My opinion on this is that for professional players who are payed an appearance fee fair enough they can put up with it or not play, but to have rules like this in a tournament with amateur players is completely wrong. I know because I had to play in a tournament where they prohibited draws before move 35 and it led to some frankly ridiculous situations.

Just a note to applaud TonyK for his stance.  Having a swiss tournament would be a better way to avoid lots of draws.

Personally I think any event which has "special" additional rules that impact on how people play shouldn't be FIDE rated, as they aren't played under FIDE rules.  This is provided organisers still have the discretion to ignore the more ridiculous FIDE rules!

GMTonyKosten wrote on 05/17/12 at 10:27:35:


I took me a while but I think have figured it out now. It's French chess, a game played usually by 2-3 players (more in big events) where the third player's duty is to distract the two main players by suggesting incorrect mating attacks, illegal moves and by summarizing the opinions of the spectators in order to avoid boring draws. 

So it was not the French junior championships but the junior championships in French chess.

Of course once the French have their own chess the Germans and British want their own versions too. The German version will probably involve drinking beer and eating big meals while playing (according to some threads a while ago) while I am not so sure what the British version (which will of course be properly subdivided in to English, Welsh,Irish and Scottish chess) will be like.

Gilchrist is a legend wrote on 05/17/12 at 01:35:27:

Must be, and it would be my guess that this rule is very likely to encourage peaceably-minded players to discuss which forced repetition to play before their game.
I've heard lots of horror stories from the French junior championships, here are a few:
One player reached a simple theoretically drawn position of bishop v rook, headed his king for the correct corner and so the players decided to agree a draw, and called over the arbiter ... who said that they weren't being "sufficiently combative" and forced them to play on! The same thing happened in the very next round to the very same player who was forced to play nearly a hundred unnecessary moves!
There was a case in one of the lower (junior) sections where one player needed to make a draw to win the tournament and managed to force a perpetual check, so they called over the arbiter who said "why did you repeat, you can play Qd6 instead?" to which the player had to explain that Qd6 lost a piece!
The mind boggles! What if the arbiter had noticed that one of the players had a forced mate, should he then force them to play something else? Surely a third person shouldn't have any bearing on a game's outcome whatsoever?

I think that strategy might lower the average rating of the playing field, so that even if there will be less draws, the higher rated players will probably have easier games than if all of their opponents were their rating, and it will be easier for the higher rated players to win prizes and dominate the standings. 

I am not sure if the lower rated players will attend. The lower rated players will have difficulty as well trying to win, and even draw. I have played in tournaments where I was near the lowest rated and most of my opponents were titled players, and it is very difficult, and not very fun for the players my rating, meaning not very fun for me

So the queen sacrifice line in the Pirc with the perpetual check is allowed?

GMTonyKosten wrote on 05/16/12 at 20:05:37:


So does that mean ironically if one accomplished a drawn position where continuing proactive play will cause a fast loss for either player, they will have to play until the other player loses on time? 

I know on ICC there are many 1-minute and even 3-minute or 5-minute games where players play K+R v. K+R until the other loses on time. Ironically in those cases, neither play for the 50-move draw non-capture rule, but try to play for time.. 

What if instead of repeating, they simply play moves that do not change the position, e.g. Ra2/Ra3/Ra4/Ra5/Ra6/Ra7/Ra1/Ra2/Ra3, etc. whilst the other opponent plays ...Bc5/Bd6/Be7/Bb4/Bc3/Bd2/Bc3/Bb4/Be7. I do not understand these draw-move rules, because if the game is completely drawn on move 25, do the players simply play random moves until move 40?

I feel that such rules could cause the opposite: instead of having an equal position where neither side can win, some players might try to avoid the draw and lose horribly because they think they need to follow the rule. This would be worse in positions where there are positions where neither side can win reasonably, and if one tries to win, one will lose in a few moves.