View Poll Results: Short draws are a breach of Article 1 of the Laws of Chess

Voters
15. You may not vote on this poll
  • Strongly disagree

    10 66.67%
  • Mildly disagree

    2 13.33%
  • Neither agree nor disagree

    1 6.67%
  • Mildly agree

    1 6.67%
  • Strongly agree

    1 6.67%
Results 1 to 9 of 9
  1. #1
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,575

    Short Draws - please vote

    Regarding a recent short draw (7 moves) in the last round of a Swiss tournament the arbiter complained to the higher rated player (who offered the draw) because to his mind the game was not played in the "spirit of chess"

    Basically the argument ran like this...

    =====================================
    Article 1: The nature and objectives of the game of chess

    1.2 The objective of each player is to place the opponent's king 'under
    attack' in such a way that the opponent has no legal move.
    The player who
    achieves this goal is said to have 'checkmated' the opponent's king and to
    have won the game. Leaving one's own king under attack, exposing one's own
    king to attack and also 'capturing' the opponent's king are not allowed. The
    opponent whose king has been checkmated has lost the game.

    1.3 If the position is such that neither player can possibly checkmate,
    the game is drawn.

    ========================================

    I believe that according to the highlighted text in this article the game
    ... was NOT played in the "true spirit of chess".

    However, I believe that the rules clearly provide an objective "to
    checkmate" and a situation under which "a draw" can occur. I do not believe
    that the game ... was played in the spirit of chess and I would
    ask that in future all players adhere to Article 1.



    My reaction was disbelief. Could 7 move draws really be in violation of 1.3?

    My position is that Article 1 states the objective of the game while 1.3 is true insofar as that if A then B. That does not mean that B requires A (affirming the consequent fallacy). That is, a draw cannot only occur when neither player can possibly checkmate.

    For example 5.2 lists five possible ways to draw.

    ====================================
    5.2
    a. The game is drawn when the player to move has no legal move and his king is not in check. The game is said to end in ‘stalemate’. This immediately ends the game, provided that the move producing the stalemate position was legal.

    b. The game is drawn when a position has arisen in which neither player can checkmate the opponent’s king with any series of legal moves. The game is said to end in a ‘dead position’. This immediately ends the game, provided that the move producing the position was legal. (See Article 9.6)

    c. The game is drawn upon agreement between the two players during the game. This immediately ends the game. (See Article 9.1)

    d. The game may be drawn if any identical position is about to appear or has appeared on the chessboard at least three times. (See Article 9.2)

    e. The game may be drawn if each player has made at least the last 50 consecutive moves without the movement of any pawn and without any capture. (See Article 9.3)
    ====================================

    Of these methods only 5.2(b) (and arguably 5.2(a)) are the sort of draws intended by Article 1.3. However, 1.3 does not apply in cases 5.2 c, d, and e.

    In this case agreement, 5.2(c), was the method of drawing which is patently available when one or, as is more usually the case, both players can possibly checkmate.

    Am I missing something?
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  2. #2
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    40,394
    I agree with Rincewind. The arbiter's argument is completely incorrect and is so for the reasons stated and also for others. There would not have been any warrant for such a ruling under the 2005 Laws, but there is even less than none under the 2009 Laws (effective 1 July 2009) which explicitly allow the rules of tournaments to specify that draws under a certain number of moves are not allowed. If no such specification exists for a particular tournament then it follows that games may be agreed drawn before that number of moves. It is very unlikely in such cases that the reason for agreement will be that all possible attempts to win by checkmate have been exhausted.

    Clearly the arbiter has an aversion to such short draws and is just looking for some way to construe the rules as justifying this ruling, although it is not justified at all.

    I hope that even those who very strongly oppose short draws will agree that this is not a valid way to justify imposing that opposition under the present Laws, and that the correct way is to state in the tournament conditions that draw agreements before move X are banned.
    Moderation Requests: All requests for, comments about, or questions about moderation of any kind including thread changes must be posted in the Help and Feedback section and not on the thread in question. (Or by private message for routine changes or sensitive matters.)

    ACF Newsletter Information - All Australian players and administrators should subscribe and check each issue for relevant notices

    My psephology/politics site (token chess references only) : http://kevinbonham.blogspot.com.au/ Politics twitter feed https://twitter.com/kevinbonham

  3. #3
    Account Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    928
    I just want to state that i voted strongly disagree. Though if the arbiter had them reported for bringing the game into disrepute, it wouldnt be so clear.

  4. #4
    CC Grandmaster Desmond's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    The island
    Posts
    14,214
    You stacked the poll with 2 strongly disagrees
    So what's your excuse? To run like the devil's chasing you.

    See you in another life, brotha.

  5. #5
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,575
    Quote Originally Posted by CameronD
    I just want to state that i voted strongly disagree. Though if the arbiter had them reported for bringing the game into disrepute, it wouldnt be so clear.
    Hi Cameron. I'll have stuffed up the poll so I will try to move to to the usual strongly disagrees.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  6. #6
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,575

    Please vote again

    I've reset the poll and fixed the answers.

    Kevin, Brian and Cameron please vote again.

    Everyone else, please vote.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  7. #7
    CC FIDE Master
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    509

    Short Draws

    Unless the players are receiving an appearance fee, the players should be left to their own devices and DOP's should not interfere.

    It is better that two players, play 7 moves and 'shake hands' then play 31 moves of uninspired rubbish to fulfill some rule. By making players play on, you encourage players discussing results before the game which is a far greater evil.

    If two players in Doeberl Cup Minor want a draw in round 7, because they win $300 each, then big deal, let them.

    I think the aribter was a bozo. A good aribter is one who is not noticed, rather than an interfering one.
    Lee Forace

    Forace´s Legacy - Swap off when you are down.

    It's better to set goals that one cannot acheive than to settle for mediocrity.

  8. #8
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,575
    Quote Originally Posted by Thunderspirit
    I think the aribter was a bozo. A good aribter is one who is not noticed, rather than an interfering one.
    Perhaps you meant to vote the other way then???
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  9. #9
    CC Candidate Master Muzzy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Mortdale/Sydney
    Posts
    72

    Thumbs down

    I voted strongly disagree.
    Having been at the venue when the argument broke loose, I think the way the issue was handled was "against the true spirit of chess"

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. B&W preference test
    By drbean in forum Arbiters' Corner
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-11-2007, 04:57 PM
  2. pgntest 1
    By Javier Gil in forum Help and Feedback
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08-06-2004, 01:50 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •