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

A bit of chess stuff up top because the rest is going to be cricket.

Thought 1: Isn't the point of the no quick draws thing not necessarily make more decisive games happen but to get the games to be played out properly?

Thought 2: I remember Jonathan Rowson at the London Chess Classic talking about being a commentator at one of the Kramnik - Kasparov games that ended really quickly.  Some sponsors turned up after 90 minutes or some such and he was struggling to find a way of explaining to them why the players had already gone home.


I know the draw offer rule isn't perfect, but I tend to feel it's a small improvement and does more good than harm (although I am concerned it might increase the number of pre-arranged draws).  I suppose the best solution of all, though, is for tournaments to invite players who are going to scrap it out come what may.







Anyway, on to the cricket stuff ....



Stigma wrote on 11/27/11 at 03:02:26:


Of course my dear old thing [citizens of the British Commonwealth may have noticed I'm channelling Henry Blofield as I type]


draw: the game ends not because the match has finished but because it has run out of time.  This is by far the most common

e.g.
Team A first innings 328 all out
Team B first innings 291 all out
Team A second innings 247 for 6 declared
Team B second innings 112 for 3

Team B haven't got passed Team A's combined total and Team A haven't bowled Team B out for the second time.

Therefore: Draw.




Tie: both sides have completed their innings and their totals match exactly

e.g
Team A first innings 433 all out
Team B first innings 319 all out
Team A first innings 212 all out
Team B second innings 326 all out

Match completed.  Everything balances.  hence = tie.

This is incredibly rare.  In fact I think I'm right in saying it's only happened twice in all of test match cricket history.



Finally,
a draw with final scores level.  This is kind of a combination of both the above and is the rarest of all.  I don't think it's every happened in Test Match Cricket.

e.g.
Team A 200 all out
Team B 350 all out
Team A 399 all out
Team B 249 for 1

Team B haven't won because they haven't scored more runs than the other side.  Team A haven't won because they haven't bowled out the other side twice.  It's not a tie because the innings aren't both completed.

Hence: draw with final scores level.

Agreed, MNb. The main point, that the rule attempts to solve a non-existent problem, and fails, remains.

The high number of draws in the Tal Memorial may in part have been caused by the rule and the players' subconscious desire to subvert the rule.

As it was, there were quite a few games that reached a dead position by move 30 and we were treated to 10 moves of the two players shuffling pieces or playing out three-fold repetitions as if the best players on the planet couldn't see that a draw was inevitable.

Now that the fans are heavily equipped with strong chess engines, the argument that professionals must play out drawn positions so the fans can understand what's going on has even less weight.

If you want to reduce the number of draws in an elite tournament, invite one or two bunnies. That way, the best players will beat up on the lower rated opponents, but someone will stumble and only draw. Then they'll have to play more vigorously against the top players.

JonathanB wrote on 11/27/11 at 01:38:18:


You couldn't be bothered to explain the mysterious difference between those three, for us poor non-citizens of the British Commonwealth?

I tried watching a cricket match on TV once. It lasted way too long and the same rather non-spectacular things happened again and again. Though the same can be said of most major sports. I have a weakness for tennis as a spectator sport though; you sometimes see amazing shots from the top players, and the fact that every game and set must have a winner can lead to epic duels.

With football at least the boredom is over after 90 minutes! And thankfully we have chess, where a game can go on for 7 hours with something new happening all the time 

Jupp53 wrote on 11/27/11 at 00:05:20:

so 20th century....

[quote author=7A4540400503300 link=1321642542/32#32 date=1322325573][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]
Sure, any football match is better watched when the result is expected to be tight. And eg also in football in the various tournaments the knock-out phase is much better watched than the round-robins before. A lot of sports don't even know about draws, in fact most games. Football, chess are basically exceptions rather than the rule.
[quote]
[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]
OK then. Give someone who spectates at Hoogovens a random win of Anand and one of a "lowly rated" GM and ask if they can guess who is playing. I know I won't be able to distinguish just by the level of play. Yet no one will be watching when that other GM is playing.
[quote]

[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]
Says me.
[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?[/quote]
Picking on an example by a weird counter-example doesnt make much sense.
But go ahead give me any sport where you can share first place in a tournament. Even in a national competition they ensure that an equal finish is all but impossible.