This is the survey from chess professionals that was conducted by the ACP.
What would be your preference about Draw Offers?
1- Allowed at any stage of the game (current FIDE rules)
2- Allowed after 30 moves of the game are completed
3- allowed after 40 moves of the game are completed
4- Allowed after 50 moves of the game are completed
5- Not allowed at all
Chess Daily News from Susan Polgar
5- Not allowed (Draw only if 3 time same position repeat or not enough material and so on)
1-anytime. Draw/ties are part of the rules of chess and have been for centuries. If people don’t like the rules of the game, then do not play….or don’t play at tournaments.
If two people consent to a draw and the rules say that it is perfectly legal, then do not chop away the right of free choice. After all, both playeers’ choose to accept a draw.
There should be change in scoring: 3 points for the win, 1 point for the draw. That’s all.
In football (soccer) it solved the same problem very well.
I don’t know….
Games played with the no draw rules looked more interesting till now….
But equal is equal. “Should the rules be changed to make the audience happier?” is maybe the question that should have been asked.
It is not nice as a spectator to travel to a tournament where your favorite is playing and then in 13 moves it’s draw. That’s for sure.
But isn’t the problem money should be raised for tournaments and organizers and the audience should be happy.
And trowing all that on just draw or no draw. I don’t know….
Best,
Rob Vlaardingerbroek
This is rediculous. The rules allow draws. These options keep the problem and only mask the problem. It is now time to change the rules of chess to end all draws. Declare a winner.
1. if you stalemate the opponent you win as in so many other games.
2. On 3 fold the one who plays the 3rd repeat loses.
3. On 50 move rule, the last one to make a pawn move or capture wins.
4. If K + K then last to take a piece wins.
Look how easy it is to have a winner every game. This is a true solution.
By the way most of these rules were used a long time ago even in the original game preceeding chess. Also used in chinese chess.
The rules allowing draws are STUPID.
If you keep allowing draws then you keep the stupid problem.
There is nothing wrong with changing the rules. It has been done many times before. Of course big changes were made around 1400’s when the Queen power was introduced and other changes made. That was a time that made chess so much better. Now we have to fix some remaining problems with the draw. lets fix the problem the only way possible. no more draws. change the rules. it is easy and makes more sense.
draws simply introduce dishonesty into the game. draws make a mockery of chess as a sporting contest. Either admit that dishonesty is acceptable in chess or end the dishonesty with draws.
I think that the organizer should have a say in what the draw rules are in invitational tournaments. He’s charging admission and would like to keep any visitors to the website on as long as possible. Without this, what would be the incentive to sponsor such a tournament?
Otherwise, I don’t believe there is anything wrong with draws at anytime during the match whether norms are involved or not.
I agree with poster Mekk.
The 3-1-0 point scoring system would offer a solution without changing the game of chess itself. This would reflect the expectation that “we value victory more than twice we value a draw”. The game itself wouldn’t have to change (all the same draw rules could be kept). That would work fine on a tournament.
Of course it wouldn’t work in two players fighting each other for let’s say the world championship (or any elimination type setup). In there, again the goal would be to figure out a method, where the game itself wouldn’t have to change, thus the scoring would have to.
Such as, create a setup, where let’s say the players play 12 games (for example, can be any number of games), and if it is a draw, from that point on, one of the players would have to achieve a 2 points (victory) style advantage, like in tennis.
You are not actually changing the *rules* of chess so much as changing the *tournament rules* that pertain to the draw offer. I see no problem with that at all. The Socialist above who chortled on about ‘stalemate the opponent you win…’ would be a rule change, and that is not what we seek here, and so that is far too radical and is very unecessary, as are ALL his suggestions regarding those ridiculous changes. Changing the scoring system of Chess can be analyzed retroactively and, for the most part, would not change the results of many tournaments. You can do that yourself by flipping through any informant tournament results and compiling the numbers yourself. You’ll find that it rarely makes a meaningful difference in the standings.
The primary motivator of this thread is the removal of the so-called GM draw – that 10-move miniature gem that is the scourge of all professional chess. To find a reasonable way to remove this agreed-upon non-game can only benefit chess in the long run. It has nothing to do with ‘free-choice’. It has nothing to do with “both players choose to accept a draw”. It has everything to do with the will to fight and *play* the game before you as sponsors expect.
If two players ‘consent’ to a draw then they should be double-forfeited immediately. That will put an end to it. FIDE has the power to do that, especially before the first time limit – the *natural* and *regulation* portion of the game, and all games should at least go that far.
I vote for no draw offers until after first time control.
I believe the current situation is best. Draws should always be allowed at any stage in the game for the world championship match/tournament or any games leading to the championship. Draws allowed at any stage should be the standard way. Then, individual tournament organizers would be allowed enough flexibility to introduce their own rules such as the M-Tel Masters.
If FIDE introduces a no-draw rule, that would only lead to development of draw theory. Players who would prefer a draw would play along the lines of some known game drawn by repetion. Such theory is not yet developed, but imposing a no-draw rule would certainly help in its development.
57f6
Why a ‘no draw solution’ !?!?
Draw is one of the 3 possible results of the game. You cannot change that!
The only logical ‘solution’ is to change the point count! More points for a win for example.
Something like this:
Win: 2
Draw: 1
Lose: 0
this is brilliant.
1) change the rules and drive away players who disagree with the change and are opposed to the altering of a centuries old game
2) keep the rules and drive away nonpaying beginner spectators who whine because they don’t know what they’re talking about.
tough choice. this is not baseball. the audience is owed NOTHING.
A lot of commentators seem to judge the quality of a game of chess primarily on whether it was decided or not. This is a very narrow-minded view of our game, and I’m wondering whether “the problem of draws in chess” isn’t much easier resolved by these people switching to another game, like baseball, wrestling, jackstraws, etc. Chess nowadays, as for draws, is about the same as it ever was. So if it now sells worse than at better times that surely isn’t a problem of draws. Much more likely it’s the lack of professionalism of those who represent chess (FIDE definitely, USCF they say).
How about doing it as in many other sports? There they have a certain time for the game, and after that, if it is drawn then i tis drawn.
So my opinion: NO draw offers before the 1st time control. I guess that’s mostly after 40 moves.
NO agreed draws sounds good.
Many players are known for playing on in drawish or drawn positions, hoping to force a mistake. Sometimes they win, other times it backfires or the ‘natural’ result (draw) occurs anyway.
In any case why shouldn’t all players play like this?
So long as a tournament provides rest days players should have to show some endurance. Many top players have fitness trainers as well as chess trainers, so they are at top form for games. Since push ups and jogging are free, I don’t see why all players shouldn’t have to have at least some physical fitness to enable them to play for longer.
It may also help chess get better recognition as a sport!
Draw offers should not be allowed unless the position is given in the tablebases as a drawn position. If tablebases are not available at the tournament, draw offers should not be allowed at all. Once a draw offer is made, the other player should be able to accept it at any time prior to being checkmated.
The reason that we have tournaments is to determine who is the best player by staging games and the outcome is determined by playing the games. Tournaments are not conferences where the players hold meetings and agree on who are equals and who, perhaps, are not.
Eliminating the rule that allows players to agree to a draw would greatly benefit the development of professional chess. And I agree with the previous poster that other rules can also be adjusted to create more winning scenarios.
Chess theory would still be the same, although the evaluation of certain kinds of positions would change – for example p supported by K vs. lone king would always win.
But the top players would still be the top players, and when they sat down to play a tournament game, we would be assured of a real contest.
Eliminating the rule that allows players to agree to a draw would greatly benefit the development of professional chess.
Chess is a fringe sport and always will be. Some say it’s not even a sport. Most people don’t understand the game and don’t care. So much for the development of professional chess. No need to change the rules for that.
“4. If K + K then last to take a piece wins.”
An old rule is some countries was that the last one with a piece would win. The “bare king” rule; if you don’t have anything left but the King, you lose. It’s not the rule I’m used to, but it makes logical sense.
Stalemate was a win until the last couple hundred years. That’s what the “mate” part is there for 😉
Perhaps a revival of AD1800 U.K. rules would really benefit professional chess.
The big time money sports that we take for granted today haven’t always been so lucrative. The is no reason that professional chess can’t grow and become a viable profession for more players.
Pro-football started out in the early 1800’s as amateur thuggery in small towns, where the teams would hire full time ringers for a key game to help them beat their key rivals. College football was so violent that players were getting maimed .. a group of eastern shools got together to civilize the rules, thus forming what we know today as the Ivy League.
Pro tennis and golf were the domain of rich country clubbers. Baseball was probably the first to truly grow as a profession, but it was no where near as lucrative in its early days as it is today.
Yesterday’s fringe sport, like Texas Hold’em, can become tomorrow’s mega-sport, with the right packaging and promotion.
(Corrected for typo’s)
The big time money sports that we take for granted today haven’t always been so lucrative. The is no reason that professional chess can’t grow and become a viable profession for more players.
Pro-football started out in the early 1900’s as amateur thuggery in small towns, where the teams would hire full time ringers for a key game to help them beat their rivals. College football was so violent that players were getting maimed .. a group of north eastern US schools got together to civilize the rules, thus forming what we know today as the Ivy League. It wasn’t until rich investors moved the pro teams to bigger cities that the sport took off.
Pro tennis and golf were the domain of rich country clubbers. Baseball was probably the first to truly grow as a profession, but it was no where near as lucrative in its early days as it is today.
Yesterday’s fringe sport, like Texas Hold’em, can become tomorrow’s mega-sport, with the right packaging and promotion.
I would give each player a rating score and a tournament score. The rating score would remain win = 1 , loss = 0 and draw = ½. Tournament scoring would be win = 1, loss = 0, draw = 0. Tournament ranking/prizes awarded based on the tournament score.
In match play, there are only two players and draws have no real meaning. The winner of the match is determined by who wins the most games. Why should tournaments be different?
The object of the game is to mate your opponent’s king. If the object were to not be mated by your opponent then I could understand awarding points for a draw or a win. I realize that a draw is possible result in chess, however, a loss is also a possible outcome and it is not rewarded. Neither a loss or a draw achieves the object of the game.
I would bet that the heart of the rating system is based on wins/loses. Draws may or may not be a part of the equation, but the meat is probably wins/loses. It makes the most sense to look only at decisive results as a basis for such a system.
Why do you need that half point? Why does it frighten you to take it away?
1- Allowed at any stage of the game (current FIDE rules)
Don’t mess with the rules just because you don’t like them, spoiled kids.
Don’t mess with the rules just because you don’t like them, spoiled kids.
The issue is not whether we like them or not, the issue is the future popularity of chess itself. Forget not, that this generation is growing up with far more types of potential intellectual entertainment/activity than people had for thousands of years.Chess used to be an almost essential part of growing up in a cultured environment. Why? Because it was chess, a few card games, a few word games and that was it. Out of those chess was obviously the intellectual top. With the advancement of computer games, that is no longer the case, today’s youth can grow up without ever encountering chess, or even the need for chess as the top intellectual activity.
Therefore, in order to chess retain popularity, YES, something must be done. And that “something” must include to inject some more “excitement” for potential viewers/watchers. People (as audience) don’t like draws in any sports or games. That is usually a letdown, a disappointment. People want to see victory. If chess ever makes it to television, it won’t last, unless people will see chess players WIN most of the time.
Look at it this way: the popularity of chess is at stake.
Gabor
Without draws, the game should be more sharp to play and more exciting to watch.
Yes to the above idea!
Win 2, draw 1, lose 0 will solve ALL the problems!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Any “draw” rule should be at the discretion of the organizers. Please do not make a particular rule mndatory for everybody.
“Yes to the above idea!
Win 2, draw 1, lose 0 will solve ALL the problems!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”
NO, that would change NOTHING at all. Think about it once more.
It’s an interesting topic and I have to give my 5 pence, too:
* Draw offerings not allowed doesn’t make sense at all – there are clear draw positions like positions with bishops of different colours and no one wants to play on, so why should they have to?
Many rook- and pawn-endgames are totally drawn although there are many pawns on the board – it MUST be allowed to draw them….
* Draw offerings after some time or after a said number of moves doesn’t make sense, too.
A position can be really boring after 10 moves and it can still be interesting after 70 moves.
* So from your supposals draw offeringss allowed is a MUSTBE in my eyes.
I have two other proposals, I’m gonna recall them later.
So if we allow draw offerings at all time what could we do to make chess more interesting to watch and to stop that “draw terror”?
* 3-1-0 would be a good solution for tournaments.
I see no disadvantages to that proposal.
Someone said above that that wouldn’t help in 1on1-matches, so they should be played like they were played earlier:
Do not limit the number of games but say the first with 6 winning games is the match winner.
Disadvantage to the match thing: that can last very long, see match 1984 (1985?) Karpow vs Kasparow.
I have no other proposals and I really like the 3-1-0 idea – so that seems to be best to me.
But now to my two other proposals, for discussion I give them numbers 6 and 7:
6) Draw offerings must be given to the referee with a reason. The referee has two possibilities:
(i) If it’s a good reason (for example an endgame with bishops of opposing colours) he gives the draw offering to the opponent.
(ii) If an early(!) draw offering comes in a situation where everything on the board is still unclear he can refuse the offering and let play on.
Disadvantage: there must be a referee who is not playing (which isn’t for sure in lower class team matches in Germany for example).
7) Allow “normal” draws but not games like “1. e4 (=) draw” (I even once saw a game drawn BEFORE the first move) or “1. Sf3 Sc6 2. Sg1 Sb8 3. Sf3” and so on (or repeating really silly and bad moves in a alter game phase) [if the players really decide to draw before there match they should at least replay a game like this (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsterbliche_Remispartie) 😉 ].
At each tournament the players have to pay a “Reuegeld” next to the entry fee’ (is that the correct word!?); players who have “only one move”-draws or other unacceptable draws like the examples given above do get the half point but lose their Reuegeld.
The decision if a draw is okay should be clear at most times – in some cases the referee has to decide.
Main idea behind the seventh proposal is the fact that we can NEVER do anything against two players who really want to draw there game.
If white mustn’t offer draw he asks his opponent to repeat moves.
Not one of the 5 given proposals does anything against that – only the (imho really bad) one from the second anonym one tries to do… but in my eyes “2. On 3 fold the one who plays the 3rd repeat loses.” is totally sense less.
Ah sorry for the many mistakes I did with my english I hope it is readable although.
Good night (here it is 2.30 in the morning),
Jochen
Two other proposals come to my mind but they don’t seem to be practical solutions so I don’t give numbers to them:
* If a game is drawn play another one until it is decided.
Disadvantage clear. So that rule could never be used in a tournament.
* Change to “Go”.
A really interesting game. But I am really worse than in chess I think (yeah that’s possible!). 🙂
Last proposal is just a joke of course. Excuse me for that. 😉
(Again) Good night,
Jochen