Quote:


Well, it seems that the rule doesn't apply to team events The arbiter explained that it was pointless giving each player a zero in a team event as it doesn't change the result.
Anyway, so I got my well-timed draw offer in today - might as well make hay while the sun shines!

Quote:


Indeed, but as you say:
Quote:
and I've heard stories from Nimes where the arbiters tried to force players to play inferior moves to avoid the repetition!

GMTonyKosten wrote on 05/25/12 at 10:58:57:


that would have been really outrageous! 3-fold repetitions are an essentiel part of current chess. 

after checking with the arbiters, it seems that :
- draw offers were not allowed at any time (40 moves or not) ;
- other draws were allowed (stalemate, 3-fold, unsufficient materiel, 50-move) and checked by the arbiters at the end of the game.
- random repetitions and game fixing were not allowed and could be met with a double zero. Hopefully the threat was stronger than the execution.

The federation insists that the draw should be the result of a fight. No chess, no half-point. This is especially relevant for juniors since there are very few draws when the games come to their end. Please let us know what happens at the Top12, if you don't mind.

Zwischenzugzwang wrote on 05/25/12 at 11:41:48:


See my reply #71 for an example of them trying to stop a perpetual.

Zwischenzugzwang wrote on 05/25/12 at 11:41:48:

Well, with 3 seconds per move at the end I suppose this is theoretically possible! I suppose the idea is to play on till mate or king v king.

Zwischenzugzwang wrote on 05/25/12 at 11:41:48:

Yeah, and I'm sorry I wouldn't be able to watch it till the very end! 

Quote:

But the FFE seem to have altered this since your original post, as at the French Junior Championships they weren't allowing any draw offers (even after move 40) or 3-fold repetitions!

> I thought the topic of the original post was discussing hypothetical tournaments where there would be banned draws before move 40.

sorry if the original post was not clear. the rule is about banning draw offers before move 40. It doesn't rule out draw by 3-fold repetition at any stage. I tried to keep this point clear but for some reason it doesn't seem to imprint well.

this rule is not just hypothetical since it is currently enforced by French Chess Federation. 

No incident reported so far, but as Tony said, the upcoming Top12 (French 1st league) can be testing, as top GMs with strong character are expected to play. Another test will be the National Championship this summer, where some well-known GMs stay in the top group for years by making 15-move draws at each round.

GMTonyKosten wrote on 05/23/12 at 18:40:33:


In my experience, people use up their time looking for something forced and then accept the draw.

But okay, declining a draw offer against some players can be very effective, they seem to take it personally and want to force the issue to show how "correct" their draw offer was, often proving the opposite instead...



@Gilchrist 
If you've read my earlier posts you should know that in my opinion draw offers are superfluous - you can just as well offer a draw by inviting a repetition of moves as blurt out "Draaaw?" disturbing the other players. If it's hard to repeat moves safely, then it isn't a draw - or it's a forced draw and then you can just as well play it out.

And as I've pointed out before, just because you offer a draw in a completely equal position doesn't mean that your opponent is forced to accept it.

TalJechin wrote on 05/23/12 at 13:49:18:

Not necessarily, some players offer draws when their opponents are short of time, they don't want them to accept, they just want them to use up time thinking about the offer.

Jupp53 wrote on 05/23/12 at 13:29:43:


1) offering a draw is the opposite of fighting. 2) the three results are always there, whether you can offer a draw or not. 3) I have no idea how a draw offer is similar to accepting a gambit. 4) Sounds like you don't understand what you're talking about.

I remember playing in a tournament against a well known British GM (who shall remain nameless, but its not Tony) and in a long battle of a game in when at one stage I was worse I was getting the better of it in the endgame. Our GM hero then tried an interesting draw offer tactic against me, he smiled at me put his hands up in the air, shook his head, and put his arm outstretched saying "Draw"!!
I was almost taken in for a second before making the standard "make your move first" response which allowed me to decide to play on. The game was indeed eventually drawn in the end put it occurred to me that our hero might have saved many a rating point over the years with this tactic.

TalJechin wrote on 05/23/12 at 07:17:07:

This etiquette is utter crap. There's nothing but the pieces on the board. You play with your head, not with your rating.

I think if I were forced to play 50 or however more moves in a completely drawn position and wait for my opponent to spend more than an hour on those 50 trivial moves if there were such a tournament with such rules implemented, I would rather resign. Or not play in the tournament at all...

My longest tournament game was against an GM a few years ago where I was offered a draw on move 18, but stupidly declined despite my position being equal, and played onto a drawn position of 128 or so moves. It was close to completely drawn, and both my opponent and I were tired. I think if I were forced to play until king vs. king, I would resign due to fatigue. I would rather have a chance to eat lunch and not miss a meal than to play until 170+ moves or whatever such a tournament's rules would entail.

Yes, lower rated players signifies lower draw rates, but for example, if a national championship has an anti-draw rule, is the tournament as high-calibre and noteworthy, if in a very drastic case, all titled players refuse to play? In that specific case, either one would occur: draws allowed and very high rated players participate, or draws prohibited and no grandmasters, etc. play. Then a 2200 ends up winning the national championship?

Gilchrist, the organizers would tout the new draw rules as working because lower rated players have lower draw rates!

If the goal is to have lower draw rates, just get lower rated players to play. 

I really hate this rule, and this tendency to attack all draws. 

There are still a few GM draws that should be played out, but the game will not be better for these artificial rules that force the games to be played out. 

Chess allows for three results. There are other games that organizers can sponsor if they don't like it. Chess will continue to be played.

What if the anti-draw rule discourages strong players from playing, so the playing field is weaker? This will be bad for the tournament and the spectators. The players might go to other strong tournaments where draws are allowed.

It occurred to me that this rule will put an end to the 'art of the draw offer'!
Where the weaker player can offer a draw if he thinks he is better, but is unsure of how to continue (and suspects that his opponent will know), and also where the stronger player can offer a draw in a compromised (but not lost) position and hope that the rating difference will persuade his opponent to accept!

Another approach against unfought draws is The Kinks Rule, namely : any draw offer stands till the end of the day game. Opponents who don't "trust" each other will be more reluctant to offer a draw in non dead-draw positions. To me, it's as natural as a draw offer valid for one move only. There were suggestions for 10-move validity or so, but this puts unnecessary pressure on the player receiving the offer. If a player is confident that he can't win nor lose a position, let him offer a draw if he feels so inclined, or else let him play a normal game.

People don't get sick in high-rated events, it would seem. Also, that if I can propose one result, I should be able to propse another would seem entirely sensible.

But at the end of the day, any regulation in this area merely creates incentives for pre-arrangement and coreographing of chess games. So long as a game can end in a draw, resouceful players bent on that outcome will find a way to make it happen.

Markovich wrote on 05/21/12 at 14:57:50:


That might be a good argument for keeping the right to offer a draw at non professional events.

Quote:


But this I definitely don't agree with. In fact I'd see it as a good argument for banning the draw offer to stop unsportsmanlike conduct like the possibility of selling draws - especially when in a winning position to up the price. Or auction the result off with "Hey, you wanna win the tm? Then give me a better bid than my opponent or I won't see the mate in three..."


Quote:


Hmm, I can move my own pieces, so why can't I move my opponent's? 


Quote:


Agreed.


Quote:


Agreed again! Actually, when preparing against him I noticed several abrupt draws in recent tms, so maybe his Ultimatum Gambit has worked well before...

Since chess is not a spectator sport and shows no signs of becoming one, I fail to see what this "no draw" regulation serves, other than the prim concerns of a few people who most probably are not serious players themselves.  My God, have you ever been totally chessed out after playing two hard rounds already,  or sick from something you ate, and had to play chess?  I say that if a draw is mutually agreeable to the players, there is no reason why it should not occur even right after White's first move.  Further I don't think it should be anyone's business but that of the players why a draw was agreed.  If I offer you a draw after four moves, or even when I have mate in two, and you take it, why I did it is nobody's business by my own.

If a player can resign, why can't he offer a draw?

TDs should confine themselves to making the playing site comfortable, getting the pairings out on time, and making sure people don't cheat -- and leave the chess to the chess players.

@TalJechin: You were entirely right to do as you did.  I would always insist on the win in that situation.  Honestly, why does this guy play chess at all?  His proper conduct was to offer a draw with no further remarks.  Then, if you played on, he should have resigned with no further conversation -- or with minimal polite explanation.

GMTonyKosten wrote on 05/21/12 at 13:17:05:

Sure, feel free to do so!

Quote:

Well, my original choices were too long for the limited space you get in polls, but I'm happy to add some more choices if you like.
I guess you can still make a draw offer, and maybe you can still accept it, in France, but in that case both players will get zero, won't they?
I will be going to the Top12 in just over a week, where I fear this rule may be in force, so we'll see how the super-strong GMs handle it!

I wouldn't mind if draw offers were not allowed, as I rarely offer a draw unless it is a draw. But three repetitions should of course still be a draw. Which means that in boring positions you're likely to invite a 3-time-rep and achieve it, while in exciting positions you'll have to play on until it's decided - unless you're willing to gamble on inviting a rep which might get refuted on the board...

The only thing you lose by banning the draw offer is the extremely rare "I have to leave due to an emergency" and in that case the result of a chess game shouldn't be very important anyway... 

Btw, a few months ago in a Sunday series game I had an opponent who tried the gambit: "I have to go now, can we take a draw or else I resign?", when a pawn down in an ending which by then probably was a draw if correctly defended. As he had been two pawns down since the middlegame (with no compensation) and thus could have easily resigned if he really was in a hurry, I refused the draw. - It turned out he was going to a dinner party... 

- Anyway, banning draw offers is a small price to pay for eliminating all these 'sudden game deaths' with "½-½" where you start wondering if the rest was Zeitnot or if they really agreed to a draw in this very position?!?
And one less thing to explain to sponsors or an audience.

Gilchrist is a legend wrote on 05/18/12 at 23:59:55:


I don't know what any of this means. If you manage to drag the game on for 5 full days you get a draw even if you're behind, or something?

Another consideration is that while I think there is a lot of truth behind Giddins's comments, they are only particularly relevant to <1% of competitive chess players.   

While top-level classical chess may be at risk of dying out over the coming century due to the increasing strength of computers unless we make changes to the rules, I don't see that being true at amateur levels for the foreseeable future, where deep computer-assisted opening preperation is rare and mistakes are common.

some are afraid it's a way of fixing games. In France, chess is a Sports federation, which expects some sportsmanship. Every year, the national championship is covered by a sports journalist who asks in bewilderment: "wait, can they fix a draw during the game, with all pieces on the board? Imagine a football match after 20mn" etc. At this point, a seasoned chess player tells the journalist that they usually fix the draw - or any other result - before the game, and that you might as well let them do so during the game...

this poll is a great idea, yet the options are a bit restrictive in my view. for instance :
- "mutually agreed draw" is not the same as "draw offer". is 3-move repetition a MAD ?
- "draw offer in equal positions" is not the same as "draw offer in drawish positions", or "in positions perceived as drawish by one or both players", or in "any position" or "whenever suitable" as is the case now (the moral touch of "positions perceived as equal by the players" in the last choice is perhaps not necessary, unless it means that the players have to provide an explanation to the arbiter.) 

when a 3-move repetition occurs in a game, i see no reason why an arbiter would "refuse" the draw. I guess perpetual check now comes under the 3-repetion rules. If one player can "force" a draw by making it unsuitable for his opponent to deviate from a repetition, just let the draw happen if the player with the "draw in hand" so wishes. 

Actually it is not easy to capture the problem of "draw offers" in chess. Hopefully the long discussions here made it clear that it is distinct from the problem (if so) of "the drawish tendancy of chess". In other sports such as football, draws are frequent but draw offers are not allowed. At chess, one can see a draw coming but many good players can butcher a drawn position. Moreover, most people who insist that "it's draw because it's equal" tend to play much longer than necessary in lost positions. In computer chess one can claim a tablebase draw in order to save time, but it makes few sense OTB and I would prefer not to allow early draw offers. 

GMTonyKosten wrote on 05/18/12 at 09:30:51:

I'm totally against the 40-moves-with-no-draw rules and alike! 
If some organizers want to decrease the draw results...they have to organize only swiss tournaments. It's plain and simple. Pay an appearance fee to the GMs (or to the higher rated participants) to attract them in a swiss tournament and you will see a strong competition with no draws arranged. And make every chess championship a swiss competition if possible. Round-robins only if it's necessary! And don't complain when you see some draw results in a round-robin! It's natural...and it's a part of the game. 

Keano wrote on 05/18/12 at 08:00:54:

Yes, I quite agree. It must surely take a lot of the fun from the event, a bit like going back to school and having to sit at your desk until the bell goes.

Maybe they stopped protesting when Sarkozy lost the election?

fling wrote on 05/17/12 at 10:34:21:

Yes, very true, it does seem strange that chessplayers are so passive, especially French ones.
If zoo doesn't mind I will add a small poll to this thread to see what other Forum members think?!

What I find interesting is that the French are not complaining more. I have heard stories about wild strikes in France, like the farmers blocking roads with their trucks etc.

Much easier is to have the prize money based on won games. Of course keep the prize for the winner and runner-up, but do the rest based on the amount of won games.

Sadly, GM Kosten's stand will almost certainly be purely symbolic and completely lost on the organizers. 

If the organizers really wanted fighting chess they would invite ~1/8th of the participants who are ~150-200 rtg pts below their target group of participants. They could choose those participants based on local interest, gender, age, or any of a number of other criteria. But by choosing a few players who are significantly, but not embarrassingly lower rated than the main field, they would guarantee a higher per cent of decisive games. 

By requiring the field to refuse draws without permission, they encourage farcical games without improving the per cent of decisive results.

Gilchrist is a legend wrote on 05/16/12 at 20:37:32:

No, you get an increment each move so you just have to play ad infinitum until the arbiters give up and go off to eat!

Gilchrist is a legend wrote on 05/16/12 at 20:37:32:

Amazingly, one of the rules in the French Champs was that king and rook v king and rook couldn't be agreed drawn!!! They had to play out fifty moves!

Gilchrist is a legend wrote on 05/16/12 at 18:52:20:

They never mentioned move 40 to me, in the email I received from the FFE there were no agreed draws allowed at any time, so you could get to move 300 if you like and you still wouldn't be allowed to offer a draw!

Quote:

Apparently, in this year's French Junior Champs players who simply repeated moves 3 times were given a loss each if the repetition wasn't forced!

I heartily agree! I feel like there were a lot more tournaments like this (round robins including both the world elite and second-tier players) back in the 1950s and 60s (maybe they lasted for a while longer after that, that's just when the ones I remember are from). I think it makes for a great tournament for the front-runners to have to exert themselves to beat the stragglers in order to actually win the whole thing.

Exactly. I was trying to illustrate how draw bans before a certain move accomplish nothing. It also punishes draws that are hard fought. Players tired from a difficult game that results in a drawn position will probably not be amused in playing until a certain move to draw. It just wastes their energy and time for their next game.

Unless the draw ban before move 40 is complemented with the removal of an automatic draw via threefold repetition?

But cricket is the second most popular sport after football, which means almost 2 billion people play or watch it

And I am a Commonwealth citizen

If that is the rule on innings for Day 5 (or even worse, if the team batting second or third is still batting past lunch on Day 5), then it would be similar to a draw ban before move 40 (half hour before stumps). Just like how the fielding side can have a pace bowler bowl wide of off stump or a spinner bowling a leg stump line, players in chess might just shuffle their pieces around in a drawn position or equal endgame because there would be no productive way of completing the game.

Markovich, judging from the games played at the Tal Memorial, a three-fold repetition is allowed before move 40. 

JonathanB wrote on 11/28/11 at 09:54:13:

Isnt that the entire point of cricket?

Even if there was not an agreed draw, if the position is completely equal, the players will simply shuffle their pieces until they reach the move whereby they can offer a draw. Since they would have offered a draw earlier, the rule seems to have wasted their time and added more useless moves to the game.

In the West Indies-India 3rd Test that ended a couple of days ago, the Test was drawn due to a tie:

West Indies 1st innings: 590
India 1st innings: 481
West Indies 2nd innings: 134
India 2nd innings: 243/9 
 
FOW 243/9 R. Ashwin (run out) last ball of the match needing  2 runs to win.

With regards to JonathanB's post, I think this is the third scenario.

India could have abandoned the chase of 244 to win, especially due to the tremendous Day 5 spin off of the wicket, but they decided to eschew the draw in favour of th chase. Like chess, they did not need to necessarily play all of the Day 5 overs before drawing the Test. In 1996 Sri Lanka scored a massive 952/6 against India in a Test in, I believe, Colombo. If the wicket is so flat, a draw seems quite likely.  

I do not think a ban on draws before Move 40 can be logical. If the position has at least a 90% likelihood of a draw, both players might simply not play to win. If they cannot offer a draw, they might just shuffle their pieces around until Move 40. What a draw ban before Move 40 would do would extend the game by some useless moves, and waste the players' time.

In Test cricket, the pitch changes throughout the game. Even if the game seems like a draw on a flat wicket, unexpected turn for the spinners or reverse swing for the pace bowlers may occur and change the course of the game; those factors may account for choosing to play for a win in a seemingly drawn match. I have thought about very equal positions in chess, with comparisons to Day 5 of Test matches. If after a declaration, the team batting last in the 2nd innings have to chase a large total such as 450, their defensive technique is passable, and the pitch is not offering much for the bowlers, yet chasing 450 or whatever total is still impossible, then I think both sides may agree to an early draw. One of the recent examples I can remember was, I think, in the Ashes 2010/11 series, 1st Test in Brisbane. In chess the chessboard does not progress and change like a Day 5 cricket pitch