There have been endless debates about short draws and what to do about it. Countless suggestions have been made on various websites, blogs and discussion groups. Now what? What is the best and simplest solution?
The one I like the most is to abolish the draw offer between players. Draw can only be achieved by repetition, perpetual checks, insufficient mating material or stalemate. In the case of an obvious theoretical draw on the board (where a 1600 can easily draw a grandmaster), draw can made through the arbiter. Otherwise, play on.
(As an organizer, I give preference to the players with high fighting spirit when it comes to invitation.)
What do you think?
Chess Daily News from Susan Polgar
Perpetual check does not exist as a rule in chess, either FIDE or USCF.
People mistake perpetual check for repetition of position but perpetual check is one of many ways repetition of position can be achieved.
Here’s a 9-move draw from Chessgames.com: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1316767
There are plenty more under 20 moves.
Whoops, I linked to the wrong game – that was an 11-move draw. Here is the 9-move draw I intended to give: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1110043
Seems fine to me, although a prefer a suggestion you made a while back: let the market decide. PLayers who make too many short draws simply don’t get invited to the big tournaments.
Two more 9-move draws from ChessGames.com:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1110107
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1110109
Levittown, NY
Somebody once proposed that when a player offers a draw it should last for the rest of the game. This allows the opponent to sharpen the position while keeping a draw in hand. Only a player who is certain that the position is a ‘dead draw’ would make such an offer. Admittedly, it doesn’t deal with problems of collusion but at least makes collusion a little harder. After all, who gets stuck having to offer the draw?
How about this – from a NY chessplayer as shown on chessbase
I will raise you one bid…eliminate the draw completely. If one player does not win over the board, the game does not count and has to be replayed in a playoff of a five minute game, just like extra innings in a baseball game or overtime in a basketball or football game. If you like draws then stay home and kiss your sister or brother.
I vote for the following scoring system:
Win: 1
Draw: 0
Loss: 0
Ratings adjustments will not be made on individual game results but instead be made on tournament results.
This system seems ludicrous to most chess veterans. They respond with “How can you get zero points for a hard fought 80 move draw”. Simple, that’s how it is in all other sports. In MLB, NBA, and NFL the loser of brutally fought overtime games get nothing.
My scoring system would completely eliminate the “fear of loss” disease that dominates the high levels of chess.
Susan – I do not understand why organizers get upset when players make short, agreed draws in tournaments that do not specifically prohibit such draws.
The standard rules of chess allow either player, on any of their moves, to offer a draw.
If as an organizer, you feel such a possibility would detract from the competitive drama of your event, then just prohibit draws, perhaps using the rules that you listed in your post, or the Sofia rules, etc
Yet the organizer of the recent Mexico world championship got mad at Grischuk & Kramnik after they agreed to a draw in 13 moves. I agree that it did not reflect well on chess, but why didn’t they prohibit such draws as part of the tournament rules?
What am I missing?
I don’t like rule change. If they draw, stop inviting them to tournaments.
Personally, I think the fuss over short draws is overblown. There are similar situations in other sports, yet their governing bodies haven’t taken much notice.
For example, look at the last few weeks of the NFL regular season. There are many teams who have a playoff spot locked, and choose to rest their star players and protect them from injury. As a result, the games they play in tend to be lackluster. Not the greatest situation, but somehow the NFL carries on.
Do short draws turn away chess fans? Not likely. If you are a chess fan, you will complain about short draws, but are you going to give up the game?
Do short draws discourage new chess fans? Not likely. If you are new to the game of chess, you might not really know what we mean by a “short draw”.
Do short draws discourage sponsors? Maybe some, but the bottom line for most sponsors is how much advertising they get for the amount they fork over (how many people saw their corporate logo when they watched the event). And if you think short draws are the problem, think again. The problem is that, at least in North America, chess is nearly invisible. Lack of marketing is the problem.
So instead of getting all worked up about a really small problem, why not put that energy into selling the game to your friends, family, coworkers, or anyone else who might be near? Chess would be much better off in the end.
Eliminating the draw offer will do nothing. Two players wishing to draw will simply repeat the position. Big whoop.
There are plenty of exciting games for chess fans to study. As a player, I will not play in an event that does not allow the current acceptance of draw offers at any time.
The ‘game’ is to maximize your performance over the whole tournament, a well-placed draw can contribute to that.
If organizers don’t want players like me (paying entry fees) then I’ll just stay at home, play on ICC, and look through the millions of games on Chessbase.
The high draw rate problem in traditional chess has never been fixed because it cannot be fixed.
Chess has many great attributes, but its draw problem is a severe flaw that is UNFIXABLE. Continuing to try fixing it is folly.
FRC-chess960 reduces the draw problem, but only modestly. FRC is no fix.
Instead, we should make an academic study of other implementations of Abstract Chess that avoid the draw problem. Thousands of other implementations are possible. What we currently call “chess” is only one of them.
We could LEARN from studying alternative implementations that truly avoid the draw problem (no mere wishful thinking allowed). The best alternatives will be those that still feel a lot like today’s chess, even though all will feel at least a little different from today’s chess.
It is too early to know what benefits might be gained from such learning. But tradition should not be allowed to tyrannize ACADEMIC PROGRESS.
Instead of calling for ways to fix chess, [b]call for alternative implementations of Abstract Chess[/b] — that (a) avoid the draw problem, and (b) are as much like today’s chess as possible.
GeneM
FRC-chess960 , CastleLong.com
How about we teach our kids and students to play for a win not a draw. That would be the simpliest solution. Also, it would not change the rules of Chess as we know them.
Happy New Year!
As an organiser, I give preference to players who can commit to arriving on time for the event and to not leaving before the event is over.
I think the micro-management you suggest is over-interference. The player who says that the well placed short draw is part of their strategy makes the key point. Energy and initiatives need to be managed.
As an analogy, why do you always play White in a simul. Why not take Black all the time to maximise variety?
Maybe I am being overly squeamish, but I thought the alarming photo of the fish’s mouth was unnecessary.
Maybe you asked Google for ‘unattractive photos’?
I would modify the scoring system as follows:
Win: 3
Draw: 1
Loss: 0
That system has been adopted very successully in the European soccer leagues.
Short draws might not be spectacular, and may be hard to justify to sponsors, but short draws are part of chess. I consider restricting draws as sacrificing a part of the beauty of chess to economics.
That short draws make chess more beautiful may not be intuitive. However, chess always fascinated me as a game where plain logic beats anything else. During a game, a beautiful move might lead to a loss because of some small inaccuracy, while a slow plan might lead to a win. Having a judge declare the loser a winner because of the beauty of the idea is just wrong. Similarly, if during a tournament both players would stand to gain from a quiet draw, they should be allowed to have their quiet draw. It is only logical. Should one of the players be motivated to play for a win, that player might play on. However, satisfying the audience or sponsors should not be the primary motivation.
On the other hand, any organiser is free to choose the players to invite. If a particlular player is known to please the audience and thus the sponsors, it is only logical for an organiser to prefer inviting that particular player. If playing for a win obtains a player more invitations, players might play for a win just to obtain more invitations.
If an organiser wants to organise a tournament where the draw offer is not allowed, any player may refuse to participate. However, the more serious events, especially those leading to the World Championship, should allow all draw offers.
in the recent chess world cup 2007, a knockout competition, there seemed to hardly any tame draws … was this simply a result of it being a knockout competition? … the other form of competition that i found most exciting was the match between kramnich and topalov for the world champioship 2006 … that also was devoid of tame draws … so the knockout and match play format seem fine as they are, it seems to be the swiss format that leads to short draws … for the swiss format, i would be interested in witnessing the effect of the proposal above that “when a player offers a draw it should last for the rest of the game” … a player is going to be very reluctant to offer a draw if he knows his opponent can try a few adventurous moves and then accept the draw if he gets gets into trouble … here the draw offer would actually make the game more exciting!
“Perpetual check does not exist as a rule in chess, either FIDE or USCF.”
Oh yeah? Perpetual check exists as much as you and I do!! Wy would so many grandmasters. incuding Polgar quote it? Who anonymous are you to teach us?
“In MLB, NBA, and NFL the loser of brutally fought overtime games get nothing.”
That’s another misleading piece of …. They get MONEY for overtime, and loads of it.
I believe draws are part of the game, and we should just leave the game the way it is and let the players decide.
Dear Susan Polgar, Happy New Year! Draw? OK, then we play…
What is your view on the advantages and disadvantages of Internet training compared to 1-1 over-board training?
Hope you will browse your way to this question and consider replying!
Thank you!
Show me the USCF or FIDE rule that says a perpetual check is a draw?
The USCF rule states tripe repetition of position and the TD tip states that perpetual check is a type of repetition of position.
FIDE doesn’t even bother giving this example because hopefully if you play in FIDE tournaments you know that perpetual check is only a type of repetition of position.
Making a claim of draw by perpetual check is incorrect. The correct draw claim is triple repetition of position and showing on your scoresheet the triple occurrence.
Prior to running your mouth go read the USCF and FIDE rulebooks.
“For example, look at the last few weeks of the NFL regular season. There are many teams who have a playoff spot locked, and choose to rest their star players and protect them from injury. As a result, the games they play in tend to be lackluster. Not the greatest situation, but somehow the NFL carries on.”
This would only be analogous to a player who has locked up first place going into the final round or two and does not fear losing the game. But unfortunately, top-level players are so anal about rating points they revert to the quick draw offer to maintain status quo. Somehow Chess carries on.
1) Restrict draw offers until after the 40th move.
2) Make the draw offer infinite – i.e., once it is offered, it is perpetually on the table to be accepted at any time.
This prevents scoring changes and results in fighting chess.
Personally, I do not think the rules of chess should be changed regarding draws…yet. There are many examples of short draws at the GM level. However, there are many other examples of hard fought, long games that still end in an agreed draw.
A draw should be counted as 1/2 point. I can’t agree with the other post stating that a draw should count for nothing.
There is going to be a high number of draws between players rated 2700 and above. They are just too good and, as a result, many games will be drawn.
This isn’t just changing the rules of a tournament. If you rid competitive chess of the “draw by agreement” rule, then you would be changing the rules of the game. I don’t think, at this point in time anyway, that it should be done.
There are many reasons certain players might ask for a short draw. If a player has a reputation for short draws, then whomever they are playing still must agree to it. So, if two professionals want to tie a game, then so be it.
In major tournaments a winner will be declared via rapid playoff games.
So, I just think it’s the “draw problem” is more of an invention of the chess media than most (I repeat most) of the GM level players.
Just my thoughts….I appreciate all the others, too.
Perpetual check will eventually lead to a draw by the 50-move rule…even if the exact position doesn’t recur three times for a draw by triple repitition.
Since the legitimate result of a game that is well-played on both sides is a draw, it is absurd to tackle this problem simply by penalizing (i.e. giving less than 1/2 a point to a draw.) The problem is only the short draw where neither side has made any attempt to win. The best way to tackle that problem (apart from organizers not inviting players who are too prone to such draws) is to use the short draws as a tie-break mechanism: if two players end up with the same score in a tournament, the tie is broken in favour of the player with fewer short draws.
There is no *short* draw problem, because it is trivial to fix. Require a minimum number of move-pairs. Done.
Note though that when the Sofia rule was tested in Sofia 2005, the draw rate was a whopping 60%.
The short draw problem is an ARTIFACT of the real draw problem in long time-control chess. Both players know there is a 60% chance (or higher) that the short draw game would still end in a draw even if played out.
GeneM
The hard-fought versus unfought draw distinction is relevant only to the tiny few percentage of chess enthusiasts who replay draw games.
The vast majority are never aware of the difference, so the importance of making all those draws harder-fought is a mirage (or exaggerated).
Suppose I have two nice sweaters that are almost identical. One was made by hand with loving care, the other by a machine. Since I never examine the threads under a microscope to see the differences, I do know which is which, and I cannot appreciate one over the other. If the hand made sweater costs more to make, the manufacturer is wasting money.
GeneM
5:55 wrote: {“when a player offers a draw it should last for the rest of the game … here the draw offer would actually make the game more exciting!”}
You say “more exciting”, interesting point. However…,
We cannot expect grandmasters to frequently play our every balanced drawish position to an exhausting 66 move-pairs just in case one player might blunder.
The often suggested rule of making a stalemate a win has been rejected for a similar reason.
Better to increase the life span of a draw offer by a full move-pair.
GeneM
9:25 wrote: {I think the ‘draw problem’ is more of an invention of the chess media}
The 1975 Fischer-Karpov title match negotiations failed over a problem directly derived from the high draw rate problem. Is it the media’s fault that negoations failed?
The 1984 Karpov-Kasparov title match suffered 17 consecutive draws, and after five months the match had to be canceled as “No Result” due to the high draw rate problem. The media’s fault?
We all suffered through a boring 87% (13/15) draw rate while trying to enjoy the 2000 Kasparov-Kramnik title match. How is the high draw rate problem an “invention”?
As of January 2008, the latest three world title matches, plus the latest two FIDE title tournaments, combined had a draw rate of 63% (95/152). In tennis the tie rate is under 1%. Is this disparity caused by media bias?
GeneM
4:10 wrote: {Win: 3 , Draw: 1 , Loss: 0.
That system has been adopted very successully in the European soccer leagues.}
Or just make the goal a little bigger.
This 3-1-0 system rewards a team that won 1-0, and punishes a team that tied 3-3. Yet more offense is the purpose. There is an illogical foundation to this scoring distortion.
Besides, our basic sense of fairness knows that two draws should be equal to one win.
The goal of this 3-1-0 scoring system must be to bribe players into making different moves than they currently judge as best: how vague this scoring theory really is!
Here is a drawn game: specifically what different move(s) do the 3-1-0 proponents say it would hopefully have motivated in this game??
[Event “Corus , Wijk aan Zee”]
[Date “2000.01.16”]
[White “Short, Nigel D”]
[Black “Leko, Peter”]
[Result “1/2-1/2”]
1. e4 c5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. g3 g6 4. Bg2 Bg7 5. d3 d6 6. Nge2 e6 7. Be3 Nd4 8. O-O
Ne7 9. Qd2 O-O 10. Rae1 Rb8 11. Nd1 b6 12. Nc1 d5 13. c3 Ndc6 14. Bh6 dxe4 15.
Bxg7 Kxg7 16. Bxe4 Bb7 17. Ne3 Qc7 18. f4 Rbd8 19. Qf2 Nf5 20. Nxf5+ exf5 21.
Bf3 Ne7 22. Qe2 Rd7 23. Qe5+ Qxe5 24. Rxe5 f6 25. Re3 Bxf3 26. Rfxf3 Kf7 27. a3
Rfd8 28. Kf1 Nd5 29. Re2 Nc7 30. Ke1 c4 31. Kd2 Ne6 32. Kc2 b5 33. b4 a5 34.
dxc4 bxc4 35. Rff2 axb4 36. axb4 Nc7 37. Rd2 Nb5 38. Rxd7+ Rxd7 39. Rd2 Rxd2+
40. Kxd2 Ke6 41. Ne2 1/2-1/2
GeneM
It’s relevant to add that chess is also unique in having voluntary admission of defeat, before “the clock hits 0.00” or “the last out is made”. In other sports, resignation is called “tanking” and considered unethical even in knockout formats.
An example in NFL football is about to blow: Tennessee Titans QB Kerry Collins just told WFAN radio that his team knew in last Sunday’s win over the Indianapolis Colts that Indy would not use their final timeout to make them punt or run some other 4th-down play with 0:20 seconds left. Hence they chose a kneeldown play on 3rd down with a 16-10 lead and 25 sec. left. I was watching the game and the TV announcers expressed surprise that Indy did not use the timeout, although even if they got the ball back on (say) their 20 yard line with 15 sec. left, going 80 yards with no timeouts left would be the longest of shots. Exacerbating this is that Indy did not care about the result and rested their best players to give game experience to their backups midway thru the first half, while Tennessee’s “upset” win gave them the final AFC playoff berth instead of Cleveland.
The closest comparison is that resignation in chess is like conceding a short putt in matchplay golf. I have no criticism of it, except maybe in cases typified by Steinitz-Bardeleben where making an opponent play out some of a winning combo would explain things better for the spectators—but my point is to appreciate the special nature of chess.
As for draws in round-robin play, my 2-cents is that if a game ends with 1:00 or more left in the session (e.g., before move 60), then the players switch colors and play a 30-30 game that counts for tiebreaks only, a primary level of tiebreaks on which prize money also depends. Has this been suggested?
GeneM
What latest two FIDE title tournaments?
Mexico 2007 (34/56 = 61% draws)
SanLuis 2005 (32/56 = 57%)
Kasparov-Kramnik 2000 (13/15 = 87%)
Kramnik-Leko 2004 (10/14 = 71%)
Kramnik-Topalov 2006 (6/11 = 55%)
95/152 = 63%
You are all dreamers.
The game of chess has been played so long that it’s solved.
Yes. A good played game from both white and black will always ends with a draw.
Chess960 will not change that. Even here will a good played game from both white and black ends with a draw. Kill your illusions.
That Black can force a draw is no excuse for a high draw rate among a whole match or tournament.
I’m surprised that no one pointed this out earlier. But there are no commercially successful sports that allow short, agreed draws, as we do in chess!
The earlier posted entry that used the NFL as an example is inaccurate. Sure, an NFL team that has wrapped up a playoff spot before their last regular season game would smartly rest their star players. The game means nothing, so why risk an injury.
But by doing so, they risk losing the game! There is no option to play for a few minutes, then agree to a draw, and get 1/2 a point. That is exactly what just happened to the Dallas Cowboys. They rested key players against the Redskins, gave a lackluster effort, and got totally crushed. I’m sure they would have loved to call it a day at the end of the first quarter by offering a draw.
In tennis, if you get injured during the match, you can not offer a draw! You must either continue or resign .. and yes, that is the formal word in tennis.
And to those who say that this is just the nature of chess, realize that there is nothing natural about chess. It is totally a man-made creation. And if back in the 15th century we could change the rules to dramatically expand the range of the queen & bishop, we can certainly refine the rules to eliminate short, agreed draws.
This comment has been removed by the author.
No draws except arbitrator still allows for GM’s to build a draw position. I like this idea that I put up for discussion here.
The GM’s would have to have an immediate rematch if a draw is reached making the whole concept of draws very unattractive for any player and it gives an element of “overtime” compeition to the sport which always makes things a bit more interesting in any competitive field.
Granted it would take more time at a tournament, but it would do so in an exciting manner as when the rest of the field is done there would still be a handful of GM’s fighting hard for that important point.
After reading 3 and a half dozen
posts about draws:
1) The 3 for a win, 1 for a draw,
zero for a loss point system
might be an incentive for most
people to play on.
2) I hope we all hate short draws
and work hard to abolish them,
but hard-fought draws are still
a thing of beauty.
Susan wrote:
{
(As an organizer, I give preference to the players with high fighting spirit when it comes to invitation.)
}
Hmm, imagine if every organizer adopted this philosophy. Weaker players with fighting spirit would populate tournaments instead of stronger players with a more pragmatic attitude or less fighting spirit.
Darwinian selection would accumulate over time. Weaker chess would result.
We should not blame the players. Blame the current rules.
Mig’s draw post
GeneM
http://www.chesscafe.com/ text/ dvoretsky88.pdf
Famed / respected chess author Mark Dvoretsky feels chess is dying. He says something like FRC-chess960 is needed; tho he prefers using dice to determine the first two or four plies of the game (from the one traditional setup).
Dvoretsky feels reuse of just one initial setup position has enabled home opening preparation to increase the problem/rate of short draws.
GeneM
I agree with Dvoretsky on a timescale of 30-40 years, i.e. by about 2040 the need for a rules change will be undeniable. The ability to analyze lines like the Alterman Gambit in the Dragon with 9.O-O-O completely out will force it. Rather than FischerRandom or his idea of having two random reasonable one-step Pawn moves, however, I favor “baseline chess” with the Fischer castling rule. Here White and Black alternate placing pieces on the back row, subject to Bishops on opposite colors, Kings between the Rooks, and maybe mandating at least one Rook in a corner.
Ad comment #40 replying to my #35: The point of my NFL example was not “resting players” but rather evidence of communication and an agreement between the coaches while the clock was still ticking. The Rotoworld.com item I linked called it “collusion”, and Google Collins Titans Colts collusion turns up many more items, including this MSNBC.com story as top hit. I don’t know if the story has “blown” yet, however. Also, I took it as understood in the item and previous comments that chess is unique in having agreed draws; my point was to appreciate that chess is also unique compared to other sports in having resignation.