PDA

View Full Version : Short Draws - please vote



Rincewind
05-08-2009, 11:56 PM
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?

Kevin Bonham
06-08-2009, 12:14 AM
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.

CameronD
06-08-2009, 07:01 AM
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.

Desmond
06-08-2009, 07:21 AM
You stacked the poll with 2 strongly disagrees ;)

Rincewind
06-08-2009, 07:48 AM
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.

Rincewind
06-08-2009, 08:13 AM
I've reset the poll and fixed the answers.

Kevin, Brian and Cameron please vote again.

Everyone else, please vote. :)

Thunderspirit
06-08-2009, 04:29 PM
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.

Rincewind
06-08-2009, 04:58 PM
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???

Muzzy
13-08-2009, 05:11 PM
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" :wall: