[quote author=655B5E5E575F425B57320 link=1321642542/31#31 date=1322319008]Back on topic. I think as far as popularity goes, any game is much helped by decisive results (or tight finishes) and that the level doesnt matter that much.[/quote]
O.K. you think. This means? Do you have any proof about it?

The most popular sport in Europe is football and a draw is an important part of it. 

[quote]People like watching a tournament with Anand or Kramnik not because their level of play, but because of their ranking.[/quote]
Proof please.

[quote] Another thing is to stop with sharing places. Every tournament needs a clear winner and a clear runner up.[/quote]
Says who? Proof please.

[quote] Try explaining to an American that you can share 1st place.[/quote]

Try explaining a feminist that women in Europe and USA are the privileged gender. So what?

fling wrote on 11/26/11 at 09:09:20:


That hits the point. Tournaments with many decided games are generally of a lower quality compared to those with a high rate of draws.

It's not absolutely wrong to state that people demanding for more decisive results ask for lower quality of the chess content, is it? 

In retrospective this rule does not reduce the number of game with draw. What was the draw percentage of the tournament Tal memorial tournament? Around 80 ? Chess at the highest level is suffering from draw death. Fischer random chess is the future of chess.

So, you're criticising someone for winning the World Championship with a draw instead of rubbing his opponent's face in the mud and grinding him down?  This really is equivalent to taking a knee in American football. In football, it's called a "victory formation". Yeah, it's possible to run up the score, but that's not good form.

Kudos to Euwe (And all the world champions and match winners) who accepted a draw in a won position in the final game of a won match!

TalJechin wrote on 11/23/11 at 16:38:16:


But this is from the WCh match Euwe actually won, isn't it? Maybe by round 30 he was so far ahead that a draw was as good as a win.

If beating Alekhine in WCh match is "looking like an idiot", I think I could live with that.  

[quote author=417750130 link=1321642542/20#20 date=1322063541][quote]Would any of your examples involve [b]agreeing a draw when one side has the advantage?[/b][/quote]

What's the relevance of one side having the advantage. How do players know anyway? It's not as if you are allowed to consult a chess engine before offering or accepting a draw. 

I think the rule that requires the draw acceptance to be endorsed by the arbiter is a plausible one for top class events although it puts the onus on the arbiter to have a reasonable playing standard and to come to an instant decision.[/quote]

Here's one example from a world championship match, the end position is typical for match play with "I'm too lazy to win" players - or maybe it was that Euwe didn't have an engine to consult? :))

[pgn][Event "Wch16"]
[Site "Amsterdam"]
[Date "1935.??.??"]
[Round "30"]
[White "Euwe, Max"]
[Black "Alekhine, Alexander"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "D21"]
[PlyCount "79"]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3. Nf3 Nd7 4. Qa4 c6 5. Qxc4 Ngf6 6. g3 g6 7. Nc3 Bg7 8.
Bg2 O-O 9. O-O Qa5 10. e4 Qh5 11. Qd3 Nb6 12. Ne2 Rd8 13. a4 Nbd7 14. b4 g5 15.
Nxg5 Ne5 16. Qc2 Ng6 17. h3 h6 18. Bf3 Ng4 19. hxg4 Bxg4 20. Bxg4 Qxg4 21. Nxf7
Kxf7 22. Qc4+ e6 23. f3 Qh5 24. Be3 Rg8 25. Rf2 Bf6 26. Raf1 Nh4 27. Qxe6+ Kxe6
28. Nf4+ Kf7 29. Nxh5 Be7 30. Kh2 Ng6 31. Rb2 Rac8 32. f4 Nf8 33. f5 Bg5 34.
Bxg5 Rxg5 35. Nf4 Nh7 36. Ne6 Rh5+ 37. Kg2 Nf6 38. Kf3 Rg8 39. Nf4 Rhg5 40. Rg1
1/2-1/2

[/pgn]

Eliminating these kinds of eyesores with a "no draw offers"-rule would be nice. Besides, since so few players know the proper procedure or frequency regarding draw offers, an elimination of the whole concept would also remove one of the most frequent disturbances discussed in this thread. 

Of course, Euwe and Alekhine could have repeated moves in the final position - thus making it obvious that White was a total patzer who couldn't figure out how to win with 2 extra pawns. However, I doubt he would have done that, it's one thing to get the game over with it's another to look like an idiot to the spectators.

[quote]Would any of your examples involve [b]agreeing a draw when one side has the advantage?[/b][/quote]

What's the relevance of one side having the advantage. How do players know anyway? It's not as if you are allowed to consult a chess engine before offering or accepting a draw. 

I think the rule that requires the draw acceptance to be endorsed by the arbiter is a plausible one for top class events although it puts the onus on the arbiter to have a reasonable playing standard and to come to an instant decision.

Btw, game theoretically there is another point with removing the option of the agreed draw. Wouldn't at least one of the players try to avoid forcing theoretical lines which end up with dry equality or a microscopic disadvantage knowing that they would have to keep playing the resulting position for hours? 

- Sure you can assume that a 3-fold can be arranged, but you can never be sure that it will happen as your opponent might not mind the boring position as much as you...