Here is the Bilbao version of the “Sofia rules”
5. – Players are not allowed to agree draw without arbiter’s permission. In case both players request it to him, the arbiter will make his decision after consulting with a technical assistant.
The faster than usual time control (90 minutes for the first 40 moves and another 60 minutes to finish the game) created an interesting “situation” in round 1.
After the Radjabov – Topalov game reached a drawish looking Rook endgame, typically for tournaments with no “Sofia rules” the players would have agreed to a draw. But in this case, they needed the approval of the technical assistant’s (Javier Moreno). They did not get the “permission” needed and had to fight on, until King versus King!
So far, so good! And here comes to “controversial” part…
A bit later, after Ivanchuk playing a good game versus the reining World Champion Anand, he reached a Q+R+ps vs. Q+R+ps endgame with an extra Pawn.
As I found out at the after-the-game interview from Vassily, he forgot that in this tournament there are no increments. It is a sudden-death time control! He left himself with only 24 seconds versus Anand’s 25+ minutes for the rest of the game! Ivanchuk being a Pawn up, offered a draw, which Anand accepted!
Here is the situation.
What would have happened if Anand would have decided to play on – for time? He would have had excellent chances to win on time. He certainly had the right to do so, according to the rules, but I guess he felt “it’s low blow”.
Anand said after the game that perhaps at another time or in another tournament, he may have played on. However, in this game, he didn’t feel that he deserved to win this way because he was hanging on for a draw. It was certainly excellent sportsmanship on Vishy’s part.
I was puzzled about the “Sofia rules” not being enforced in this case and they were in the Radjabov – Topalov game. The first game looked more drawish to me than the Anand – Ivanchuk game.
I believe that the “Sofia rules” need some further refining to deal with similar cases. I believe the rules should be clearer to avoid misunderstandings in the future.
This rule is ridiculous. 30-40 moves rule is more than enough.
The Sofia rules are good as they prevent players to agree to a uick draw after 20 obligatory moves that have been played hundreds of times before.
The down side is that sometimes GM’s have to play out the drawn positions.
I watched the game between Anand and Ivanchuk yesterday over the webcam. Although Ivanchuk was a pawn up, Anand looked so bored like he knew it all along that this will end in a draw. At least thats how it seemed to me. Like he wants to finish this game as soon as possible.
If it’s a sudden-death time-control, he could claim draw according to Article 10.2 of the Laws, couldn’t him?
Mikel Larreategi
I can’t believe that Ivanchuk “forgot that in this tournament there are no increments”. Didin’t he watch his clock after 40th move?
Nevertheless, great behaviour of Vishy Anand… He really deserves to be #1, not only because of his chess skills, but also because of his gentlemanship
First, let us acknowledge the excellent sportsmanship of Anand: he could have won on time but chose not to.
Any time-regime with no increment (3″) for physically moving the piece and punching the clock is very bad news. There should be no such time-regimes.
I think the Bibao rules are fine. My impression here is that the Arbitrator could have asked Anand-Ivanchuk to play on, but given that Anand indicated he did not wish to win on time, also agreed to the draw.
It is difficult to change the rules so ‘allow the players to agree a draw’ since the whole point of them is to avoid this. Not clear how the time factor can be written in to the rules.
Players are not allowed to agree draw, but they are still allowed to claim a draw. In the FIDE Handbook, Appendix E.I.01A Article 10, it is stated that if a player is running out of time and it is clear that his opponent is not making an effort to win the game by normal means, the player may claim a draw.
Why not just have increment? With increment no way would Anand have winning chances. The time control is very bad for endgames- imagine if you have a 100 move endgame- it could end up being blitzed at lightning speed.
Ivanchuk missed a reasonable chance to win also from his terrible time management.
These “no draw rules” are nonsense in this case as the “3-1-0 scoring system” takes its part.
The idea behind the “sofia rules” was to stop quick draws but those are penalized here by only 1 point, so two quick draws give less points than two fighted games with one win and one loss.
In my eyes the new (and good!) system is everything this tournament needs, get away from the “no draw offer rules”.
Best wishes from someone who is disappointed by all quick draws
Jochen
Hats of for Anand!
He is such a gentleman. I believe his example will have a positive effect on the other top players.
– “Why not just have increment? With increment no way would Anand have winning chances.”
I agree we should have increments. With an increment Anand would have thought for longer and played better moves than the ones he played and so would have Ivanchuk and the game would have been played out till the very end with more time and hopefully would have been a good quality game, ending in a natural outcome – proper draw.
I’m thinking the rule was put in place to make the games more interesting for the spectator… In the Topalov/Radjabov game the players were forced to play out the game with the possibility that one of them might play less than accurately and lose – rule intent achieved. In the Anand/Ivanchuk game we saw another side of the rule, a great game saved from being spoiled by Ivanchuk playing less well in a time scamble.
yeah! its WAY more interesting seeing super gms blunder with 20 sec left on the clock then it is seeing them actually outplay and win in a high quality fashion.
i think time should be a factor in chess but no increments is seriously STUPID! if you want ‘exciting chess’ in the sense of time trouble and blunders, maybe they should broadcast the daily BLITZ tournament instead.
if you think seeing two sub2000 players ‘DUKE IT OUT!’ is more exciting.
the 3-1-0 is even worse.
horrible rules but an AWESOME field and tournament.
I would be slapped in the face if I told my opponents in Monopoloy that I refuse to give them $500 in rent money for landing on their Park Place square.
This is why chess is not popular in America. Iron-clad rules will guarantee solid results an dedicated fans. The constant rule changes frustrate chess fans here are around the world.
It’s move 13 and Ivanchuck has 47 minutes left :-)) Is he going to get himself in time trouble again today?
The 60-minute-to-end-of-game hurts chess quality, especially the endgame. There were so much potential left in yesterday’s game between Adnad and Ivanchuck. That was why Fischer first proposed the increment — to allow time for proper endgame playing.
The World Championship Grand Prix tournaments are using these rules. In Baku the percentage of draws was over 58%. In Sochi it was over 62%. So it doesn’t seem that the rule cuts down the number of draws. I don’t like short draws with nothing going on, but otherwise I don’t see why draws are evil.
I agree with Jochen. Draws are less usefull to any player, so using Sofia-rules are double measures.
“In Baku the percentage of draws was over 58%. In Sochi it was over 62%.”
This percentages are irrelevant since the Sofia rules are not anti draw rules, but anti short draw rules.
The only way to circumvent Sofia rules and produce a short draw is if the players repeat the position three times early in the game.
In Baku and Sochi draws by agreement were not allowed. That probably reduced short draws, but it didn’t seem to reduce the number of draws.
But Sofia rules are not (and never were) designed to reduce the draws.
So what’s your point?
I like Anand’s sportmanship.
I think all tournament game should be played with increments.
And I like the Sofia rules, indeed, I believe that GMs should be forced to play out games until the position is so clear that a strong club player would not lose the position to a master.
Steven Craig Miller