From The Times
March 15, 2008
The Chess Dilemma
Radical chess moves planned for Romania
Sir, The problems concerning the high percentage of chess games that conclude in draws has been exercising the minds of administrators of recent years.
John Fryer (letter, March 12) suggests the games be scored as 3 for a win, 1 for a draw and 0 for a loss, rather than the traditional 2, 1, 0. This has been allowed in the laws since 1997. Very few organisers have experimented with this scoring system, probably because there is a greater chance of cheating by collusion between two players in the last round, one throwing the game to the other. This would not have been a problem with the Morelia/Linares Tournament as the prestige of doing well would have outweighed pecuniary gain.
One problem is the perception that a drawn chess game is somehow inferior to one with a positive result. Perhaps Ray Keene helped to compound this belief by including in his column all the decisive games in that event and very few of the draws.
I am working on a more radical system still. It is likely to be tried out in Romania later this year.
Stewart Reuben
Chairman, Fide (World Chess Federation) organiser’s committee
Twickenham
Stewart Reuben is right. There is too much possibility of collusion in a 3,1,0 scoring system.
The way forward is to ban draw offers, make stalemate a win for the stalemating side, and disallow 3-move repetition.
Adopting these would dramatically reduce the percentage of games ending in draws.
Getting rid of the stalemate rule would slightly increase the chances of playing for a win even in such dreadful openings as the Petroff and Exchange French.
It would also eliminate a lot of tedious technical memory work in the endings (which everybody hates, and which the computers have all worked out anyway) and allow that time to be devoted to more creative aspects of chess.
Some thinking outside the square is needed.
There is nothing wrong with a draw if it goes beyond 40 moves or time control, only short draws are a problem. There is a big debate on this topic on chessbase. So, considering all the suggestions made there, I suggest :
1. Long draws are tiring, so games should be played on alternative days only, not every day. At least a minimum rest period must be guaranteed.
2. An offered draw should be valid for next 5 (max.10) moves; the opponent can decide to accept the draw immediately or before the end of next 5 moves. After which another draw may be offered.
3. Draw can be only offered after time control (40 moves in classical chess) has been passed.
4. The venue of the games should not be shifted, like Morealis-Linares. This is to avoid any sort of adjustment problems for the players.,
Of course there is something wrong with an agreed draw after 40 moves if there is still good play in the position. How can you say such a thing?
Who needs all this ‘valid for the next 5 moves’ palava? Why not just ban the offers altogether? What’s wrong with that? Works perfectly well at M-Tel.
Also, offering draws can be an unethical distraction tactic. I once had an opponent who, in a clearly inferior position, kept offering a draw every move.
I agree that proper rest periods should be guaranteed, and that venues should not be shifted.
However, getting rid of stalemate would eliminate a lot of the long technical draws (from positions which should be wins for the superior side). If you have played well enough to be a pawn up without compensation in an ending, you should deserve, in most cases, to win it.
At ChessBase.com on 2008-03-14, an essay by Kung-Ming Tiong was published about the problem of unfought draws, known as “grandmaster draws”. Grandmaster draws occur most frequently in the last round of a tournament, when players can calculate that a draw will earn them a cash prize.
Tiong proposes the well-known Sofia and Bilbao off-the-board rules as the solution. The link:
ChessBase.com essay urging Sofia and Bilbao
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4513
I see at least three major problems with Tiong’s essay:
[1] Tiong is wrong in claiming that the overall 60% draw rate in elite chess is no problem at all.
[2] Tiong fails to comprehend that gm draws are mostly an artifact of the high overall draw rate. Better to cure the underlying disease, instead of just bandaging one ugly symptom.
[3] Point-fiddling systems like Bilbao violate our common sense of justice. And the detailed justification they need has not yet been attempted by any of its proponents.
PROBLEM 1 speaks for itself. But because it is so easy to show, here is evidence that I am not the only person who disagrees with Tiong:
Stewart Reuben, Chairman of FIDE’s organizer’s committee:
{“The problems concerning the high percentage of chess games that conclude in draws has been exercising the minds of administrators of recent years. … [There is a] perception that a drawn chess game is somehow inferior to one with a positive result.”}
Reuben speaks of “draws” in general, not just of gm draws.
In the case of chess draws, perception is the only reality.
PROBLEM 2 has serious support from the fact that two chess-like games, shogi and Gothic Chess, are both free of any sizeable draw problems.
Why does chess have a gm draw problem when shogi (aka. Japanese chess) does not? Because the rules of shogi are engineered to make regular draws unlikely.
The same goes for Gothic Chess. G.C. games usually finish before the endgame is reached, which makes draws unlikely. Any gm draw problem in Gothic Chess could be eliminated by a simple rule requiring a minimum number of move-pairs before any draw offers; even tho that rule is ineffective in traditional chess.
PROBLEM 3 still waits for an answer as to why a player who achieves two draws has played less well than another who has one win and one loss. This is unjust. Perhaps the goal of Bilbao is to reward entertaining chess over better played chess: no thanks.
The ugly truth about Bilbao is its goal is to motivate players to make moves they judge to be semi-unsound. In other words, Bilbao wants players to make more weak refutable moves, more errors. The theory is there are unsound moves that (a) are so complicated that OTBoard refutation is unlikely, and (b) that lead to victory if unrefuted. That is a bold claim. Further, such moves are claimed to be plentiful enough that the overall high draw rate would be chopped (in half?) by adoption of Bilbao. However, Bilbao proponents are careful to never predict a specific number to describe by how much Bilbao would reduce the draw rate; because if they did we would better sense that Bilbao is nonsense.
Study the Bilbao theory yourself. Randomly pick some normal drawn games from any recent elite tournament. Then show us all the unchosen moves that Bilbao both wants the players to make instead, and that Bilbao would have the power to motivate. I doubt you will find enough such moves to justify the Bilbao hype. But until these specific moves are provided as evidence, Bilbao is no more than hype.
The inevitable appearance of cheating by collusion under Bilbao is yet another issue.
– – – – – –
Foating in the ether is the bogus argument that a very high draw rate is logical because with perfect play Black can force a draw. But the priciple behind this argument fails when applied to other sports. Most sports have a very low or nonexistent draw rate, even though each player/team has all the resources needed to tie or not do worse than the opponent. Chess has a problem that other sports do not.
Blaming the players is always wrong. Any blame belongs to the current chess rules, and to those who control those rules yet fail to improve them.
The Sofia rule, which bans premature draw offers, is fine. But in Sofia 2005 the draw rate was still 60% (=36/60), though none were short gm draws.
BTWay, if all gm drawn games were resumed, more than 60% of them would still end in a draw.
Also, adoption of the Fischer Random Chess start positions rule would reduce the draw rate by only a small amount, from 60% down to perhaps 50%.
ANY SOLUTION?
So is any solution possible? The exorbitantly high draw rate in elite chess could reduced from 60% down to perhaps 30% only by adoption of an on-the-board rule change. But the change must retain the same “chess feeling”.
I suspect there is such a rule change option available. There is a rule that would both (a) directly add a little more piece power to the board, and (b) indirectly add piece power by reducing the rate of piece exchanges.
Shogi and Gothic Chess have tiny draw rates because they have more piece power.
But 99.8% of all tournament chess players automatically reject all on-the-board rule change proposals, sight unseen. Luckily minds were more open in 1475.
So the draw rate problem in chess will never ever be fixed.
GeneM
CastleLong.com …for FRC-chess960
Gene, generally I agree with you, and I think you are probably right.
But what you are proposing is, in effect, a different game, which would immediately make all current opening theory obsolete.
But people love their pet openings and don’t want to lose their investment, hence the reluctance to change.
Indeed, one of the most interesting aspects of following high-level games is the opening innovations!
My proposals were the best I could think of while still retaining the essential core of chess regarding this aspect.
It does seem to me that drawing problems like the Petroff and Exchange French are essentially unsolvable.
So I have considerable sympathy with the idea of alternative forms of chess.
In any case, I believe that in 10 – 15 years time (if not sooner), chess playing computers will be so good that either chess will be played out in most lines, or that top level chess will essentially be an exercise in who is best at remembering the innovations the computers come up with.
So probably some sort of change of the nature you describe will become essential in any event.
Here is Yasser Seirawan’s “S-Chess” idea for a chess-like game that would avoid the high draw rate problem (video posted in 2008):
YouTube S-Chess
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nht2TqabPr0
To me Seirawan’s idea is Capablanca Chess (or Gothic Chess) modified with a clever shogi twist, instead of adding more squares.
I feel Seirawan is probably taking this to an excessive extreme. But his usage of his shogi twist could be toned down. In any case, his shogi twist does…
(a) avoid distorting the 8×8 board, and
(b) correctly realizes that an increase in piece power is necessary to reduce the high draw rate in elite chess.
GeneM
The previous article (Tiong, ChessBase 14 March 2008) was motivated by a sense that the problem of short draws in chess was not being addressed properly as many readers gave or defended suggestions/ideas/comments without looking at the situation from a more holistic view. This was why the article was structured as such to define the problem more precisely, to highlight some of the motivations behind the problem and why and to whom they are a problem, to promote a more informed discussion.
The current literature available discussing this issue shows one important thing: that players and chess enthusiasts take to heart this beautiful and fascinating game of chess. Although initially the discussions were prompted by the proliferation of short draws by high level grandmasters, many issues, ideas and comments brought up have introduced a deeper and more thorough understanding of not only the manifestations of short draws but chess as a game and how to maintain or even increase the interest in chess. And although there are voices of unhappiness regarding non-GMs or non-professionals trying to stamp their opinions on the matter of short draws, the very situation where players and enthusiasts of various levels are giving their input is heartening.
To those who criticize this group of people, it should be remembered that “you don’t have to be an excellent movie director, to criticize the movie.” Everyone is entitled to informed opinions and suggestion of ideas. When you see a short uncompetitive draw, it is still a short uncompetitive draw no matter how someone justifies it.
The draw is not the problem, but short uncompetitive draws are
The problem, it should be emphasized and reemphasized, is not about a draw as an outcome of a game in chess, but rather the uncompetitive behavior portrayed by some players for whatever objectives, be it personal reasons or tournament/match strategy. Chess has evolved from just a game and more and more into a form of sport. And sports have rules to govern the players. There is no other game/sport (at least not that I know of, unless there are readers out there who can share some games/sports) which can have a result based not on performance but on agreement. The agreement to a draw by two players in a game of chess is outright wrong in competitive sporting terms and should not be condoned or accepted. Various readers have commented that it is the absolute right of players to draw but this is a serious fallacy. Players do have the right to play for a draw, to try to achieve a draw position or the like, but it is certainly not the right of players to agree into a draw and to add salt to the wound, showing uncompetitive play in achieving the result. All games/sporting results are based on performance, and never any on agreement. In all games/sporting events, the result is verified and endorsed by a referee or team of referees. (But as chess is a deterministic game, where the game can reach situations where a draw is inevitable like when there is insufficient material, draws can be agreed and endorsed in this kind of situation).
In essence, albeit some of the more harsh criticisms thrown at readers offering suggestions, the real question is not, and should not be, about preventing draws altogether. The focus should be on promoting competitive and interesting play from players. Therefore, as noted by some readers, it is wholly undesirable and unsatisfying to penalize players just because they obtained a draw in their games. A draw as a result in chess is valid and should not be dismissed, that is, there should not always be a winner in any particular game of chess. However, when it comes to tournaments and matches, there should always be a winner and there should be methods to address this.
So many draws, why?: chess from a game theory point of view
Chess is a deterministic game where the outcome is totally influenced by moves played on the board with a determined board size and the pieces with determined rules of move. Under this deterministic nature, players are expected to produce a result, which may end in a win, loss or draw (in game theory speak, chess is a strictly competitive game). In chess, we have statistical-based calculations (the Elo) to measure the strength of a player which again is deterministic as they are based on the performance of players.
Chess is a two-player strategy game where each player makes a move alternately and with each move, trying to improve/maintain its position which at the same time deteriorates the opponent’s position. Using game theory speak, chess is classified as a zero-sum game. Chess is also a finite extensive game (a game with a sequence of decisions) with perfect information, i.e. each player has information of the other player’s possible moves on the board. According to game theory, a chess game has a subgame perfect equilibrium (predicted by theory, but yet to be shown), which is to say a player has an optimal strategy for every move generated in a particular sequence of moves.
Using game theory, it can be concluded that chess either has two possible outcomes:
1. one of the players has a strategy that guarantees he wins
2. each player has a strategy that guarantees at worst a draw
At present, it has not yet been proven whether White (or Black) has a strategy that guarantees he wins or each player has a strategy that guarantees at worst a draw (interested readers can explore game theory as applied in chess further).
[However, from practice (which many GMs and other players would attest to), playing White constitutes a minor advantage and this minor advantage can be exploited, the success of which depends on Black’s skill in response. So, although there were readers who say it’s wrong to assume White having an advantage, a simple thought experiment would suffice to prove the case. Just ask any player in a competition whether he would be alright to play more Black games than White, or more extreme, ask any player whether he would like to play all games as Black. There is a clear reason why players play with alternate colors in a chess competition. Black has a minor disadvantage and White on the other hand has a minor advantage. So why not reward Black more for holding on to a draw or triumphing and at the same time penalize White for not capitalizing on his advantage?]
We do not have a proof yet even with the huge computing power available to us today as exemplified by the host of computer programs available, which are being constantly improved at a terrific pace. So what gives?
In terms of complexity, chess contains sufficient complexity for an interesting duel between two players. The amount of complexity, along with the huge variety of variations available in every different move sequences at different points in the game is enough for human players as a competent strategy game which is not too easy and not too difficult to execute. Which is why, in the programming community, the game of chess presents an excellent challenge, compared to a significantly less complex game of checkers and the much more complex game of Go. Just for the record, the game of checkers has already been solved and it is proven that a game of checkers, with perfect play by both player, end in a draw (Scientific American, July 19, 2007). For Go, due to the very high level of complexity and the limitations of human players, it is much more difficult to capture the best moves in every situation, thus leading to a higher possibility of decisive outcomes. And just for thought, the proof of checkers ending in a draw took 18 years to produce and bear in mind that at 500 billion billion possible pieces arrangements that may occur on the board, the complexity of checkers is very, very modest compared to chess where there is much more variety in piece movements.
So let’s say in the near future it will be proven that a game of chess is a draw. Are we going to stop playing chess if we know the result is a dead draw if both players play perfectly? It is open to debate, but the game of chess presents sufficient complexity that it is a challenge for players to find the best moves in each possible situation, and add to that the human factor of miscalculating (even very minor ones can be exploited by a competent GM), fatigue, the psychology of play, the time pressure factor etc.
After all, we are just using perhaps 5-10% of our mental capacity and there is little to suggest that we will ever pass that threshold (future science may prove that this statement is wrong). If we take a look at chess players, how many GMs have passed the magical mark of 2800 Elo? How many are above 2700 Elo? 2600 Elo? It does not seem very likely that there will be any player going above 2850 Elo in the near or even far future in chess (unless there is a revolutionary breakthrough in mind science).
So perhaps we have the very best human players can offer already and yet we still have beautiful, fascinating and decisive games of chess to enjoy. As mentioned by many readers as well, including GMs, there is very little problem with the current situation in chess. The only thing, which should be addressed however, is the short uncompetitive draw that some players play now and then. Again, I must say, it is against any competitive spirit to have games being agreed upon by two players without endorsement by a qualified referee (the arbiter). In clear draws, spectators and other players can see it; in unclear ones, the arbiters with perhaps the help of computer programs decide. Yes, there will be subjective decisions, but isn’t the decision by only two players in a particular game even more subjective and lack transparency? In so many games/sports, players play, the rules and/or referees decide.
So many draws, why?: the Elo in disguise
Let us now look at the significance of Elo. In chess, players compete to find the best sequence of moves to undermine the opponent. However, when two players of similar ability play each other (under normal circumstances and where the players play at their personal best accordingly), the outcome would most likely be a draw in such a deterministic game (although, of course, there are instances where players make mistakes, ranging from slight inaccuracies to blunders which are then exploited by an opponent). The similar ability is captured by a statistical deterministic figure, i.e. the Elo rating. In Elo rating (readers can refer to Elo rating calculations and their meaning), a rating difference of zero between two players means statistically the two players have a 50% chance each to win the game. A difference of 50 Elo points means statistically, the stronger player will have a 57% chance of winning compared to 43% for the weaker player. A difference of 100 Elo points means statistically, the stronger player will have a 64% chance of winning compared to 34% for the weaker player. So this implies (statistically) that in many elite tournaments/matches draws would be a common occurrence as predicted by their Elo differences as in these tournaments/matches the Elo difference between the top and bottom rated is usually up to only 100 Elo points. Taking into account these Elo differences between individual players and the number of games played, it would not be difficult to see that up to 50-60% of draws as an outcome is perfectly predicted by the Elo itself(!). In a deterministic game like chess, it would be statistically absurd to expect differently the outcome as these would be considered an anomaly in the statistics itself. (So perhaps the idea of inviting players with slightly lower Elo ratings but who plays imaginatively (or perhaps speculatively) would increase the number of decisive outcomes, as pointed out by some readers, e.g. GM John Nunn, ChessBase, November, 10, 2005)
Do we want another chess variant?
The lengthy article by Gene Milener presented some important discussion on some on-the-board aspects of chess. In the article, Mr. Milener argued that the occurrence of draws in chess is due to the fact that the power of current chess pieces is limited and he went on to suggest that this undesirable situation can be overcome by introducing new pieces with increased power into the game. Conceptually, this is a valid and successful way of increasing the complexity of the game and by this, increasing chances for both sides to create more tactical and strategical opportunities during a particular game.
This insight, however, is faulty for these reasons:
1. In terms of result, it introduces a chess-like game (read, just another chess variant) which, as recognized by many readers, is not the outcome which we want to see in trying to address the problem of grandmaster draws. It just kills the chess we have loved for so many years. Many readers have in one way or another proclaimed: “We do not want to fundamentally alter the game.”
2. In terms of concept, it is flawed in the sense that it assumes the power of current chess pieces is to blame for the high draw rate in chess. This assumption, although seemingly quite valid, is not a true picture of draws in chess (which has been explained in the previous sections on game theory and Elo).
Is it time for chess to evolve?: Chess 2.0 anyone?
Throughout the history of chess, the game of chess has undergone various stages of development. Castling was introduced and refined; the power of the queen was increased from moving only one square diagonally to having the combined powers of rook and bishop; pawns were allowed to move two squares from its original position instead of only one square; the moves of the bishop were extended; en passant was introduced. These developments (which brought us the modern chess game as we know it now) happened in late 15th -16th century (I’m not wholly sure; perhaps some chess historians could verify these) to change the game from a slow, sedate nature to a more dynamic encounter. The “new” game (at the time) pushed the old game aside after only a few decades.
Perhaps, this suggests that chess can only get better if it keeps on evolving and perhaps in the face of so many draws occurring and chess, maybe, having reached a saturated and stagnant level (for example, the Elo plateau have been reached and the opening or endgame knowledge is already quite thorough), the time is ripe to introduce new things in chess? If this is the case, what kind of new introductions should be included in chess? As a case in point, is Mr. Milener’s suggestion the way to go forward in the development of chess? Or as readers might argue, “don’t change the fundamentals of the game”?
Where do we go from here?: FIDE, we have a problem
Well, the draw is not the mosquito; the short uncompetitive draws are. And the mosquito is not welcomed; neither does it deserve a bazooka. Just some disincentives to prevent it from causing annoyance (endorsement of draw by arbiters with the help of computer programs and monetary/points deductions for uncompetitive play) and some incentives (more desirable distribution of prize money, points imbalance, and bonus points for outstanding performance) to help tame the mosquito from sucking interesting play out of chess.
It would be interesting to see what official position FIDE has regarding this short draw menace (although many quarters still feel that short uncompetitive draws is just a “perceived” problem). How about views from tournament and match organizers? It would be nice for ChessBase to make available the current debate on this issue to these people (who are the ones who can make the necessary changes), otherwise the debate, which has years of history (!), would be just “babble” (as one reader commented) or “twaddle” (as another reader commented).
Personally, I just could not refrain from some jokes which ran in my mind as I was reading the various ideas/suggestions/comments on GM draws in the preparation of this article. Here are but a few of them (just for the purpose of humor):
1. “The short game that won a norm (or title).”
2. “The 1000 best short draws: A treasury of masterpieces in Shorties”
(taking inspiration from the book by Irving Chernev, “The 1000 best short games of chess: a treasury of masterpieces in miniature”, which was mentioned in Chess Life, August 2007, p. 9)
3. “60 memorable short draws.”
4. “I short draw, therefore I play.”
5. “It was so difficult to achieve this short draw.”
6. “How to play for a short draw with White (or Black).”
7. “1.E4 E5 draw!! … a brilliant call by Black as he preserves his advantage in the tournament/match as White finds no headway too.”
Last but not least, just as a curiosity, perhaps ChessBase (or any readers) could look up their database and see how many short uncompetitive draws are there on record at present and find out:
1. whether they occur at the opening, middle or near the end of tournaments/match
2. what level of tournaments (category/exhibition/invitational etc.) or match (short match, world championship, exhibition etc.).
This would be very nice and of interest to readers I think.