Draw is a part of chess. Draw is legal. But are you happy when grandmasters take short non-fighting draws in less than 20 moves in invitational events?
I have no problem when Grandmasters take quick draws in Open events such as the World Open, Foxwoods, US Open, etc. where they have to pay their own expenses to compete.
However, when a Grandmaster play in invitational events where most if not all of their expenses are paid for and they are guaranteed decent appearance fees, I think the Grandmasters should give the sponsors and organizers more respect by putting on a good show.
I am also a chess organizer. I know that as an organizer, I would not invite the players back if they do not behave professionally. I do not need to make rules. I am against creating more rules and make chess become more political. I let the players decide for themselves how they want to behave.
The players at the Tal Memorial had a number of rest days during the tournament. I am older than most if not all of the participants in this event. I would not have a problem if there are no rest days. After all, this is a 1 round a day event. I cannot comprehend the excuse that they are tired. This is just an excuse.
Many organizers have imposed rules in their invitational events. They have the right to do as they wish because they pay the big bucks. But if organizers continue to accept this kind of behavior and pattern and invite the same players again and again, I do not expect the players to change their comfortable habits. After all, why should they if the organizers do not care.
Would this behavior hurt chess sponsorships even more? What are your thoughts?
If I was a sponsor I wouldn’t put a penny down on an event crammed with Leko’s, Kramnik’s etc. for the obvious draw reasons.
As a fan I’d never attend a tournament like that either. I’d save my money to go see Topalov, Judit Polgar, and other known fighters.
I’d rather watch a group of 2400’s slug it out “to the kings” than 2 2700’s agree to 15 move draws.
We need Mtel/Sofia rules to become standard. Only forced draws allowed through the arbiter, never an offer to an opponent.
And penalties for those who willfully do a 3fold rep where its obviously intentional.
After this tournament you can easy understand why I LOVE TOPALOV STYLE…
I agree with all of the above comments
Can’t players sidestep the Mtel/Sofia rules by playing out a known drawing line? A 30 move deliberate draw is no better than a two move draw.
The best solution, I think, for organizers to be selective with their invitations. Let the boring players sit at home, and bring on the fan favourites!
There is nothing wrong with a good hard fought game that ends with a draw. It’s the lazy-man’s draws that leave an unpleasant taste in the fan’s mouth for years. As a player, I like the draws; especially when I should lose, but have forced a draw! As a fan, I would like to see a fight; even if it ends with a draw. How to fix the problem is the question? Ultimately it will have to be the professional players who decide which is the best way to both earn a living and earn the respect of fans.
its the nature of the game to have draws – but not after 16 moves! There is far too much of a tendency to whip out 15-18 moves ina know line, then as soon as 1 player plays a new move, a draw is agreed. I don’t really think players like leko are a problem. The problem is that the top players play each other too much so after a while they have no new ideas against opponents set ups.
On a seperate cause we are also having a gluttony of drawish openings being played – petroff last year, queens indians this year (with some even playing bb7, instead of ba6 – declaring their drawish intentions.
Also i think that as most of the top players seem to favor 1.d4 these days, we are seeing less sharp matches, and hence less winning results.
I can forgive carlsen, and mameydarov, after all they are young players who are still establishing themselves at this level. Morezeivch played to win even when lost so it seems so he was not at fault. However where was shirovs fire on board? Where was svidlers attacking play? Grischuk impressed me, but as for the rest, well little did.
Are they really so frightened of dropping grading points? Someone like leko is only going to lose to the players of topalov/kramnik/adams/polgar class, so he should be more willing to attempt to beat the the lesser (only slighty!) players.
It is this aggression that has seen topalovs grade rise to 2820 plus. Yes he might lose the odd game, but he more than makes it back with his wins.
just adjust the prize fund. take some of the guaranteed money for 1st, 2nd, etc and bonus each win …
still, the people who win the tournament will garner most of the money.
if the bonus for a win is significant enough, the last place people will fight it out and in this event, that would have been a good game.
Or a >2700 rated player, but I know only one.
Hey! This is the worst kind of censorchip, disfiguring amendments! Why not use the old BEEP method and make it at least
Or a >2700 rated …, but I know only one.
Well, poor Michael, thats not the memorial he deserves!
But btw I cant stand the following: the discussion always mix things up. To some people complaining about short draws seems to be somewhat the same as complaining about Kramniks/Lekos/Ponomariov/etc rather positional and endgame-based playing style. They call it boring and gosh they dont know what they are talking about.
Well then… Let the “attackers” be invited and leave the “drawniks” at home?
Sorry folks, you confused something…
Please let your fingers of positional chess!
Good night and good luck!
The majority of the combatants in the Tal memorial have done a disservice to the memory of one of the greatest attacking players of all time. What a difference between this tournament and the last tournament at Hoogoven! The best way to ensure that fighting chess will be played is to employ the knockout format with accellerated time limits to decide draws.
Not inviting drawish players would probably be too subjective to be workable. On the other hand giving more points for wins than 2x a draw seems promising. What are the arguments against it?
Thank you Susan. for the first time ever I see a fellow Grandmaster speak up against this ongoing problem of draws…..and the sad thing is it wastes space in my database of games. I do opening research and I see a game Leko-Kasparov and i get excited about reviewing and what do u think happens when i click it and review it?? I think you know already 🙂
This is a very tricky area, but I think it is clear that short draws are not popular with anyone, except (some of) the players. I can understand some of their motives. For example, why risk ratings points when there is nothing to be gained in the tournament overall? Or indeed why risk losing 1st place, when agreeing a draw ensures that you hold on to it.
Here are a couple of thoughts on how to deal with this.
Firstly, I would suggest that players should not be permitted to agree draws until the first time control (technical draws not withstanding). But perhaps that is too simplistic.
I quite like the idea that I heard recently of awarding 3 points for a win with black, 2 for a win with white, 1 for a draw with black and 0 for a draw with white, or a loss. I would be interested to see this tried, but I suspect that it rather overvalues a win for black. 3 points for a win and 1 for a draw is another option – how successful has this been in practice though?
I think that it helps when the first tiebreaker used to determine the winner where the scores are level is the number of wins, which is used in some tournaments.
And perhaps most radical of all – what about eliminating the 3 repetions rule. In other words after two repetions, a player must make an alternative move. Now my guess is that most will consider this a step too far, but this is the case in Chinese Chess, and helps this game to have a rather low percentage of draws.
Just some ideas to mull over…
Two comments: 1. The Tal Memorial was characterized by a decent quota of fighting chess in rounds 1-8. Yes, the final round was a bit disappointing, but on average the event was exciting for the fans. 2. Please don’t blame the black players in these short draws. At this level, you are trained to draw as black and win as white. Thus it is up to the white player to mix things up if he or she wants to win the game!
Michael Aigner
I’m with you Susan. Drawmeisters shouldn’t be invited back. I also think BAP scoring would help.
To summarise the above, impose the following rules and there will not be non-professional draws anymore:
1.MTEL/Sofia rules. (draws at this tornament happen only after a good fight)
2. Give 3 points for win, 1 point for draw (after its introduction in football, this rule decreased significantly the pre-arranged draws)
3. Increase the prize difference between 1st and 2nd, 2nd and 3rd and so on. Bigger awards, more fight.
4. Increase slightly the ELO points coeficient for a win.
The little draws in the final round of tal’s tournament are very sad… .. for the chess players, for the sponsors…
This is not a professional attitude…
Perhaps the professionnal chess player will be a “extinct fossile ” in 10 years ?
hi Michael Aigner i dont agreed.
Why are black train too make draw?and you saging mixe,Susan ask “you like small draw!
Wery simpel Qustion
Make draw worth less than 0.5 pts. (or win worth 1.2 for example)
and chess would be much more agressive.
(add Sofia rules to that)
Or make draw worth 0.4 if there is less than 40 moves played (or base worth on material exchanged).
Sofia rules seem to work pretty well. You don’t see a lot of short draws in tournaments where they are in effect.
Otherwise, the best option seems to be 3 points for a win and 1 for a draw.
This works great in football (soccer), where the best teams know they can’t afford to draw too often against the smaller teams, and this even often creates chances for an upset.
But it would be a huge change in mentality for chess players. Unlike with football though, I don’t know if there is enough sponsorship money around to bring about such a change.
Also, please forget about having any difference between point awards for wins with black or white. Everybody plays with both colors, it is sufficient to give one side motivation to go for the win and fear of settling for the draw.
Rather than a major rule change, I wonder what would happen if the tiebreaks favored decisive games. A simple change like giving no credit to draws with white — but only for determining triebreaks.
If a tournament is plagued by too many draws, then the players will have scores very close to one another, and the tiebreak could be important.
The solution is rather simple, but is so foreign to chess players that they freak out when you mention it. The solution is:
Win: 1 Point
Loss: 0 Points
Draw: 0 Points
All chess players have an instant reaction like “you can’t give zero points for a hard fought draw”. Well that’s exactly what you get in all other sporting events. If you lose in overtime in basketball or football after a brutally hard fought game, you get nothing. If you lose in baseball in extra innings, you get nothing. If you lose in a tie-breaker in tennis or in a play-off in golf you are eliminated. All of those examples are analogous to a draw in chess.
The system can further be improved by not allowing anyone’s rating to increase on a draw. All draw’s should result in no adjustment to ratings regardless of what the initial rating of the two players was.
Win: 1 Point
Loss: 0 Points
Draw: 0 Points
The problem with a draw is that both players get equal points, whether its a half point or 0 points. Even if it was 50 points for a draw it doesn’t matter so long as both players get equal points.
I’d do 2 points for a win, 1 point for a draw with black (inducing white to attack) and 0 points for a draw as white (inducing white to attack).
I think the players are simply too even. If (young) weaker players are mixed in, they will likely be top motivated and the stronger players will have an incentive to win at least some games as to avoid losing rating points. These weaker players wouldn’t just be prey either, since they may very well surprise.
It shouldn’t be difficult to come up with popular players who could fill this role and attract spectators at the same time.
The general distaste for premature draw agreements would stand on firmer moral ground IF there were no ways to reduce the problem by fixing the rules: but there are ways to fix the rules of chess.
BASKETBALL’S EXAMPLE:
In the earlier era of basketball there was not 24 or 30 second shot clock. One team jumped out to an 8-2 lead, then spent 40 minutes passing the ball around to kill all the remaining time.
The league could have complained about the winning team’s behavior. Instead they wisely fixed the rules, against the objection of many.
Basketball became a better game because of the rule repairs.
RULES CHANGES THAT
COULD FIX CHESS:
1. The castling rules are arbitrary. Fix them to increase the rate of opposite wing castling.
2. Extend the life of each draw offer, to make it risky to offer a draw in unresolved situations.
3. Perhaps make it illegal to repeat a position for a third time.
(This needs more study, as it would increase the rate of zugzwang positions, and would probably affect the endgame most.)
4. Simply disallow early draw offers before move-pair 30.
5. Stop giving White an inherent advantage over Black. Any inherent advantage is unfair and is against the concept of sporting competition. The Black player is often striving for a draw, so I feel no surprise that lots of games end in a draw. Black must deal with the unfair disadvantage he has been stuck with by the flawed rules of the first move.
Switch to the pie fairness rule to govern the first ply of the game.
6. Do not start every single chess game from the same one position over and over and over. It leads to highly repetitious opening and early middle game play, enabling players to steer games to drawish positions from memorized variations.
Chess960 (FRC) is a highly legitimate implementation of the general concept of chess. Today’s traditional “chess1” has some advantages, but chess1 also has some serious flaws.
CHECKERS156
Checkers is a sister game of chess. Checkers also has a long valued history. Checkers crowned its first world champion 40 years before chess did (Andrew Anderson in 1847).
But when checkers faced the draw problem that chess players are complaining about, checkers lovers took bold action to fix their rules. They overcame the human tendency to clutch to tradition, and they changed/fixed the rules of checkers.
In 1900 checkers adopted rules much like the chess960 rules for chess. They called their fixed rules the “2-Move” rules.
The change worked so well that they took that rule change even further in 1930, now with the 3-Move rule.
I think of 3-Move as Checkers156.
Some checkers tournaments still use the old “GAYP” rules of the same start position for every game. But GAYP tournaments have less prestige than do 3-Move rule tournaments.
The living example of checkers proves it is possible to overcome the “tyranny of tradition”.
Gene Milener
http://CastleLong.com/
How about not being able to ask for a draw unless there has been an exchange at the board. No fight no glory.
“As a fan I’d never attend a tournament like that either. I’d save my money to go see Topalov, Judit Polgar, and other known fighters.”
Entry was actually free. Nobody paid to see the players. In fact, there was free coffee.
All of the players and all of the guests (including Anand) at the Tal Memorial were asked about the Sofia rules, and those who had an opinion did not like them. Only Kasparov said they could be considered.
“Stop giving White an inherent advantage over Black.”
This does not need to be “fixed” as every player will play both colors so it balances out.
I would not change the rules of castling EXCEPT allowing castling to get out of check. what’s the point of castling? Secure the king. What’s the rule when in check? Get out of check.
Castling OUT of check (but not through it) should be allowed.
there were draws everywhere at Tal memorial because it was held in Russia!!
annon said:
“GM Sergey Shipov offered to divide the prize fund according to points accumulated”
excellent proposal, together with 3:1 win to draw change and Sofia rules no more easy draw will be happen as a default “grandmaster privillage”.
Susan said:
“I know that as an organizer, I would not invite the players back if they do not behave professionally”
Who decides what is unprofessional behavior? For instance, Topalov accused Kramnik of cheating during the last WC. He is now in print saying Kramnik cheated. This is unprofessional behavior. Are you telling me that you would not invite Topalov to one of your tournaments? If that is true, the bravo to you Susan!
Yes I dont agree with Michael Aigner. Having white is not such a big advantage that one must give up on trying to win as Black. That is ridiculous. If these professional players are preparing their openings like they should I am sure they are equal or very close to it by move 25 at least 75% of the time. So what you are saying is that chess games only last 25 moves? what about fighting a drawish endgame to see who has the better endgame technique. This is crap and in recent times endgame play has taken a backseat because of it. Just ask Karsten Muller what he thinks. Dont just take my opinion for it
Misha Tal simply took the secret of Chess fighting spirit to the grave…
The only solution is 3 for a win ,1 for a draw and 0 for a loss and bigger side effects on drawish players !
New move rules, giving 3 points for a win. All these are against the nature of chess. Chess still has a high percentage of decisive games when played out. Kamsky has proved this. Topalov has proved this. Morozevich has proved this. Anand has proved this. Mistakes will happen, decisive results will occur. Of todays 4 short draws 1 or 2 would have ended in a decisive result if played to the end (Morozevich-Shirov was a valid 3 fold repetition, because the player to side step the repetition would have stood gravely worse).
Danailov hasn’t been 100% harmful to world chess. Sofia rules should be accepted by FIDE as a norm for high level invitational tournaments and organizers themselves should push for this. It would cure the problem. Computers have proven to us that chess is anything but exhausted. Recall Adams losing 5.5-0.5. The chances to play for a win are there. The chances to complicate the proceedings, to liven up things to make a fight of it.
Kasparov, Topalov and others have proven this can be a very successful strategy even at the very top.
Stop with the nonsense with 5 points for a black win etc. Let’s all stand united behind the Sofia rules.
I think it is important for players to play to their best abilities. In some games and positions, that result is a draw.
I disagree that the rule should change to give wins 3 points and draws 1 point. I think the current scoring regimen is fine.
I propose giving 3 points for a win and 1 point to black for a draw. White gets no points for a draw. This puts pressure on white and some on black to go for a win, but leaves the option of a draw, mostly to stop your opponent from gaining 3 points.This system was recently used in a tournament in the US recently, with fairly succesful results.
I see no need to “fix” the rules of chess to the point where it becomes something other than classic chess. Chess 960 is a great game but it is still not classical chess. Leave the pieces alone. A forced 3 move repetition is a great tactic so leave this rule alone. There does not need to be a major overhaul in the rules just some incentives to play fighting chess and penalties for playing short lame draws.
The simplest approach seems to be simply not let draw results persist in the tournament table. In other words, drawn games go to an immediate playoff (rapid, blitz, whatever) that day until a decisive result is posted. It doean’t require any rule changes, contractual changes, Sofia rules or anything else. It works in chess for knockout tournaments.
The major argument is that it’s not fair to decide a classical chess result with blitz games, but it’s considered acceptable in most professional sports to have a sudden-death playoff. Why should chess be different?
This should not have been The Tal Memorial for he was an attacking player and made brilliant sacrifices and fought to the very end in his games! What a disrespect to Mikhail’s memory to have a draw fest in this tournament. Maybe it should have been the Kramnik memorial lol.
The easiest solution is another pointing system.
For example : loss=0 points, draw is 1 point and win = 3 points !!
That would make them fight. Now a half point is too easily obtained! Only two of them equals a win. That is just rediculous!!
Or win a full point and draw only a quarter point, or third… ?
Most of Kramnik’s draws came from his days as a student of Kasparov. Those draws were actually offered by Garry. Even in their World Champ match Kramnik never offered any of the draws that occurred.
Kramnik has a bad rap as a quick draw player even though he is mistaken instead of the solid positional defender he is. His play is still boring in my opinion, but draws are not his fault.
If anyone interested, 3 win, 1 draw gives:
14 Aronian
13 Leko & Ponomariov
12 Gelfand
11 Svidler & Grischuk
9 Mamedyarov
7 Morozevich, Shirov & Carlson
Changing the win/draw points awarded from 1/.5 to 3/1 would create big pressure to cheat in double round robin events like San Luis 2005 and Mexico 2007:
“I will let you win our first game if you let me win our second game. Deal?”
More suspicions of cheating are the last thing chess needs.
Even at its best, the 3/1 system would encourage players to make unsound risky moves. That would be worse than the draw problem we are trying to fix.
G
No ties for first. If you win on tiebreaks, you win period. So Leko won the tournament. All the other players are losers that no one will remember, Pono and Aro. Pono and Aro receive 2nd and 3rd prize money, not a split of 1st prize money. All the glory to Leko. If Leko believes Pono and Aro. will either draw or lose, then it’s a smart move for Leko to play for a draw if Leko calculates that he’s ahead in tiebreak points. It’s up to Pono and Aro to step it up and go for the glory. If they don’t care about the glory, and are satisified with 2nd and 3rd place, then that’s fine for them, but don’t bring that crap in America.
The rules of the game need to be changed, so that agreed draws are no longer an option. Change draw by 3-fold repetition to LOSS by 3-fold repetition! Eliminate the rule against exposing your king to capture. Why should a player be protected against unintentionally committing suicide anyway? The rules don’t protect us against inadvertently dropping our queen! And in the basic K + P vs. lone K endgame, why shouldn’t the stronger side be rewarded with a victory for backing his opponent to the edge of the board until his only option is to expose his king to capture. None of these ideas is as radical as the rule changes that happened several centuries ago, which expanded the range of the bishops & queens. Yet they would have a PROFOUND impact on chess strategy, since an entire new realm of winning possibilities would be introduced.
This is yet more evidence that Bobby Fischer is right. Classical chess is dead. With grandmasters hoarding their opening preparations for special tournaments…I believe it’s time FIDE and the PCA should seriously consider introducing Fischer Random Chess.
Enough is enough. By forcing GM’s to think for themselves instead of their computer assisted analysis of well trodden openings…Chess960 would be a fresh change and allow interest in chess to grow. Imagine…chess players not having to study opening theory anymore!
It wouldn’t stop the problem of draws..but at least games won’t be analyzed down to the last move like they are these days. Hmmpfh. GM Susan Polgar herself has played Chess960 against Karpov as an example. I also wonder what the results of San Luis Argentina’s FIDE World Championship would have been had Fischer Random been used.
I don’t know about chess sponsorship, but I am sure that this behavior hurts chess by making it boring and uninteresting. Nobody likes to watch the game with 0 moves depicted on this blog. It is even worse than arranged games in other sports. This behavior will continue and even increase due to the transformation of chess players becoming businessmen and winning by contracts rather than play. An example started by Kasparov and exemplified by the current chess champion. Of course, rules have to be changed, structures have to be changed, otherwise we are going to see a long series of failures and disappointments like the Elista match and those finals.
Another suggestion (I agree that 3 points for a win will improve the risk of cheatings and prearranged games): arranging tournaments with grat disparity among the Elo of the partecipants, that’s e.g. out of 10 players only 3 or 4 should be >2700, the same umber for >2600, and 2-3 > 2500. This would have two benfits:
a) the top GMs have to strive in order not to lose points against the weaker ones, and that not always happen, thus raising the unbalancement of the scores, as they need to win while against a top GM they could allow a draw without harm.
b) This would deflate the rating of many “top GM” that are able to keep their points always playing against>2700: if one is in bad shape
doesn’t lose many points, but if they are not successfull in a top 14-15 tournament will lose a bunch of points and their actual value will appear very soon.
There is another potential issue here about the draw mania. The WHY.
For example, at the Tal Memorial, the last day, Leko played against Ponomariov, Aronian against Gelfand. Ponomariov could have won the tournament alone, if defeated Leko.
Same for Aronian, if defeated Gelfand.
Neither even bothered to try. Why?
Is it possible that these tournaments for whatever reason don’t have the sufficient incentive?
That for some reason it doesn’t matter to Ponomariov or Aronian to win the tournament, instead of coming in second or third?
I don’t know, I am merely asking. Anyone has any idea what could be the true reason?
Gabor
Dr Gabor are you saying there is something odd or fishy here??
hoddy said…
“Dr Gabor are you saying there is something odd or fishy here??”
I don’t know.
All I am saying that it doesn’t make any sense, that a player of Ponomariov’s or Aronian’s quality wouldn’t even bother to try to win a major tournament. Especially Ponomariov, who could have won it independently from any other outcome (in case of Aronian, a Leko-Ponomariov draw was a must).
I am merely looking for some logical explanation.
———————-
For example: is it possible that while we outsiders assume some great enthusiasm from every top chess player, while the reality could be a lot more cold? Like, they do the calculation, “if I place X, I will get paid this much, even if I am tied with two other players, so why bother?”.
Or another variation:”the world barely notices the world champion. I am not it. So, who cares whether I am first alone or first tied with two other players or even second. Other than a handful of people out there, nobody cares anyway”.
Or the combination of the above, or something else too.
——————
Do I have something more evil in mind? No, not really. I don’t know the world of chess from inside, so I wouldn’t have even a mere suggestion.
Gabor
Well said Dr Gabor have a great day…
PS.I can’t see say a US Tennis Open without the major top seeds not playing
to win (they fight for every point as if their life depended on it)
As David Letterman use to say: ehh, they just don’t care anymore…
Arlauk
In tournaments an mutually agreed draw should give 0 points to both players.
A stalemate draw should give ½ points to both players.
A 3 times repeated position draw should give 1/4 point to both players.
Something must be done, anything, to make chess to become called one of sports.
After this tournament you can easy understand why I LOVE TOPALOV STYLE…
>>
LOL. Imagine seeing “Topalov” and “style” in the same sentence. ROFLMAO. The draw problem is easy. If organizers want real games for their money, they should implement the Sofia Rule, or take what they get.
If you let players just give each other points without earning them, then of course, they will.
Just for the fun of it, I looked up Susan’s score with the great fighter Tal.
There’s only one game: San Francisco ’91. Draw in 15 moves.
I would introduce a rule like in soccer where you have a penalty shoot out for a winner. In the event of a draw then the players have to play a sudden death match like 30 minutes and then blitz etc until you get a winner.
You would stop the quick draws when a players know that sudden death has been introduced.
One further rule is to have wins count for 3 points and a draw for 1 point. That would make it very interesting where players can risk more to get a win even if they lose 1 point in a previous game they can still catch up with a player taking draws all the time.
Why not “Topalov style”? It certainly counts as a style to continue playing in a theoretical draw position, as Topalov often does. When he loses by his own blunder, it is a loss with dignity, and when he wins, it is a win with grace. That’s because he fights until the very end.
Why not only enforce that a player in a tournament can only play for a 1/2-1/2 point score during at most one round, if the game were to be drawn by perpetual checks? On all subsequent games, assign the player whom has previously received a perpetual 1/2 point (whether or not he was previously the attacker or defender) a zero instead of a partial point.
If a player doesn’t wish to continue to play at his optimum, or at least attempt a draw by other methods (ie I would accept draw by insufficient material or stalemate instead as legitimate 1/2-1/2 score), then throw the player out, for trying to persisently fix a strong, slow build-up of improvement in a potentially dubious attack, than have him just bail out with a perp. I would also either eliminate draw offers altogether, or at least try the Canadian Open 2005 rule try of not offering a 2nd draw from the same player until the opponent has also offered a declined draw, subsequent to the first player, whom was trying to persist in asking for it.