Off-Topic replies have been moved to this Topic.

There is no indication of who is behind in that example, since the third innings is barely finished, and the fourth innings is definitely not going to progress on Day 5 in such a situation. But in situations where a team is behind, if there is not enough time left, it will be a draw after 90 overs. But the main point of the example was to demonstrate that some sports allow draw offers without finishing the game.

In football, draw offers are not allowed, but in Test cricket, I think they are. I am not sure of what the rules are exactly, but I know that after a certain point on the 5th day, if the game is obviously a draw due to lack of time, e.g. Team A 1st innings: 702, Team B: 2nd innings: 674, Team A: 3rd innings (in progress): 202/1, and it is close to the Tea break on Day 5, I think both captains can ask if they want to draw and finish the game immediately instead of playing out the 90 overs of Day 5. So draw offers are allowed only in some sports. 

I think forcing players to play drawn positions either to a certain move or indefinitely is ridiculous. In the former, either they will both play random moves to fulfil the move quota; in the latter, the game will be idiotically long, and the game might transpire to a position that is still equal, except the game will finish like an online 3-minute or 1-minute game, with both players trying to win on time in a completely drawn position. In either case, valuable energy is wasted for the next games by playing more moves than should have been required for that game.

Quote:


Well, technically it is of course. The problem, as  SWJediknight says, is the drawishness of top-leve chess now. It seems the computers have done a lot to take the fun out of the game, for those of us who care most about the fight between two fallible humans...
Gididns wrote something similar over at Chessbase: http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=8162

I don't want to see competitive chess dying a slow death, so what's the best way to make it less drawish while retaining the elements that make it worthwhile? The "no-draw-offers" rules seem rather comical when people are forced to play on in hopelessly drawn position or when neither side is motivated to make an effort; so the incentives or the nature of the game must be changed too.

I had some hopes for the Sofia rules, but they don't seem to make much difference in practice. I didn't think I would ever say this, but I think shorter time controls (leading to more errors) will be part of the solution. And also, contra Giddins, Chess960 could be worthwhile in the future. Or develop western chess in the direction of Shogi and Bughouse, where captured pieces may reappear on the board. 

All these will make the game less drawish while preserving the fight and the mental challenge. Though radical changes to the rules will of course "level the playing field" and devalue a lot of the hard work currently strong players have done to build up their knowledge, so the change is hard to accept...

I wonder how smoothly the 15th century rule changes went by; were there lots of protests from experts bent on keeping the rules all their strategies and knowledge were tied to?

What's in the head of people restricting draw offers? I seriously wonder.

I think the main problem that we have in grandmaster chess is the inherently drawish tendency of chess at the highest levels- the way that with defence and computer-assisted preperation being so good, it is hard to take significant risks to unbalance the position against an opponent who is happy to draw (especially if you are playing Black) without it rebounding on you. 

There is a problematic trade-off here too- is our primary hope as spectators to have chess played very accurately or to have fighting chess with lots of decisive results?  At the highest levels of play it becomes hard to get both- brilliancies tend to have mistakes (often by both sides) and a well-played game tends to see both players cancel each other out resulting in a draw.

I recall reading an article in "Chess Monthly" about how Swiss and round robin systems encourage players to go all-out for the win, whereas in all-play-alls and matches the primary aim is not to lose.  Thus if the aim is to increase the number of decisive results then having more Swisses and round robins may make sense.  

I don't have a strong opinion on rules like "no draws before move 40" in professional events, though I have doubts as to their effectiveness.  I am dead against such rules at amateur levels of play, though, where due to the higher number of mistakes it is easier to get away with taking risks to unbalance the position and the "drawishness" issue is non-existent.

What do the other Forum members think?