PDA

View Full Version : Sofia rules or no draws before move 30?



Garvinator
24-03-2008, 06:46 AM
Following on from the current 'debate' in the Doeberl, thought I would start a poll on which rule this board thinks is superior for trying to stop short draws.

My opinion is that Sofia rules are superior in this aspect.

The reason for this is two-fold. Having a 30 move limit places an artificial barrier on the game. This means the rule says it is ok to agree a draw on move 31, but to do it on move 29 needs the arbiters permission.

Also, with the 30 move rule, the rule is usually written that it requires the arbiters permission. I think this is a poor way to have a rule as it places the arbiter in a very awkward position when a claim is made for a draw before move 30.

If this occurs in a tournament with a few arbiters (like Doeberl), then different interpretations can be applied and confusion can reign. One board gets the soft draw, the next board is forced to play on, from possibly similar positions.

Garvinator
24-03-2008, 06:47 AM
Damn, was creating poll and was highlighting the title to add for the poll question and clicked on it accidently, meaning the thread was started without the poll.

Can a mod please add the poll with the following answers-

No draws before move 30
Sofia rules

Garrett
24-03-2008, 07:05 AM
I vote for no poll.

Zwischenzug
24-03-2008, 10:14 AM
I think an arbiter should hand out short draws like he/she would hand out byes, only one per tournament.

Kaitlin
24-03-2008, 11:18 AM
Rule 3. (How about)... you only get a point if you win and nothing otherwise. And a draw is not half a win... (that would fix it) :D

Previously stated (my) rules:

Rule 1: Read the rules
Rule 2: Make sure you go to the tiolet 'before' your game starts.. (even if you think you dont need to)

CameronD
24-03-2008, 11:32 AM
Rule 3. (How about)... you only get a point if you win and nothing otherwise. And a draw is not half a win... (that would fix it) :D

The problem is that at that level, the natural result of games are a draw. Its the big problem in chess. The best I can think of is 1/3 of a point for draws.

I've won games against people over 800 points above me just by playing for a draw by move 1, offer a draw around 15 and then my opponent does something stupid out of desperation to create winning chances which ends up costing them the match.

Capablanca-Fan
24-03-2008, 03:11 PM
The problem is that at that level, the natural result of games are a draw. Its the big problem in chess. The best I can think of is 1/3 of a point for draws.
But that would penalize genuine draws, so it would be a bad idea.

There is no option on the poll to vote for FIDE Laws.

See also The draw problem ó a simple solution (http://www.chesschat.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=188430) by John Nunn

The main point is that it is largely a non-problem when put into perspective. The fraction of short draws is quite low, and measures to try to circumvent them could do more harm than good by altering the fundamental structure of the game. And he argues:


There is a difference between the top grandmasters and those lower down the rating list. Top GMs (say the top ten in the world) make a comfortable living from chess and will normally be paid an appearance fee (or guarantee) to play in a tournament. In this situation it is perfectly reasonable to expect them to display their skill to the best of their ability, which is after all why they are being paid an appearance fee.

The situation is different lower down. In the current austere chess climate, even quite highly-rated GMs struggle to make a living, and if a quick draw guarantees next monthís mortgage payment and thereby a roof over their familyís head, it is perhaps understandable that they should give way to temptation. Most of those who criticise quick draws have a regular salary and find it hard to appreciate how uncertain the life of a professional player can be. Chess journalists who are lucky enough to receive a regular income from their column(s) are especially prone to this.

In the case of participants in Open tournaments who have not been paid an appearance fee, I donít think there is any real reason to criticise short draws. If the players think it is in their best interests to agree one then they should just go ahead. These players are taking their chances on an equal basis to everyone else and there is no more reason to complain about two GMs agreeing a quick draw than two 1700 players at the other end of the hall.

Bill Gletsos
24-03-2008, 03:25 PM
There is no option on the poll to vote for FIDE Laws.There is now.

Garvinator
24-03-2008, 07:32 PM
There is now.
:hmm: my thread, my poll and I gave options. I deliberately chose not to include the third option, which was included without asking the thread starter. Please remove it as I do not want it included.

Bill Gletsos
24-03-2008, 08:13 PM
:hmm: my thread, my poll and I gave options. I deliberately chose not to include the third option, which was included without asking the thread starter. Please remove it as I do not want it included.Done.

Garvinator
24-03-2008, 09:29 PM
Of course if someone wants to start a second thread and poll that is their choice :)

Kevin Bonham
24-03-2008, 10:31 PM
I agree with the point Garvin is making in #1 but I am so sceptical about the merit of using such rules (other than the existing disrepute rule) to discourage grandmaster draws that I see no point in voting on the poll. Actually what has gone on with the Doeberl this time around has made me more sceptical not less.

I agree with Jono and John Nunn - for the great majority of [EDIT: GM-level] events, if a player agrees too many short draws, just don't invite them back again. Ever.

CameronD
24-03-2008, 10:41 PM
After this occurance where the players were playing near best moves by fritz at the time of repetition. I say throw the sofia rule out.

Garvinator
24-03-2008, 10:45 PM
After this occurance where the players were playing near best moves by fritz at the time of repetition. I say throw the sofia rule out.
Cam, The Sofia rules are different to what is being discussed in the Doeberl thread.


"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." From www.chessdom.com.

Capablanca-Fan
24-03-2008, 10:52 PM
I agree with the point Garvin is making in #1 but I am so sceptical about the merit of using such rules (other than the existing disrepute rule) to discourage grandmaster draws that I see no point in voting on the poll. Actually what has gone on with the Doeberl this time around has made me more sceptical not less.
Chess seems to have been disrepute by the silly rule. A player who assures himself of a championship or first prize with a short draw has not brought disrepute into the game, but is usually congratulated.


I agree with Jono and John Nunn - for the great majority of events, if a player agrees too many short draws, just don't invite them back again. Ever.
To clarify, this applied only to players to whom organizers were paying an appearance fee.

Kevin Bonham
24-03-2008, 10:56 PM
"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."

Of course, while the advantage of this is eliminating an arbitrary move-number limit, it replaces that arbitrariness with this one: the players cannot agree a draw in any but the most theoretically drawn position, but they can cook up an inane triple-rep between them on move 10 and go home instead.

Garvinator
24-03-2008, 10:58 PM
but they can cook up an inane triple-rep between them on move 10 and go home instead.
Wouldn't this then be getting closer to result collusion?

Capablanca-Fan
24-03-2008, 10:59 PM
Wouldn't this then be getting closer to result collusion?
Result collusion normally applies to pre-arranging a result before the game.

Capablanca-Fan
24-03-2008, 10:59 PM
Of course, while the advantage of this is eliminating an arbitrary move-number limit, it replaces that arbitrariness with this one: the players cannot agree a draw in any but the most theoretically drawn position, but they can cook up an inane triple-rep between them on move 10 and go home instead.
This would become most tedious.