This was recently published on the Topalov fan site. Do you agree with the Sofia rule concept?
In 2005 Silvio Danailov and the arbiters of the Mtel Masters 2005 competition decided to make games more exciting.
“The players should not talk during the games; additionally they 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.”
At first the new rule was not well met by the GMs and chess analyzers. They claimed that if the players want to get a draw they can always go for a three move repetition.
However, all skeptics were soon convinced that the rule is a necessary part of the future of chess. Mtel Masters 2005 and 2006 turned out to be one of the most exciting tournaments in chess history. Dynamic games, unexpected outcomes, and novelties came up during the competitions and all of them were provoked by the Sofia rule.
A draw is a normal score in a chess game. There are numerous positions that result in a theoretical draw. So a game finishing 1/2-1/2 is not strange at all. However, it is disappointing to see a game finishing in 12 moves or less in some cases. It is offensive to the audience, the organizers, the sponsors, the other participants, and chess in general.
Veselin Topalov expressed several times his view on the discussion. “It is not acceptable to see a game finishing right after it has started,” he shared. Veselin also expressed other concerns. He believes that chess is a sport and an art at the same time. Thus the players should attend the press conferences and be at the stage most of the time.
Veselin’s thoughts sound logical, no? However, many players do not follow these intuitive rules. Thus, laws, as the Sofia rule, should be applied. It is better for the fans, the players, and chess.
Source: Topalov fan site
Thank you Frank for the info!
When I saw the headline “Sofia Rules” I expected something about your sister.
I have grown to like the concept of Sofia rules (at first I did not like the idea). However, working out the details as to how to decide when a position is theoretically drawn could be quite difficult. Is equality after 15 moves a “theoretically drawn” position? Those favoring Sofia rules would probably say no. How about after 40 moves, or 60 moves? Giving the arbiter discretion merely raises the question of how to instruct him/her to decide such questions (or not give any instructions and leave the arbiter with too much power, and with inconstisten application of the rules). Perhaps there’s a simple answer that I’m not aware of. Would a 40 move minimum be appropriate?
I view ‘Sofia rules’ as a step in the right direction, however, by no means a full set of rules. Those must be completed by other rules to make the game more interesting and to reduce early draws. Good candidate is the 3:1 score rule (like in soccer), and also thematic tournaments and matches, where only 1 defence or a variation, starting from specified random position (something like the old tabias), is played. Those are just 2 impromptu suggestions. The collective think tank of chess fans, can undoubtedly invent many more and better improvements.
Sofia rules are definitely the way to go as “ground rules”. If we want sponsors, and fans like other sports we must do all that we can to eliminate draws and institute fighting, exciting chess.
I don’t agree with 3 points for a single game but I do agree the points can be changed slightly like black getting more than white for a draw or a win etc.
i’m with lantonov in this question.
a move in the right direction, but not the truth at all.
my recommendation is:
swiss tournament rules – sofia rules :
win 2 points, draw 1 point
round robin and MATCH PLAY tournament rules:
win 3 points, draw 1 point
in swiss tournaments white would have an advantage over black by 3 – points for a win.
in round robin or match play both players will have the same advantage or disadvantage!
my two eurocents…
Sofia is a fine little bandage over one SYMPTOM, but it does nothing to correct the underlying flaws that CAUSE most draws.
Most draws are not of the 12 move-pair variety.
This draw problem does even more harm than is already widely acknowledged. Consider the Kramnik-Topalov 2006 match.
After falling behind 2 games, with 10 remaining, the expected high draw rate gave Topalov such a feeling of despair that he threatened in writing to quit the match unless Kramnik’s bathroom rights were changed.
(It later turned out that Kramnik was the player who refused to come to the table and play, but it was Topalov who first threatened to do that.)
Many people were blamed for the partial and near complete disaster in Elista. But I see the usual high draw rate as the hidden culprit that slipped under the radar of public vengence.
– – – – – – – –
In any case, a specific ply-pair (or “plair”) number, like 30, seems better than burdening the Arbiter with the difficult error-prone task of determining whether a position is a theoretical draw.
This is especially so since most chess tournaments do not have a high powered professional Arbiter.
Maybe it is time for MonRoi or Fritz to have a function named “Determine Whether Position is a Theoretical Draw”, to make life easier for mortal Arbiters.
Gene Milener
http://CastleLong.com/
Susan asked:
Do you agree with the Sofia rule concept?
Yes, I do. The issue on this blog frequently the popularity of chess, the lack of sponsors and so on. I think that the far too frequent draws play some role in that.
Chess could be made more popular and more exciting by placing some new rules against fake draws.
Gabor
do you “anti – draw” guys really believe, that any chess game always has a decisive end …? for sure, you have to take your sport (or art *tusk, *tusk)a little more serious …
Vohaul said…
MATCH PLAY tournament rules:
win 3 points, draw 1 point
It does not make any difference if you count win as 3 or 2 point in a match tournament!
Yet, I agree with the idea of using this sytem in robin tournaments. It would certainly change the nature of chess. But on the other hand, considering chess as a sport it will make the game more enternaining for the public audience and encourage novelty. In conclusion I think that this is a rules which will bring only benefits to this game.
Hey vohaul …bed time for you now gute nacht
Topalov is a disgrace, as even lantonov doesn’t seriously dispute, but the Sofia Rule is a good thing for chess. If organizers allow players to split the point in 10 moves they can’t complain if it happens.
Topalov is not a disgrace…
@anon of course you are right with your argument that +2 or +3 for a win does not make a difference for match play man vs. man – i had team competition in mind – on club level…
with best regards, Vohaul
PS: @hoddy – you are wellcome – nothing better to do at lunch time? ^^
Clearly the “Sofia Rules” in chess is the best thing to come along since digital delay clocks.
As for establishing “theoretically drawn” endgames, I believe there is a non-playing GM available to make that determination. Even if he declines to call it a draw, the players have to play it out further, and what is so bad about that?
In this “new chess world” of sponsorships, we as fans want to see the players “give it up” every game and not hold back at all, especially at a rate of one game a day.
I work 8 hours, 5 days a week. I’m sure a professional chess player can manage to work 6 hours or so at most, and for 2 out of three days at best.
Make them fight. If they don’t want to, walking papers please.
The Sofia rules are good. Other approaches may also be good, for example the BAP (Slugfest) system:
http://beta.uschess.org/frontend/news_7_154.php
The causes of early draws are often deeply psychological, as Joel Lautier spoke about in more detail at the 2004 ACP Annual Meeting. So it is not a bad thing to make short draws more difficult. The slight hassle of talking to the arbiter even in dead drawn positions means that a surprising number of GM games under Sofia rules go down to K versus K.
Setting a number of moves never worked in practice. And it shifts the focus off the main point, which is that games should be played out.
Jonathan Berry
Alex Yermolinsky is an entertaining chess author, living in San Francisco Calif. USA.
In 1998/06 Yermo wrote a long passionate blog article about Sofia and similar rules. I agree with much of what Yermo wrote, but I disagree with some of it.
I was going to quote the important parts of what Yermo wrote, and comment on them. But I found I was quoting almost the entire article.
So all I can do is provide the link (you copy link and remove spaces), without any comments from me.
http:// web.archive.org/ web/ 20010723202856/ http://www.concentric.net/ ~Yermo/ d9806.html
Gene Milener
http://CastleLong.com/
I SERIOUSLY dispute the continued mud slinging of this anonymous coward who says that Topalov is a disgrace.
As we all know, Sofia (Polgar) rules!
vohaul: “do you “anti – draw” guys really believe, that any chess game always has a decisive end …? for sure, you have to take your sport (or art *tusk, *tusk)a little more serious … ”
It may be that NO chess game has a decisive end until one side makes a “mistake”. i.e.,
1. e4 e5 is a theoretically drawn position if both sides play perfectly; and in the course of any given high-level game there may be many more “theoretically drawn” positions reached. The question is how long should the players be forced to play considering the possibility that one of them may make a mistake (gambit that doesn’t work, weak move, or outright blunder) or simply run out of time? Tough question, but not because “anti-draw” guys believe that one side must always have a winning edge –quite the opposite; I think Sofia proponents realize that a game must go on for a while in order to create reasonable opportunities for an edge to develop.
The Yermo article from 1998 was mainly about the Linares / Rentero treatment of draws. Quite different from the Sofia rules, which ? had not been invented yet ?
Incidentally, to get to that link, I had to remove spaces which unaccountably inserted themselves after the / characters.
@last anon
– i play chess as recently as 35 years or so – i suck – i’m a patzer – i’m a chess beginner!
this might be the reason why i did not realize the
1.e4 e5
position to be a theoretical draw – but – to be honest, i’m a curious person and i want to know more about this…
of course, nobody should be forced to play theoretical drawn games … but imagine: one of these days a new Steinitz (or Rybka variant Alien) might fix, that not only
1.e4 e5
but also
1.d4 d5
is a theoretical draw?
i’ll stop learning chess at once, not at least because i know, that 1.c4 c5 is a feared drawing variation, and will play – hmmm – what? ego shooters? no – silly! Age of Empires by Microsoft? no – Gates is rich enough!
ahhh – maybe i’ll play a little game of chess… why? the reason is: it’s of interest for me, whether my opponent knows the theoretical draw line starting with 1.e4 e5, especially if i answer – let’s say – 2.f4 … (still draw or a loss for white?)
– frankly spoken – i do not know the line by myself – so – the thrill will continue, won’t it?
Dear Susan, I agree completely with the idea that some chess rules has to be changed. The “Sofia rules” are a good idea but it is necessary to do more. I think the “Sofia rules” are good because they avoid “early” draws. It would be good to stimulate more the “attacking” chess with for example the 3/1 score rule (3 for winning-1 for draw). Also “thematic” matches and tournaments are an interesting idea. And also when there is a match between only 2 candidates then they should be obliged to play each time a different opening (of course both should be obliged to play the same opening once with white and once with black).The computer should decide what opening. For example : first 2 games Sicilian defense , the following 2 games Spanish and so on. René
Bad idea. First, you do not “offer” a draw in the case of a three-fold repetition – you claim it. Second, there is no longer a rule for a draw by perpetual check.
Bad idea. First, you don’t “offer” a draw in a three-fold repetition – you claim it. Second, there is no longer a rule about a draw because of perpetual check.