Clarification request: FIDE Rule 9.1(b)(1).

[strangerep]

This is a question about the procedure for offering and accepting a draw.

In FIDE Rule 9.1(b)(1) it says:

A player wishing to offer a draw shall do so after having made a move on the chessboard and before stopping his clock and starting the opponent’s clock. An offer at any other time during play is still valid but Article 12.6 must be considered. No conditions can be attached to the offer. In both cases the offer cannot be withdrawn and remains valid until the opponent accepts it, rejects it orally, rejects it by touching a piece with the intention of moving or capturing it, or the game is concluded in some other way.

Now suppose player A offers player B a draw (by A making a move, but NOT stopping his/her clock, and offering B the draw verbally). It seems that B could just sit there, neither accepting, nor rejecting, nor touching a piece, until A's clock expires). There is no provision to allow Player A to withdraw the draw offer if A failed to commit one way or the other within a reasonable time. So Player B could just win the game by flag fall merely because A offered a draw.

Am I missing something? Is Player A permitted to offer the draw before stopping his/her own clock and, after offering the draw,then stop his/her clock and start B's clock?

[Patrick Byrom]

This is a question about the procedure for offering and accepting a draw.

In FIDE Rule 9.1(b)(1) it says: ...
Now suppose player A offers player B a draw (by A making a move, but NOT stopping his/her clock, and offering B the draw verbally). It seems that B could just sit there, neither accepting, nor rejecting, nor touching a piece, until A's clock expires). There is no provision to allow Player A to withdraw the draw offer if A failed to commit one way or the other within a reasonable time. So Player B could just win the game by flag fall merely because A offered a draw.

Am I missing something? Is Player A permitted to offer the draw before stopping his/her own clock and, after offering the draw,then stop his/her clock and start B's clock?

I think you are missing something. Under the rule, Player A is allowed to stop his clock after the draw offer. However, if you're concerned about it, you could make the offer immediately after stopping your clock (or at the same time). The offer is still valid, and although it's technically not according to the rules, almost certainly there would be no complaint or penalty.

[pappubahry]

Is Player A permitted to offer the draw before stopping his/her own clock and, after offering the draw,then stop his/her clock and start B's clock?

Yes, that's what you normally do: move, offer draw, press clock.

[Bill Gletsos]

I think you are missing something. Under the rule, Player A is allowed to stop his clock after the draw offer. However, if you're concerned about it, you could make the offer immediately after stopping your clock (or at the same time). The offer is still valid, and although it's technically not according to the rules, almost certainly there would be no complaint or penalty.

Failure to actually follow the rule could certainly have ramifications depending on how much time remains on Player B's clock, leading to Player A being accused of distracting Player B.
Player A should just offer the draw then stop his clock.

[ER]

Two questions on the matter:
I. Is it mandatory to denote by the = sign on the scoresheet every time a draw is offered by either player?
II. Is there any restriction in the no. of draw offers during the game? thanks in advance!

[strangerep]

I think you are missing something. Under the rule, Player A is allowed to stop his clock after the draw offer.

Thank you. Yes -- I was indeed misinterpreting the wording of the rule.

So player A would:

1) make a move
2) offer a draw
3) stop A's clock, and start B's clock (so that B considers the draw offer on his own time).

And curiously, I now feel exactly Iike I do when I realize I've missed a fairly obvious tactical combination otb. Sometimes one is blind to things that should be obvious. (Sigh.)

I. Is it mandatory to denote by the = sign on the scoresheet every time a draw is offered by either player?

Article 8.1 says:

[...] Both players must record the offer of a draw on the scoresheet. (See Appendix C.13)

... so I'd guess the answer is "yes".

II. Is there any restriction in the no. of draw offers during the game?

Article 12.6 in the rules says:

It is forbidden to distract or annoy the opponent in any manner whatsoever. This includes unreasonable claims, unreasonable offers of a draw or the introduction of a source of noise into the playing area.

... which I guess leaves a certain amount of discretion in the arbiter's hands as to how many, or how often, one make reasonably offer a draw. (As a junior, my round-1 game in an under-18's tournament against a MUCH stronger opponent, involved me offering a draw quite a few times, and trying to exchange down as fast as possible into a dead endgame. My opponent declined all the offers of course, but then seriously underestimated me and LOST the game by an oversight. Don't you just love the combination of chess + human nature?

[ER]

Two questions on the matter:
I. Is it mandatory to denote by the = sign on the scoresheet every time a draw is offered by either player?
II. Is there any restriction in the no. of draw offers during the game? thanks in advance!

Forget about it, I will ask Jamie Kenmure who's an International Arbiter Category A on Sunday!

[Kevin Bonham]

Two questions on the matter:
I. Is it mandatory to denote by the = sign on the scoresheet every time a draw is offered by either player?

Yes. 8.1.5 Both players must record the offer of a draw on the scoresheet with a symbol (=). However many players are still unaware of this rule and I have never heard of an arbiter warning a player for breaking it.

II. Is there any restriction in the no. of draw offers during the game? thanks in advance!

No, but "11.5 It is forbidden to distract or annoy the opponent in any manner whatsoever. This includes unreasonable claims, unreasonable offers of a draw or the introduction of a source of noise into the playing area."

Draw offers can be unreasonable for a range of reasons, including being unreasonably frequent or being unreasonable because of the position. But unreasonably frequent isn't about the raw number - offering an opponent draws on moves 20 and 21 of the same game is almost always unreasonable, while offering draws on moves 20, 40 and 60 in very different positions might not be.

There was a proposal on a Rules Commission agenda in 2019 to ban players from "repeating draw offers more than 3 times in a row." but I have heard no more of it. I'll be generous and assume that means the same player making three draw offers without the opponent making one, and not draw offers on three moves in a row (which would surely be a very rare situation.)

[Bill Gletsos]

Two questions on the matter:
I. Is it mandatory to denote by the = sign on the scoresheet every time a draw is offered by either player?
II. Is there any restriction in the no. of draw offers during the game? thanks in advance!

Article 8.1.5 states:

Both players must record the offer of a draw on the scoresheet with a symbol (=).

However Article 9.1.2.2 states:

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

Now FIDE use the word "shall" to have different meanings depending on the surrounding context.
As such it can mean "should" or "will".

Based on the following from the FIDE arbiters manual in this case it is appears it is treated as "should".

This is a valuable rule for the arbiter and its use should be encouraged. If a player claims that he is being distracted by repeated draw offers then his scoresheet should be examined for evidence of this in the form of several (=) being displayed.

Now although their is no actual restriction in the laws of chess regarding the number of draw offers, it is clear from the above and also from the following in the FIDE arbiters manual regarding Article 11.5 that it can be considered as disturbing/distracting your opponent.

Even if the draw offers or claims are quite reasonable, repeating them too often can annoy the opponent. The Arbiter must always intervene when the opponent is disturbed or distracted.

[Bill Gletsos]

Forget about it, I will ask Jamie Kenmure who's an International Arbiter Category A on Sunday!

Or you could just accept what Kevin wrote or even me.

[ER]

Or you could just accept what Kevin wrote or even me.

Both yours #9 (whistling) and Kevin's #8 (applauded) clarifications are thorough and cover my questions.
I just couldn't be able to accept them on my #7 "forget it" post, made about one hour and a half before yours and Kevin's!
I gladly accept them now though and thank you both!

[Kevin Bonham]

I'm amazed the situation with both "must" and "shall" versions of the draw-offer-recording rule being present together unnecessarily seems to have existed since the 2001 Laws without anything being done about it. (The 1997 Laws had only the "shall" version.) The "shall" version is nowadays conditional on the tournament regulations allowing draw offers but if they disallow them then players are hardly going to be offering draws that need to be recorded anyway.

The Arbiters Manual comments on the "shall" version from 2018 onwards, the initial comment being just "This is a valuable rule for the arbiter and its use should be encouraged."

[Pierre Dénommée]

This is a question about the procedure for offering and accepting a draw.

In FIDE Rule 9.1(b)(1) it says:


Now suppose player A offers player B a draw (by A making a move, but NOT stopping his/her clock, and offering B the draw verbally). It seems that B could just sit there, neither accepting, nor rejecting, nor touching a piece, until A's clock expires). There is no provision to allow Player A to withdraw the draw offer if A failed to commit one way or the other within a reasonable time. So Player B could just win the game by flag fall merely because A offered a draw.

Am I missing something? Is Player A permitted to offer the draw before stopping his/her own clock and, after offering the draw,then stop his/her clock and start B's clock?

Failure to press your own clock is not an offence and the arbiter cannot intervene.

When the distracted player's flag falls, the offer of a draw is no longer valid because the game concluded in another way.

It is poor sportsmanship to deliberately let the opponent's time runs uselessly, but because of Article 12.6, I do not believe that the arbiter could do anything about it. It is explicitly forbidden to tell a player that he has failed to press. Every player is responsible for pressing his clock and can blame neither the opponent nor the arbiter for his distraction.

12.6 The arbiter must not intervene in a game except in cases described by the Laws of Chess. He shall not indicate the number of moves completed, except in applying Article 8.5 when at least one flag has fallen. The arbiter shall refrain from informing a player that his opponent has completed a move or that the player has not pressed his clock.

9.1.2.1 A player wishing to offer a draw shall do so after having made a move on the chessboard and before pressing his clock. An offer at any other time during play is still valid but Article 11.5 must be considered. No conditions can be attached to the offer. In both cases the offer cannot be withdrawn and remains valid until the opponent accepts it, rejects it orally, rejects it by touching a piece with the intention of moving or capturing it, or the game is concluded in some other way.

[Vlad]

Don't you just love the combination of chess + human nature?

Being annoying is not called a human nature. It is called being annoying. After experiencing in Australia a few opponents like that, I have adopted a very simple strategy which is consistent with the code that serious players in Europe apply - you are only allowed to offer a draw once. You can offer again only if the opponent made you a draw offer himself and you rejected it.

So my strategy was such that if I ever get 2 draw offers in a raw I immediately call the arbiter as there is no other reason to make a draw offer to me other than being annoying. It did work perfectly.