An Open Debate: The 700lb Gorilla Issue
In the past few days, thousands of chess fans gave their opinions about the recently concluded Candidates’ Matches in Kazan. The main complaint was there were too many draws, over 90%. Even the President of ECU, Mr. Danailov, and the Deputy President of FIDE, Mr. Makropoulos, spoke out about this issue.
As someone who competed in Candidates and World Championship matches, Chess Olympiads, and as an organizer of major tournaments in the United States, I am looking at this serious issue from both sides of the coin.
As an organizer, it drives me crazy to spend so much money and time to organize prestigious events to see short draws. It is also nearly impossible to explain it to the sponsors, donors, and chess fans. I do not like it at all.
This is why in the last SPICE Cup, I instituted the 3 point for a win / 1 point for a draw system, in addition to no draw offer before move 30. Because of this, the 2010 SPICE Cup was more exciting than previous years. Everything came down to the final round. It was a dream for an organizer.
For invitational events where the organizers pay excellent conditions to the players, I full support these measurements to ensure exciting chess.
Now we will look at the other side from the perspective of a player. We must examine this with various types of events. I will select three for this discussion:
1. Open tournaments
Players usually must pay for entry fees, food, hotel, and transportation costs (This is mostly the case in the United States where professional players are usually not very much respected. In fact, they have to even bring their own chess set, board, and clock to tournaments.) when they compete in an open tournament. Once in a while, there may be some small conditions to top level players but this is in the minority.
If someone pays their own costs to participate in an open event, who are we to say that he / she cannot offer or accept short draws, especially when their rent money is on the line? It is the difference between being able to pay rent / mortgage versus being homeless, literally!
The fans can say all they want but if a player can win $5,000, $10,000, or more by accepting a draw versus getting a few hundred bucks or even nothing if they lose, almost every professional player will take the draw. Their number one obligation is to themselves and their families, not to the fans or sponsors since there is usually none in these tournaments (in the United States).
This is the sad state of chess where most professional players struggle mightily financially. This is why so many promising juniors quit chess at an early age, especially in America, because they understand that this is not a way to make a living.
2. Chess Olympiads
National federations usually pay to send their national teams to compete for medals. What is the objective of any team? The answer should be to win medals, especially the Gold medal. I won 10 of them (5 gold, 4 silver, and 1 bronze) playing on board 1. My job was always to put my team in the best position to win. That means playing for 2 results in every game. It is usually up to the team captain to decide on the game by game strategy.
So if this is the case, who are we to say that a team cannot offer or accept quick draws if it helps to clinch a medal, especially gold? Now if there is a sponsor for a national team, would that sponsor prefer to see the team win medals or no short draws?
3. Candidates or World Championship Matches
What is the objective of the Candidates Matches? To advance to the next match and to eventually challenge the World Champion. Most players dedicate their whole lives for this opportunity.
What is the objective of the World Championship match? To win the World Championship crown. This is the ultimate goal for top level professional players. Only a few handful of players accomplish this.
A lot of time, effort, energy, and money are spent in both of these types of matches. Every player has a second and sometimes a team of seconds. They work with the seconds long before and during the matches. These people do not work for free. It is a very expensive process and cycle.
Every player and every team want to win. In this case, who are we to say how they should win? If a player is really ill and on that particular day, he / she has black. If you are in the same position and for whatever reason, your opponent offer you a draw after 20 moves, would you take it when you can hardly focus or see the board? Or would you say no way because I would be letting my fans down?
Again, each player is playing for the ultimate title. Shouldn’t he or she have the right to choose the best path to get to the endgame which is to win the big one?
The other side of the argument from the organizers and fans is if players chicken out and play safe all the time, chess will lose sponsors. They have a point too. When you have boring events, the sport will suffer.
I agree. This is why we have a stalemate.
Some fans suggest that since there is no draw in tennis, basketball, football, baseball, or other major sports, the same thing apply to chess.
Again, let me inject the other side of the coin.
There is no draw in tennis but some players do tank on purpose. If a player is not comfortable on a certain surface, he / she sometimes give half an effort just to collect the paycheck, rest, and head to the next event. It happened on many occasions between the French Open and Wimbledon.
In basketball, football, and baseball, many managers and head coaches rest their starters when their teams already clinched a spot in the playoff. They want to make sure their stars are on their A game when the games really matter. This happens every year.
And in the examples I pointed out above, the fans pay good money to see these games where in chess games can be viewed online for free. So what is worse? Taking short draws in chess or giving only half an effort in other sports?
I am not trying to defend either position. I merely point out the many different angles of this debate. What is your take? How can we solve this serious issue? Please free to offer your opinions but please be respectful to the players, organizers, and sponsors.
If you really want to eliminate draws, there is a very simple rule change that can be implemented. If the game reaches a stalemate, three-fold repetition, or 50-move rule is called, then the player with more time wins. Draws by agreement are not allowed, so all games are decisive. Games with such rules might also be a better alternative to some current tie-break procedures.
Dear Susan,
I, for one, would never put my picture directly below a headline that began “The 700 lbs Gorilla Issue…” 🙂
However, you don’t have anything to fear by doing this, since you are a beautiful woman. That is a very nice black-and-white picture of you.
Susan, very well written and helpfully expressed!
I can offer one datum from other sports that might be helpful. In 5-day Test Cricket, it often becomes apparent on the final day that there can be no other result than a draw. In this case there are rules about how early the captains are allowed to call it a draw. For an England at West Indies match in Barbados two years ago, that time was 4pm, but England declared their innings closed at 3:50pm because the 10-minute changeover period would go to 4pm.
This IMHO corresponds to the historical idea of requiring 30 moves (or a repetition) before a draw offer, or the newer idea of Sofia Rules. This is what I support. It is clear, neutral between the players, and playing out even a barren continuation may help explain to the general public why a game was drawn.
As a separate issue, I maintain that by mid-century we’ll have to move to some form of “Fischer Non-Random” or “Bronstein” or “Benko” chess.
Your 3/1 point scoring system and the 30 move minimum move rule is probably the best compromise. This way fans actually get to see chess played and the players can draw if they want to (after 30 moves). Nobody minds fighting draws, but drawing when you are out of the opening should be discouraged at all costs.
I think a lot of people who don’t know much about chess is following these matches on line now a days. These people have no idea about the struggles and the amount of time, money and tention the chess players especially the top ones are goint through. I think the players have the right to adopt any strategy they want to win a tournament or match. But players play the game according to rules. So in the larger interest of chess (for sponsors and to make an already slow game more attractive) I think it is worth while to change the rules a little to avoid short draws. Most of the top players think it is better to offer draw early with white once an equal position is reached. It is a defensive apporoach also so that mistakes can be avoided leading to a loss in a drawish position. But long play is bound to make some mistake from a player and the other one can take advantage of it. That is the basis of all modern sports. But tradationally chess looks down on taking advantage of a silly mistake from a player due to lose of concentration or over sight. So long play from a drawish position to make some body lose concentration and winning is not considered gentlemanly in chess. I think this mind set has to change and rules should be changed so that a minimum of 30 or better 40 moves (first time control) has to be reached before a draw offer. If anybody makes a silly mistake due to lose of concentration be it. We will defenitely see more results then. It will need more stamina from players but I think viewers will be happy (though not all players but they will get used to it).
Dear Susan,
Regarding Candidates Matches, I favor the system that was current back in 1971, when Fischer whipped Taimanov, Larson, and Petrosian. There was no rapid or blitz games. The first player to reach 6 points won. If there was a 6-6 tie, then the first person to win a game after that was the winner of the match. I know that this open ended format might become too expensive for the organizers if there was a 6-6 tie, but after a tie like this, at that point some new rules could be put in place: no draw offers, 1st person with the ability to establish 3 move repetition not allowed to make that move. At this level of chess, at least, certainly the format can be made worthy of being fair to both the contestants and the fans. If the expense was too much of an issue, then the following rule could be established: after a 6-6 tie, BOTH players are eliminated. That should enliven things up a bit. The World Champion could then hope that the candidates would all draw their matches!
I don’t know if this has ever been proposed before, but if not, can we call it the Lucymarie Ruth format?
Unless anti-draw rules are decreasing the size of the overall pot, a little bit of logic says if anti-draw rules are bad for you, then they’re also bad for your rivals, since they apply to everyone.
They are right about one thing though. If you’re going to play short draws, it’s better not to broadcast the games, because the spectators don’t pay anything so there’s nothing to be gained, and it could make a lot of people go sour on chess to see such short draws. It would be a shame though to not take advantage of the internet to broadcast something that would otherwise not be broadcast by mainstream media. Also, when the games are broadcast, at least you get your name out there. Maybe someone enjoys your style and will want to take lessons with you. Maybe not – maybe someone sees you get crushed, and doesn’t want to take lessons with you! So maybe broadcast of games is not so good.
Eliminate the fear of defeat. This is achieved by increasing the number of games.
Just this.
Best regards
Stef
Susan,
Your points about the open tournaments and the Olympiad are well taken. Whether the organizers go with standard scoring or 3:1 it’s easy to see why players would take a draw in certain circumstances.
However, in high profile invitational tournaments and Candidate’s and WC matches much more is at stake. It is really the health and survival of the sport. You mention tanking, which if it does happen, rewards the offender with a loss. That’s not the same as a draw in chess where the offender can be rewarded. I am with Fischer than in the WC draws shouldn’t count. If the Mavericks and Heat are tied after four quarters they will keep playing until someone wins and I doubt you will see anyone tanking. For qualifers and other major tournaments the 30 move rule and 3-1 scoring may be sufficient to motivate fighting chess.
The qualification system…(Fide) not the players failed here. You can’t blame the players for not wanting to make a mmistake in such short matches…..if you want blood then give em the conditions to play full blast. (First to 6 points…or something like that.) Not scared of every single little mistake. This was quite simple to foresee.. Carlsen wanted no part of it and its obvious why. Congrats to Mr Gelfand.
I think a simple no points for draws should be sufficient, though the 3 and 1 system is much like this.
It really doesn’t matter what the players prefer- the players will adapt to whatever system the organizers adopt. I certainly would never criticize a player/s for a short, self-beneficial draw because, by definition, these sorts of things are explicitly allowed by organizer (otherwise, there would be no short draws). It is up to the organizers to arrange their tourneys in such a way that is pleasing to them. Then the players can decide what kind of tourneys they want to play.
Granted, for the professional chess player, the game is a living. But for the supporters on which it depends, it is finally, only an interest or an entertainment.
But if professional chess becomes uninteresting or fails to entertain, it will wither away…
It may already be doing so. It’s always appealed to a small niche audience and the advent of computers, grandmaster inflation and boring games may be decreasing those numbers.
The tennis comparison is nice, but slightly incorrectly used, I think. Once the ball is served, the players have to keep hitting the ball until there is an outcome. They can’t just serve, the other player returns the ball properly, they hit a few strokes and then offer a draw. Either player will have to give in after a battle of wits. In chess, after the battle of wits, the position still can be a drawn one! You are correct that there is a lot of “tanking” in tennis too, but I’d like to explain this in a slightly different way as well – if you have seen with what “strategy” Federer played tennis in his top days, he just made very little effort in his opponent’s service games until it is 4-3. Then he breaks, serves out his own service game and it’s 6-3 and he has won yet another set. Or he fails to break, the score becomes 6-6 and he comfortably wins the tie-break. Looking back, in the rest of the set he has done very little except for avoiding making too many unforced errors. The public doesn’t complain – they have seen what Federer can do with a racket and a ball at the moment that it matters. It’s similar to what has happened the candidate matches – they played to win the “set”, not to win the single point or single game. A lot of psychological pressure going on back and forth, how long can I wait, if I draw this game will I be able to hold the last game, will I be better prepared for the tie-break, etc. Despite all the “hiding” as is so trigger happily complained about worldwide by lousy chess players like me – in the end we have seen what Gelfand can do with a board and a set of pieces, and he fully deserved his spot.
Draw is very good for chess. Who doesn’t like draw is a very stupid person.
Some good and valid points Susan. I liked the rules for the SPICE cup, a good middle-ground. I think firstly, that the 3-1 scoring system is modern and very much inline with most other modern sports. Therefore I’d like to see it as the only scoring system used in chess! As for anit-drawing rules, none are perfect, so it’s debatabe which is most effective. Fore important matches, such as the WC and WC Candidates, maybe draws shouldn’t count at all? That could solve the problem?
Please to put a poll for all FIDE officials, name by name, whether they should stay or resign.
You write ‘How can we solve this serious issue?’. But – you have no influence in FIDE to make any change?! Or – do you?
Very interesting and thoughtful analysis!
The only thought I have is, if you want the world championship to be a “brand,” it needs to be stable.
People shouldn’t be changing it every cycle. Look at soccer world cup, wimbledon, NBA, NFL, etc. Each have their flaws, but it is what it is, get on with it.
Hi Susan Polgar,
Well,to begin the comment in the lighter note – This title “To Draw or Not To Draw” and sketch of your picture beneath it,draws the attentions much in favor of draw ( Your picture )- lol.
Okay coming to chess board game – Offering draw seems to actually begun,as a tactical move in a set of several games to test the opponents judgment and his/her emotional balance,these analysis,may be employed to win the next game.
From the point of Organizers and Audience :
=============================
Early draw,in knock out games is pretty disappointment,doesn’t worth the money spent,in long run, it may reduce the audience presence,which in turn brings in less organizers – so the ultimate losers may be the professionals in the long run.
So with the cooperation of the players,at least knock out games should be prevented from early draw offerings and acceptances.
Many interesting moves and counter moves can be witnessed by audience to their pleasure,Which in turn, hefty the pockets of the organizers and professional players of chess board game – So win win for all,if the game is played till the ultimate result.[ Specifically if its a knock out round ]
By
Venky [ India – Chennai ]
congrats Susan on this blog! We would love to have such blogs more in addition to chess news. You are at a unique position as you have seen all! So your opinions carry weight.
Even a losing position can be played creatively. Don’t have chess played for money, or social position, or at all competitively, but for pleasure.
FIDE is asking the top players what changes they would like to introduce in candidate games and that is the right approach. The top players go through stress and tension which the watchers or sponsors can not imagine!
So draws or no-draws or draws after so many moves must be decided by top players.
But deciding such matches by rapid or blitz games is wrong, because that is a differnet game altogether.It is like first playing football and if a game is a draw, than you find the winner by playing badminton!!!
Chess is often a drawish game on the highest level. You can continue and play 50 more moves, but nothing will change the result on the highest level. The players knows this and saves energy instead of continuing playing the game…
I think the 3 points for a win, 1 point for a draw is nonsense. I looked at some times where it was used, and it didn’t reduce the number of draws.
Susan//by virtue of her position knows all the angles.
But the most important one..No disrespect..(and you know that Susan) is….you must make the fans happy….what good are Gladiators who just slap each other to death??
It’s tough….Give em room to play..not short matches…like in the 70’s 80’s…give em room to lay..Fide doest not seem to be able to realize this..probably because none of em ever played at this level eh?? Eh??!!! Probably.
You say players may go for a quick draw if that is to their economic advantage, team strategy, best way to win a match, etc. Fine. But this is only because they are allowed to; because they can! But why allow it in the first place? I don’t see why this is an argument for allowing quick draws.
On the other hand ALL players’ economic well being depends on attracting sponsors in the first place. The likelihood of this increases considerably if short draws are eliminated.
Serious changes are needed.
Sofia rules are a must, or if this is impracticable, then no draw offers before move 50. It needs to be 50 moves, not 30, so as to get decently past the first time control. This business of agreeing a draw about moves 35-40 because of mutual fear and time trouble is quite unacceptable and has often deprived us of what would have been the most exciting part of the game.
If a position does happen to be trivially drawn before move 50, then it should be really really easy to make the extra moves to move 50, shouldn’t it?; it really shouldn’t take much effort and thought. That is, if it really is dead drawn…So this is not a significant extra pointless burden.
On the other hand, this 3-1-0 system of scoring is just silly (and in any case is useless for matches). A group of players of roughly even strength can manipulate this by mutually agreeing to throw games to each other.
Also needed is to eliminate the quite illogical stalemate rule. How often do we get a rook ending with one player a pawn up, but all the pawns on one side of the board – and it’s a draw, ultimately because of the stalemate rule. It should be a win to the superior player – he’s played well enough to be a pawn up.
Getting rid of stalemate would make chess a less drawish game, which it certainly needs to be.
Also, very much needed is to get rid of the 3 move repetition = draw rule. This would get rid of the other big ‘out’ for players to arrange a quickie draw.
The rule should be that if a position is repeated 3 times, the second player must vary or lose. As well as eliminating the loophole for getting a quick draw, it would also reduce the intrinsic drawing nature the game of chess has under its current rules, something that is very much needed.
I would like to mention what I think are the merits of the format for Candidates Matches that I posted earlier today. This format would have the winner of each match be the one who reached 6 points first. If both players tied at 6-6, then BOTH players would lose. This has the merits of a match combined with the merits of a tournament. Tournaments put a premium on the player who is willing to take some risks. To win a match in the format I am proposing, the winning player, unless he or she was markedly a stronger player than their opponent, would have to take the same kind of risks that one has to take to win a tournament at the top level.
If the score were tied at 5 and 1/2 to 5 and 1/2 after 11 rounds, then one of the players would have to win the last game in order for one of them to advance. This sort of puts both players in the situation Emanual Lasker was in for the last round of his 1910 World Championship match versus Karl Schlecter: Lasker was down one game going into the last round, and he HAD TO WIN the last game in order to retain his championship (which he did).
To get some idea of the drama that would be produced, say that there were 8 players at the start of the matches. So you get quarterfinal matches, semifinal matches, and a final match. Player #1 and Player #2 tie their 1st round match at 6-6. Player #3 beats Player #4. Since the winner of these 2 matches goes on to the semifinal, Player #3 does not have to play in the semifinal: he has already won his portion of the semifinal, since Player #1 and Player #2 BOTH lost.
In the other quarterfinals, Player #5 beats Player #6, and Player #7 beats Player #8. Player #5 and Player #7 play in the semifinals. They both know that if they draw their match at 6-6, then Player #3 will automatically become the winner, by default, of the final match and become the next Challenger to the World Champion! This give both Players #5 and #7 a HUGE incentive to play somewhat-risk-taking chess!!!
Now, what do you think? Do you like Lucymarie Ruth’s idea for the format of the next Candidates Matches?
What does Magnus Carlsen think of this format? I’d like to know.
Just sold my whole chess library…to a nice old man. Good deal too….(cept your vids Susan) what I did NOT count on….He bought over 3K of original chess artwork!!! wow!! That was just lying around.. I Just kept saying..yeah…take what you want…..and the fifties kept flying…very fun experience. 1 K for One piece…I’m used to animation when nobody cares what it’s worth…was fun to see.See how chess can affect? It’s a fun game.
Gelfand won this stupid sytem of qualification…..and if anyone thinks he has no chance..they’re in for a pretty good slap in the face. He’s not there for nothing…and from what I’ve seen of his play…he’s pretty damned solid. Maybe not my first choice for a challenger…but I seriously don’t think he’s kidding…he’s going to try. And Good on him!@
The 3-1-0 scoring may actually make players play harder for a draw, because you can’t risk losing and giving your opponent 3 points.
It is all in the mindset of the players.
It is quite simple…just don’t allow agreed upon draws…no matter how many moves. There are other rules like 50 move rule or 3 fold repetition or stalemate. If every player has to use the same rules then it is quite fair and all classical chess competitions would be more exciting.
IMO and 8 move draw or an 18 move draw is simply cheating. There is no way to know how the game would continue. If this is allowed then why not just let the players agree to a draw before the game starts and save them the 30 minutes at the table…short draws are a joke and an insult to the sport of chess IMO. Is it tradition? yes…is it right? NO WAY!!!
If you take a closer look at the structure of the persons who decide everything in chess, we will see they most come from countries which chess is not strong. Can someone explain this phenomenon?
We should develop a new generation of players whose mindset is never to come to a match satisfied with a draw. Look at Carlsen – he may lose badly once in a while because he creates situations even from drawish positions. Kids should be taught to have this psychology. Always let some blood flow. If it ends in a truce eventually, it’s only because it could not be avoided.
Lots of draws at top level tournaments will always be the trend because chess lines have been excessively analyzed. From opening to middle game, moves have mostly become conventional. Players know what to avoid and the game usually has nowhere to go but even. Somebody should think of varying something in the game that will make it less predictable. Fischer-chess is one idea, but other ideas are certainly welcome.
Maybe we should look at the growing popularity of Chessboxing and introduce a boxing bout after each round or draw.
Susan,
You examine 3 cases in which short draws may or may not be appropriate:
– Open tournanment where players pay to play and typically the prize money is less than all the entry fees. I aboslutely agree, players should be able to take short draws
– Olympiads are sponsored, so one could argue that players have a duty to the sponsors to fight. However, in this case I think we need to take a pragmatic approach. The percentage of draws is not a problem in the Olympiads and the event reamins an excellent spectacle. Even with a few draws there is always of plenty of good chess going on.
– The world championship is different (as are major professional tournaments). I understand the argument about the purtiy of the struggle and any non-cheating means to win the world title is valid from each player’s perspective. However, the players have a duty to the sponsors who are paying them as well as their own competitive desires. Hard fought draws are fine. But 14 move draws in unbalanced positions are not. To my mind the duty to the sponsors outwieghs a players desire for a short draw. Sofia rules should be implemented. If the players don’t like this, they can always agree to play for no money! I don’t suppose there would be too many takers for that.
With regard to some of the other suggestions re match formats:
– Lucymarie rules would be fun but I can see two objections. 1) Both players could fight really hard and end up tied. They both be better players than the person that ultimately goes on to challenge the WC. 2) When one player is a point ahead with one game to play, the other player cannot go through can still influence the outcome of the match. Whether he or she fights hard in the these circumstances might be determined by personal dislikes or likes for his opponent or the WC, or even worse by financial incentives from either. This does not seem to me to be desirable.
– I like match foramt of the best of X games and then the first player to win after that. (A refinement would be the frist player to win a 2 game mini-match which is fairer but worsens the disadvantage). The challenge with this is the unpredicatable costs and timescales. Booking of venues is a serious issue in this regard. However, this is possible, though players should expect a lower prize fund to offset the additonal cost incurred.
– Ignoring draws and being the 1st to X points is unworkable. Witness the first K-K match. Sofia rules would not have helped much in that case and the consequences of long running matches would be even worse in the candidates stages than the finals
– 3 points for a win and 1 for a draw is fine in tournaments but is irrelevant to matches – it makes no difference to the outcome relative to traditional scoring.
I agree with the poster who said that if chess is to succeed as a brand, and get the big sponsorship money it deserves, then the rules, esp for the WC cycle, have to be stable.
Personally, I don’t mind GM draws. They are a part of chess. However, with the nature of the game, if we allow short draws, the qualifying matches need to be much longer.
The important thing is stability, success of the brand, and getting the sponsorship money that chess deserves.
How about holding some matches west of Siberia? Turn the Madison Avenue geniuses loose on chess. Go where the money is.
I think she is cute as a Gorilla and I am a 700 pound Gorilla!
“You write ‘How can we solve this serious issue?’. But – you have no influence in FIDE to make any change?! Or – do you?”
And you have no influence over the fact that you are a Jack Ass?
I don’t understand what the fuss is all about. Everyone and their uncle seems to have an opinion on how a top player needs to play. I think it’s a safe assumption to make that the players involved have the highest stake and they know what they are doing. So if they feel they need to draw the battle to win the war, so be it. As far as the sponsors and the fans go, don’t they know they are sponsoring/watching chess. Chess, as a game is very different from tennis, soccer, football and other tv friendly games. If you were looking for a glamorous game, unfortunately, this is not it. So, stop complaining and suck it up. If they do want entertainment in every single game, they should consider holding the world championship cycle in blitz. But as a person who loves the game, I hope not. There is very little separating players at this level. So, it’s unrealistic to expect that playing out what two top players think as a drawn position is going to change unless someone blunders. As much as I hate short draws I don’t like games won by blunders as well.
Having said that, I think the format needs to be longer so that players can fight fearlessly. Not dreading that it will be one and done for them. Give them more room to fight, to claw back, hold off a challenger longer by showing tenacity, to give the fans/sponsors epic battles.
Chess as a sport has survived and thrived for centuries and it will continue to do so.
For the candidates matches, first to win 3 games wins. After 10 games, either player doesn’t reach 3 wins, the player with more points wins. If after 10 games points are tied, then players submit secret time bids, the player with a lower time bid will play black and only needs to draw to win.
Also quarterfinal, seminal-final and final should be separate events.
A very pertinent issue that I think is not getting enough attention is the fact that, in chess, a draw is the logical result of a hard fought, but equally fought, game. The problem is not draws per se, but short boring draws. The solution to administer, depends on the problem that results from many short “Grandmaster Draws.”
– The first problem is that it results in a tournaments that are, frankly, boring and liable to scare off potential sponsors, who want spectators to pay close attention. To help with this, some sort of statistic should be kept that tracks those players who have a tendency to offer and accept short draws. In this way, sponsors can, if they so choose, pick and choose those players to invite to their tournaments who have a demonstrated history of playing fighting chess. The field as a whole becomes more fighting as a result when the practice of snubbing “boring” players becomes widespread and those “boring” players start seeing their invitations dry up.
– For World Championship and Candidates matches, we should return to the old system of “X number of wins” wins.
Much of the problem, I think, has been the fact that we have, in recent years, devalued the World Championship cycle. Previous FIDE world champions have even been decided by the result of a single knockout or round robin tournament- as if the World Championship were just another high level tournament! It is a shame that the chess world, today, seems to hang on to the result of a tournament like the Tata Steel, more than it does on the result of the Candidates matches.
For this reason, I think the World Championship cycle should be made MORE arduous, not less. It should return to the old “the winner is the first person to achieve X number of wins” results. This will, undoubtedly, result in MORE draws. However, the gravity of the event, which has no fixed time frame, would be underscored by the day-to-day drama of what each player decided to do. This drama does result from a match with a fixed number of games and a tie-break formula.
In other words- for most tournaments, shun the boring players, for the World Championship Cycle, accept it as part of the match strategy, and promote it as such.
Brad Hoehne
What happens in soccer when there is a draw at cup stage? Extra time
is played. What happens then? Players are very tired, make mistakes,
suffer, but … fairly often provide great spectacle. To this day I
remember extra time Sweden-Romania played 17 years ago in spite I do
not fancy any of those teams and they surely weren’t most famous.
There are many similar cases. Remember tired Karpov dropping point
after point to Kasparov? Maybe it was not the greatest match in the
history of chess, but it is still remembered.
Also, contrary to common opinion, even top GMs are not
faultless. Whenever they actually play out those “easy” middlegames
and endings, they happen to make fatal mistakes, loose track, loose
nerves. And even if not, playing the game out to the conclusion, costs
effort. Even if the draw is likely at move 18, if it actually happens
4 hours later at move 60, next day we may see a mistake which opens a
path to wild, fascinating game.
Professional sport is about suffering, reaching limits, not about
comfort. Forcing people to play long, tough game day after day may
be more fair than forcing them to play blitz.
PS I like chess960, would be glad to see it more adopted by top-level
chess players.
PS2 Somewhat crazy idea, but it could make sense to let white
blacklist some black reply to moves 1 and 2. Imagine Kramnik forbidden
to play e5 after e4 😉
PS3 Those who look for perfect chess are encouraged to promote correspondence games.