have been shown the game. It's time to apologise and pull your head in.

Kevin Bonham
08-03-2013, 12:13 AM
Michael, that's very old rope you're pushing there as example of Ian's short draws. The youngest one is from 1990. One of them is from when Ian was nineteen.

I've just had a look in the Fritz database and seems to me Ian definitely became more reluctant to agree very short draws as a player as his career continued. His last 9-move draw given was 1990, last 10-move draw was 1993 (very boring position too), last 12-move draw was 1999.

pax
08-03-2013, 12:19 AM
- Только что на этом месте стояла моя ладья! - закричал одноглазый,
осмотревшись. - А теперь ее уже нет.
- Нет, значит, и не было! - грубовато сказал Остап.
- Как же не было? Я ясно помню!
- Конечно, не было.
- Куда же она девалась? Вы ее выиграли?
- Выиграл.
- Когда? На каком ходу?
- Что вы мне морочите голову с вашей ладьей? Если сдаетесь, то так и
говорите!
- Позвольте, товарищ, у меня все ходы записаны.
- Контора пишет! - сказал Остап.

Here is Google's translation:


Only that this place was my rook! - Cried the one-eyed,
looking around. - And now it's gone.
- No, I mean, and there was! - Gruffly said Ostap.
- How could I not be? I remember clearly!
- Of course not.
- Where did it go? You won it?
- Won.
- When? On what track?
- What are you fooling me with your rook? If you give up, then so
talking about!
- Excuse me, mate, I have all the moves are recorded.
- Office wrote! - Said Ostap.

Sounds rather appropriate! Michael, while I may agree with your general philosophical point, I really think you should apologise over this particular game.

pax
08-03-2013, 12:23 AM
Interesting facebook discussion here:

https://www.facebook.com/eljanov/posts/10200298413334453#_=_

MichaelBaron
08-03-2013, 12:36 AM
Michael, that's very old rope you're pushing there as example of Ian's short draws. The youngest one is from 1990. One of them is from when Ian was nineteen.

I've just had a look in the Fritz database and seems to me Ian definitely became more reluctant to agree very short draws as a player as his career continued. His last 9-move draw given was 1990, last 10-move draw was 1993 (very boring position too), last 12-move draw was 1999.

1999 he was 39 - much older than both Eljanov and So :).

MichaelBaron
08-03-2013, 12:45 AM
Here is Google's translation:



Sounds rather appropriate! Michael, while I may agree with your general philosophical point, I really think you should apologise over this particular game.


When Ostap was saying ''Office wrote'' - he was doing so with a degree of sarcasm (as evident from the novel). Btw, the story is about a guy who hardly knew the chess rules but was nevertheless giving a chess simul in order to raise some funds needed.

MichaelBaron
08-03-2013, 12:55 AM
That's not good enough - you have been shown the game. It's time to apologise and pull your head in.
Ian, if this is really the game that has taken place - I would like to apologize profoundly. However, all I can remember is that we had a very quick draw.

Ian_Rogers
08-03-2013, 02:23 AM
Thanks Michael. It really was the game we played - one day I can show you the scoresheet and the clock times! It wasn't quick.
As far as the other short draws you have quoted go, I am not proud of them but they were played when neither player was fighting for first place. There is a big difference between them and So v Eljanov.
I was far from perfect with regard to short draws, especially when I was starting out, but in about 400 tournaments I am pretty sure I only took a short draw when fighting for first place on four occasions, even when a draw would win the tournament outright, as against you. If you note in the Chess Life Online article I apologised for my failings in this respect.
In any case am in profound disagreement with your and Jono's attitude to short draws - players, especially professional players like So and Eljanov who receive compensation from the organisers, do not only have a responsibility to themselves.

Capablanca-Fan
08-03-2013, 03:27 AM
As far as the other short draws you have quoted go, I am not proud of them but they were played when neither player was fighting for first place. There is a big difference between them and So v Eljanov.
Why? Short draws are right or wrong.


I was far from perfect with regard to short draws, especially when I was starting out, but in about 400 tournaments I am pretty sure I only took a short draw when fighting for first place on four occasions, even when a draw would win the tournament outright, as against you.
But apparently just one, not four, occasions is enough to draw wrath these days.


If you note in the Chess Life Online article I apologised for my failings in this respect.
Or is this another case like Milan Vidmar, poacher-turned-gamekeeper?


In any case am in profound disagreement with your and Jono's attitude to short draws - players, especially professional players like So and Eljanov who receive compensation from the organisers, do not only have a responsibility to themselves.
Fine, then make sure they are compensated for loss of title, money, and invitations that result from a loss depriving player of shared 1st. One idea would be a hefty appearance fee conditional on no short agreed draws.

Basil
08-03-2013, 09:27 AM
In any case am in profound disagreement with your and Jono's attitude to short draws - players, especially professional players like So and Eljanov who receive compensation from the organisers, do not only have a responsibility to themselves.
And I remain in complete agreement with you, Ian.

I don't intend to rehash my sentiments from earlier threads on this one (all-but-pointless when dealing with philosophical issues), but the rearing of this issue's ugly head has reminded me of the recent AFL "tanking" discussion in this country.

For the uninitiated, 'tanking' is the term which describes a club's efforts to play sub-optimally so as to possibly earn a lesser result than they otherwise might. The benefit to the club is that it receives a better draft pick (for long-term gain).

While the analogy is not precise, it highlights the broad parallels of:
• playing within the laws of the game
• outside of the spirit of the game
• a deliberate choice to play sub-optimally
• the increased likelihood of a different result had the protagonists played their best
• the effect that the possibly altered result has on other parties to the competition

Outside of personal gain, I also believe all competitors have a duty to the broader interests of the game as suggested by Ian Rogers and me elsewhere.

Rincewind
08-03-2013, 09:54 AM
The analogy of tanking does not stretch very far. There is a big difference between two roughly equally strong players (who would probably draw 85% of the time anyway) agreeing to a quick draw and deliberately losing a game that a team would normally win.

Seems there are a number of issues floating around dealing with the obligation to not offer/accept a quick draw.

(1) Obligation to other players to not produce skewed results. This perhaps is best viewed as a social contract and if all players do it then it is to the benefit of all players, perhaps. However I would argue that it is unduly onerous for the potential benefit and an especially weak obligation in the case of strong, roughly equal competitors where a draw is perhaps the most likely result anyway.

(2) Obligation to the organisors. I don't have a problem with this in professional chess as the players are receiving substantial consideration from the organisers. However, there needs to be a clear contract outlining allowable and unallowable behaviour. If the organisers don't want quick draws then ban them. If players don't perform as contractually obligated then they can be punished.

(3) Obligation to the game. This seems a little jingoistic. I'd be interested if anyone can provide a quantitative analysis of the alleged damage to the game of chess caused by (for example) the draw mentioned in Ian's item for Chess Life. I suspect this is just a bogey-man.

Basically it boils down to the contract between organisers and players. Sure some spectators may be disappointed but I would argue that some spectators have unrealistic expectations and their beef is really with the organisers anyway.

James Peirce
08-03-2013, 10:04 AM
The problem with all these sorts of arguments is that it seems everyone thinks something should be done about short draws. but they can't agree on what to do or where to draw the line between what is a short draw and what isn't

DelAmitri
08-03-2013, 10:14 AM
The problem with all these sorts of arguments is that it seems everyone thinks something should be done about short draws. but they can't agree on what to do or where to draw the line between what is a short draw and what isn't

Chess is not Hollywood, don't do anything. Players are not there to please spectators, just to win in the best way possible.

Organisers can change incentives to affect the way that players strategize in the tournament, but don't blame players for getting their best result by drawing in the last round.

Jono's comments are spot-on. Ex-players should not be hypocritical.

James Peirce
08-03-2013, 10:21 AM
I like the attitude Bobby Fischer had to draws, he detested them so much that he once said. "i DON'T TAKE DRAWS IN UNDER 40 MOVES.
Of course all chessplayers are entitled to their own opinion but it is concerning that a war could almost be started over something as trivial as this.

Kevin Bonham
08-03-2013, 11:33 AM
I like the attitude Bobby Fischer had to draws, he detested them so much that he once said. "i DON'T TAKE DRAWS IN UNDER 40 MOVES.

If he said this it wasn't true; he took huge numbers of draws shorter than that.

I do however find that in the Fritz database, Fischer has only one draw of 20 moves or less after 1962, and that was a 20-move draw with Petrosian in the 1971 Candidates Final (double bishop ending symmetrical pawn structure).

James Peirce
08-03-2013, 11:36 AM
I think he mean't that he liked to play on unless the draw was the absolute best option. Carlsen is similar in that he plays on in level endings and often wins.

Patrick Byrom
08-03-2013, 12:06 PM
Jono and Rincewind agreeing on Chess Chat - is that one of the seven signs of the Apocalypse :D

One point that hasn't been mentioned is that there is already a potential penalty for agreeing a draw in the final round. It can give chasing players a chance to catch them, and thus reduce the prize money for the drawing players.

But if organisers want to reduce draws, they should design their events appropriately. For example, by having a 3/1/0 scoring system. I don't think it is really the players' responsibility, and I certainly don't think it's a moral or ethical issue (unless the draws are pre-arranged).

Kevin Bonham
08-03-2013, 03:52 PM
There was another thread on this, Short draws: a fact of chess, or do we need rules to try to stop them? (http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=7889) I posted (http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=188695&postcount=15):

I may well merge these threads soon as there is really no difference in subject matter.

Agent Smith
10-03-2013, 07:43 PM
Pavel's facebook blog (https://www.facebook.com/eljanov/posts/10200298413334453#_=_) is a great read.

Now I would like to discuss the problem of short draws in general. Mr. Rogers writes that "short draws ruin tournaments" and "damage chess". I can`t fully agree with it. This is the same as to claim that diving ruin football tournaments. But somehow hundred millions of people still are fans of this sport. This is just the side of sport. Not the best one of course but our world is not ideal at all. In both case you can try to fight but you still never prevent it.

After the tournament I talked about our draw with main organizer of Reykjavik Open Mr. Gunnar Bjornsson who is also the president of Icelandic chess federation. He told me that he didn`t mind, has no claims for me and Wesley and satisfied with our performances during the whole tournament

pax
11-03-2013, 11:13 AM
I thought the comparison between diving and short draws was a bit interesting coming from Pavel, since diving is pretty unambiguously dishonest and morally wrong. Whatever you might say about short draws, at least they are not dishonest.

Kevin Bonham
12-03-2013, 01:03 PM
I've put a poll up in the General Chess section to see how short the shortest draws various posters here have ever agreed are:

http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=14550

I think there's a large difference between 3-move draws like this one and a lot of somewhat longer draws that would still incur the wrath of Sofia Rules.

antichrist
12-03-2013, 06:48 PM
the massive decisive point is whether sponsorship is involved, If so then a definite onus on top players to put on a show for the dollars outlaid. Image if major sponsor, being a massive chess fan, leaves important business to catch a top game on board one, only to have the players scratching each others' backs and in the watering hole. They would never sponsor again.

Kevin Bonham
12-03-2013, 07:51 PM
the massive decisive point is whether sponsorship is involved, If so then a definite onus on top players to put on a show for the dollars outlaid. Image if major sponsor, being a massive chess fan, leaves important business to catch a top game on board one, only to have the players scratching each others' backs and in the watering hole. They would never sponsor again.

I think this is something where sponsors can have a big role by demanding that conditions specify that ultra-quick draws don't occur. Actually I think sponsor requirements were part of the Doeberl quick draws flap many years back (when they tried to impose anti-draw rules that were illegal under the Laws at that time.)

I'm thinking that ultra-quick draws should be seen as a special case and while I am not in favour of Sofia rules etc, I would support prohibiting a 3-move draw. One thing if the choices of players result in a variation that is totally drawn or that the white player feels uncomfortable and underprepared with (for instance). Another to agree a draw when the variation being played in the game isn't even concrete.

Organisers have leeway under the current Laws to specify that agreed draws less than, say, 11 moves, not be allowed. Is there really any reason not to do this?

Grant Szuveges
13-03-2013, 01:26 PM
You havnt lived until you have taken at least one short draw in a tournament game of chess. Its an exhilarating feeling! It makes you feel like a 2700 rated GM!

Adamski
13-03-2013, 06:29 PM
You havnt lived until you have taken at least one short draw in a tournament game of chess. Its an exhilarating feeling! It makes you feel like a 2700 rated GM!
It also sometimes means you can go home early and maybe come back to accept a hard-won prize.

Capablanca-Fan
14-03-2013, 02:52 AM
4. I dont agree AT ALL about your view on short draws:

Short draws are part of chess and have been for many years. It is within the rules to agree to a draw at any time during a game, so who are we (we = chess organisers) to change the rules of chess just to prevent people taking a draw to split prizemoney. If there is one thing that is sacred in chess circles it is the game itself. If you start saying "no short draws" then you might as well allow people to move knights like rooks too.

I understand that Partsi and Kempen agreed to a draw after one move - but if they had played 15 moves of an Exchange French or an Exchange Slav and then agreed to a draw would everyone be carrying on like a pork chop about that?

What is so special about the last round anyway? You cant have one set of rules for rounds 1-6 and a different set for the final round. That is not an even playing field. Some people get white in the final round and others get black - these rules affect them differently.

Now we also have to ask the question about what is a short draw and what isnt. Is a 10 move draw acceptable but not a 9 move draw, or do we have to play 30 moves? What if there is a repetition of moves before move 30? Or before move 15? Should we have to keep playing until its king vs king? I dont know how this can be policed - but what is more important is why does it even need to be policed?

The two players have got themselves into a good position in the tournament and only need a draw to achieve what they want to achieve from the tournament so why should we be punishing them for that? When you only need a draw to win something then you have played well enough earlier in the tournament and thus have earned that right to win something if you can draw.

When something is not broken, there is no need to fix it: LONG LIVE SHORT DRAWS!!!
Very well argued. :clap: We certainly don't need chess-retirees, spectators, and dilettantes second-guessing the players. The players should have a right to maximize their own results within the rules, to achieve goals they wish. These may include prize, trophy, qualification, norm or just satisfaction—it's no one else's business.

Charles
14-03-2013, 09:28 AM
Short draws are an interesting discussion. Two points.

1. We have gone for the carrot approach at the Doeberl. There is a bonus $1000 shared amongst decisive winners in the last round on the top four boards who haven't taken an under 30 move draw in the tournament. So it is up to the player - you can take a short draw through the tournament and not be eligible - entirely up to you - leaves the arbiter nothing to enforce and no discussion about lines that might be drawn or otherwise. In one instance we paid out $1000 (on top of their normal prize money) to a player who finished in the lower placings because the higher placed players had all taken short draws.

2. I get the philosophical approach for lower rated players - but what about a GM who is receiving financial assistance and/or having accommodation provided for free. Do they have an obligation to perform beyond taking the money and then arranging short draws so they end up in mid pack without delivery of service? We had one GM who arranged two short draws in a nine round tournament (four moves and six moves) who was receiving financial support and rooms for the tournament.

Capablanca-Fan
14-03-2013, 10:44 AM
^^^ That is all fair. There is no reason at all why organizers can't offer bonuses to those who took no short draws—it's their money. And if they are paying for players, there is nothing wrong with making this payment conditional upon fighting every game.

I still think, like GS above, that short draws are part of chess, and have a venerable history as a tournament and match strategy to conserve energy. The late Ortvin Sarapu would probably not have won his 20th NZ Championship when nearly 66 against a strong field if he had not paced himself with judicious quick draws.

Rincewind
14-03-2013, 10:58 AM
2. I get the philosophical approach for lower rated players - but what about a GM who is receiving financial assistance and/or having accommodation provided for free. Do they have an obligation to perform beyond taking the money and then arranging short draws so they end up in mid pack without delivery of service? We had one GM who arranged two short draws in a nine round tournament (four moves and six moves) who was receiving financial support and rooms for the tournament.

I have no problem with an organiser obligating a competitor who is receiving assistance to not agree to short draws, but this should be clearly understood (i.e. written into the playing agreement). If the organiser have one expectation and the player has another then the problem is with the clarity of this agreement.

Kevin Bonham
14-03-2013, 11:32 AM
Threads merged

The Ian Rogers comments on Eljanov-So thread and six posts from Ballarat Bendigo have been moved here.

antichrist
14-03-2013, 11:52 AM
In middle game I was offered draw by someone rated 500 points higher, the game was equal and blockaded, the only draw I accepted amongst many I have been offered.

Capablanca-Fan
14-03-2013, 02:15 PM
In middle game I was offered draw by someone rated 500 points higher, the game was equal and blockaded, the only draw I accepted amongst many I have been offered.
Sounds reasonable.

Keong Ang
14-03-2013, 02:31 PM
If there was a "no draws under 30 moves" rule what happens when the player with the white pieces made move30 and offers a draw, the player with the black pieces cannot accept it because he/she had only made 29 moves. If black were to make move30, the draw offer is rejected.

Wouldn't such anti-draw rules cause extra disadvantage for black?

There tends to be a game that lasts exactly the number of moves stipulated before draws are permitted. I've seen cases where white offered the draw at exactly that number of moves and black breaking the rules by accepting. Thankfully, we've not had to rule a prize disqualification so far...

Kevin Bonham
14-03-2013, 02:47 PM
If there was a "no draws under 30 moves" rule what happens when the player with the white pieces made move30 and offers a draw, the player with the black pieces cannot accept it because he/she had only made 29 moves.

A game where white checkmates on move 30 is generally understood to be 30 moves long, not 29 on account of black making only 29 moves.

The FIDE laws state:

"The rules of a competition may specify that players cannot agree to a draw, whether in less than a specified number of moves or at all, without the consent of the arbiter."

I would therefore interpret "no draws under 30 moves" as allowing a draw offer after white's 30th to be accepted by black without moving, unless explicitly stated otherwise.

peter_parr
16-03-2013, 09:39 AM
A number of tournaments in Australia state on the entry form that players can take up to two half-point byes but not in the last few rounds.

This means that players are credited with draws with no requirement to even turn up - they can go home watch tv (or go to the pub) and their scores are added to.

Mediocre players can avoid playing top players by advising the arbiter in advance that they are taking byes.

In such events players agreeing to 3 move draws could presumably not be criticised - they at least turned up !

Solution :- If a player is unable to play a particular round a zero point bye would reduce byes by over 90 %.

7 round weekenders in 2 days (where many byes are taken) should be reduced to 6 rounds in my view and 4 rounds in a day not be ACF rated in my view. Over 6 round 2 day weekenders should in my view be more rounds and rapid rated.

Solution :- To reduce quick draws in the last round organisers should in my view ensure that the advertised prizes are more equitable. Often first is way above second. A more equitable distribution of prizes would reduce quick draws in the last round to share a big first prize and small second prize.

Solution:- The scoring system 3 for a win, one for a draw is out of proportion in my view. A better possibility is 5 for a win, 2 for a draw. This would reduce the number of draws and reduce the number of ties in tournaments and increase the number of decisive games.

Solution :- Minimum 30 or 40 moves each (except triple repitition) is sometimes used. A minimum 20 moves each is also possible (and perhaps more acceptable to FIDE if it were to introduce such a rule compulsory in all tournaments).

For the record Speelman led the British Champ in 1985 with 8.5/10 and Miles was the only player on 7.5/10. The last round game was Speelman v Rogers which was drawn in 6 moves. This is natural. Speelman needed 0.5 to win the event by himself. Rogers is performing at just over 2500 and Speelman over 2700 and Rogers was black.

Fuller - Rogers Round 10 Adelaide Aus Champ 1980 draw in 6 moves.
Johansen - Rogers Last round British Champ 1983 draw in 5 moves.

Gluzman - Rogers last round Doeberl Cup 1997 draw in 9 moves. Rogers needed 0.5 to win by himself - of course he agreed to a quick draw - What would you do ? I (chief arbiter) suggested to IM Gluzman after the game that maybe he could continue as he had the advantage of playing white.
Gluzman explained Rogers was much stronger than himself and had been playing at a very high level in the event and he was happy with a draw.

The rules in most tournaments for over 150 years allow agreed draws so although journalists,other players,arbiters and organisers may show their displeasure at players who agree to early draws the only 100% way to stop them (if and a big if they should be stopped) is to ban early draws.

In the meantime solutions above will help reduce draws and let's get rid of multiple half-point byes awarded by organisers.

Adamski
16-03-2013, 10:40 AM
^^^ That is all fair. There is no reason at all why organizers can't offer bonuses to those who took no short draws—it's their money. And if they are paying for players, there is nothing wrong with making this payment conditional upon fighting every game.

I still think, like GS above, that short draws are part of chess, and have a venerable history as a tournament and match strategy to conserve energy. The late Ortvin Sarapu would probably not have won his 20th NZ Championship when nearly 66 against a strong field if he had not paced himself with judicious quick draws.
Also one Jonathan Sarfati chap was defended by Sarapu when taking short draws when well ahead in NZ champs in 1988. Jono won the Silver Rook that year. 'Mr Chess'.The Ortvin Satapu story. Pg 133-4.

Keong Ang
18-03-2013, 09:27 AM
A game where white checkmates on move 30 is generally understood to be 30 moves long, not 29 on account of black making only 29 moves.

The FIDE laws state:

"The rules of a competition may specify that players cannot agree to a draw, whether in less than a specified number of moves or at all, without the consent of the arbiter."

I would therefore interpret "no draws under 30 moves" as allowing a draw offer after white's 30th to be accepted by black without moving, unless explicitly stated otherwise.
When the rules of the event specify penalties (eg. halving prize money) for players who agreed to draws in under 30 moves, wouldn't the interpretation have to be based on whether the player actually made/completed 30 moves?

If white was the player who went on to win a prize, there's no problem, no draw was agreed in under 30 moves. However, if black was in line for a prize, penalties would apply.
This interpretation is based on clauses in the Laws of Chess that specify things like when time is added. Like 30 minutes is added when white completes move40 and therefore enters the next time control. Black meanwhile has still not entered the next time control and does not have the extra time.
Furthermore, rating regulations specify that both players need to make at least one move each before a game can be rated. If a draw was accepted in a game where white made the first and only move, it cannot be rated.

Based on this, if the anti-draw rules apply to players, eg. "players are not allowed to agree to draws in under 30 moves", then it is the number of moves each player had made that counts. If the rules said something like "agreed draws are prohibited in games under 30 moves", then it should be legitimate for a draw to be agreed when white made 30 moves and black 29.

Keong Ang
18-03-2013, 09:42 AM
A number of tournaments in Australia state on the entry form that players can take up to two half-point byes but not in the last few rounds.

This means that players are credited with draws with no requirement to even turn up - they can go home watch tv (or go to the pub) and their scores are added to.

Mediocre players can avoid playing top players by advising the arbiter in advance that they are taking byes.
I had always thought it anomalous to allow half-point byes and prohibit short agreed draws.
Only zero point byes should be allowed if there are anti-draw rules in place.

Half point byes seem to reward players too much for skipping a round or two. Taking a zero point bye already rewards a player by protecting their ratings and having a potentially easier pairing when they return after being well rested.
Players who play in every round risk their ratings and wear themselves out more. Shouldn't players play in every round be rewarded more than those who take byes?

Kevin Bonham
18-03-2013, 10:03 AM
When the rules of the event specify penalties (eg. halving prize money) for players who agreed to draws in under 30 moves, wouldn't the interpretation have to be based on whether the player actually made/completed 30 moves?

No, because it is ambiguous. A game where white offers a draw on move 30 and black accepts is generally considered a 30-move-game. Unless the organisers explicitly specified that draws could not be agreed until both players had made 30 moves, an attempt to impose such a rule against a draw after white's 30th would be asking for an appeal or perhaps, if a player was financially disadvantaged, even legal action. It is not right to financially penalise a player based on an interpretation that could be argued either way.


This interpretation is based on clauses in the Laws of Chess that specify things like when time is added.

Those clauses are not comparable. Black would gain an obviously unfair advantage if he was able to receive the extra time before making his 40th move rather than after it. But Black does not receive an unfair advantage if he is allowed to accept a draw after he has played 29 moves while white is not, since if white considers that that is an advantage white can simply decide not to offer a draw then.

Indeed if someone thinks that is an unfair advantage, someone else could equally argue that it would not be fair that black could offer a draw after his 30th move while white could only offer a draw after move 31. A line has to be drawn somewhere.


Furthermore, rating regulations specify that both players need to make at least one move each before a game can be rated. If a draw was accepted in a game where white made the first and only move, it cannot be rated.

This also has nothing to do with it since the principle established in this case is simply that a player does not agree a rated draw without playing any chess at all. It is not a relevant analogy for interpreting any requirement for a certain number of moves to be made before something happens.

Kevin Bonham
05-10-2013, 08:38 PM
I've been discussing this a bit on the Paris Grand Prix thread but it's clear to me the Sofia Rules are not even achieving their desired goal. In this particular grand prix event 8 games out of 66 were drawn in under 30 moves including three in 16, 19 and 24 moves in the last round, and another 19 in 30-40 moves. So more than half of the draws (and the draw rate was c. 70%) were 40 moves or less long.

Players circumvent Sofia Rules by playing contrived repetitions and even seem to agree with each other through gestures that they will have a repetition in a given position. I've said it before but I think these rules that can be (and are) rorted around artificially bring greater disrepute on the game than players honestly and openly agreeing an early draw.

If you want to stop short draws you must find a way to stop short draws by repetition.

Keong Ang
11-10-2013, 09:08 AM
I've been discussing this a bit on the Paris Grand Prix thread but it's clear to me the Sofia Rules are not even achieving their desired goal. In this particular grand prix event 8 games out of 66 were drawn in under 30 moves including three in 16, 19 and 24 moves in the last round, and another 19 in 30-40 moves. So more than half of the draws (and the draw rate was c. 70%) were 40 moves or less long.

Players circumvent Sofia Rules by playing contrived repetitions and even seem to agree with each other through gestures that they will have a repetition in a given position. I've said it before but I think these rules that can be (and are) rorted around artificially bring greater disrepute on the game than players honestly and openly agreeing an early draw.

If you want to stop short draws you must find a way to stop short draws by repetition.
Having sat through too many tournaments waiting for the last game to conclude I've come to the opinion that players should be allowed to make short draws. Most of the time, it's just holding things up for no good reason. Hopefully the proposed bits in the new Laws of Chess that can be used by an arbiter to end a game have been approved.
Most of the time, it is not the short draw that causes the most disappointment/frustration, it is the long drawn out tedious game that goes on and on simply because the players refuse to claim/offer/agree to a draw that tests the patience of everyone else.

Sure, there are a few top level tournaments where we expect the players to battle it out for our entertainment. However, most tournaments are "amateur" and the priorities are quite different from these professional top level tournaments. It may be better to have it codified in the Laws to have games become draws if not ended by a certain number of moves (eg. checkmate in 80 moves) or certain time (eg. after 4 hours from start) has elapsed!
At least everyone knows when a game would conclude... of course, this may cause even more controversy.:doh:

Craig_Hall
11-10-2013, 10:22 AM
Having sat through too many tournaments waiting for the last game to conclude I've come to the opinion that players should be allowed to make short draws. Most of the time, it's just holding things up for no good reason. Hopefully the proposed bits in the new Laws of Chess that can be used by an arbiter to end a game have been approved.
Most of the time, it is not the short draw that causes the most disappointment/frustration, it is the long drawn out tedious game that goes on and on simply because the players refuse to claim/offer/agree to a draw that tests the patience of everyone else.

Sure, there are a few top level tournaments where we expect the players to battle it out for our entertainment. However, most tournaments are "amateur" and the priorities are quite different from these professional top level tournaments. It may be better to have it codified in the Laws to have games become draws if not ended by a certain number of moves (eg. checkmate in 80 moves) or certain time (eg. after 4 hours from start) has elapsed!
At least everyone knows when a game would conclude... of course, this may cause even more controversy.:doh:

I largely agree with the bolded bit. We used to have games end by a set time e.g. 4 hours courtesy of guillotine finishes but that created other issues (as noted elsewhere). I have yet to see an answer to any of this that doesn't create other problems - the current rules have come about by way of decades of experience and because of other problems that have had to be solved.

antichrist
12-10-2013, 10:42 AM
I agree completely with the thrust of arguments made here in the previous two posts. That games being stretched out due to increment, lack of draw offers and acceptance and lack of arbiter action as well. One only needs a few bad experiences (in my case one only) of coming home completely too late for any meaningful work the next day to realise that chess is only for the leisure class. And as well if one has a spouse and children they expect a timely return. It is when the delay finish of games is round after round that the accumulated time becomes massive.

On how to remedy the problem I am deficient of the rules, conventions, politics of it etc.

Kevin Bonham
14-10-2013, 04:52 PM
Having sat through too many tournaments waiting for the last game to conclude I've come to the opinion that players should be allowed to make short draws.

Do these issues have anything to do with each other really? I think that normally those who play on eternally (even when it's pointless) and those who would like to make short draws are more or less entirely different sets of players.

Rincewind
14-10-2013, 05:36 PM
Do these issues have anything to do with each other really? I think that normally those who play on eternally (even when it's pointless) and those who would like to make short draws are more or less entirely different sets of players.

One wonders if they are even the same sorts of games. In at least some cases the longest game in a round is won but takes a long time because (a) it is tricky, or (b) because it is long and not difficult but the losing player does not resign and uses a much of the available time as possible hoping their opponent will either make a mistake or die of boredom in the meantime.

Capablanca-Fan
18-12-2016, 08:10 AM
In Edward Winter's Chess Note 13 December 2016, 10251 Draws and scoring systems (C.N. 6671) (http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/index.html#10251._Draws_and_scoring_systems_), he provides correspondence in CHESS in 1955–56 about short draws. The proposed remedy was the same, counting draws as a third of a point (or mathematically equivalent scoring systems). Australia's great C.J.S. Purdy somewhat supporting this because he hated short draws but recognized that it would penalize genuine draws unfairly. Then the IM-strength Wolfgang Heidenfeld, many times champion of both south Africa and Ireland, strongly against such a penalty, and defending the right to draw to suit tournament or match purposes. He later wrote a book about great draws, Grosse Remispartien (German) or Draw! (English version).