The End of the Draw Offer?
An open letter by GM Maurice Ashley

To all chess fans:

Recently I have been thinking about a practice in chess that I believe
needs to be discussed by all of us who love this game, and that is, the
draw offer. This topic started to occupy my mind mainly because of two
events: the 2003 US Championships and the Kasparov-Deep Junior match at
which I was a commentator. In the former, with 8 players tied for first
going into the last round and a $25,000 first-place prize up for grabs,
draw offers were made and quickly accepted on three of the top four
boards. In the latter, after having captured the imagination of
millions of chess playing fans and the general public, the players
stunned everyone by agreeing to a draw in a position where the tension
was reaching its peak.

I guess I might not have given the issue much thought if it had not
been for the bitter reaction that ensued in both cases. In Seattle, the
chief organizer Erik Anderson, was shocked, angered and deeply
disappointed. He felt that with all the sponsorship money that had been
raised, it was terribly insulting to the benefactors and the fans that
the top players (with the notable exception of Shabalov and Akobian)
had snuffed out most of the drama from the event. He also pointed out
that this was a lost opportunity for our nation's top players to show
what our game was all about. His anger propelled him to be even more
generous (!) by rewarding the two gladiators with a $5,000 bonus for
their fighting spirit. In the end, he said what really hurt him the
most was that one of his children interpreted the draw offers as
cheating because this fixed the result before the real contest had
occurred.

In the case of the Man vs Machine match, the reaction was even worse.
Naturally this match received a mountain of hype and arguably, in our
internet age, it was the most covered chess event ever with over 45,000
papers reporting on the first game alone. Even more amazing, the
prominent sports network ESPN2 sent a crew to broadcast the event live
across America. It was a fantastic moment for chess as approximately
400,000 households were tuned in. Needless to say, the finish was
disappointing. The in-house audience booed raucously while my usually
eloquent co-commentator, Yasser Seirawan, and I struggled to make sense
of it for the TV viewers. Even my mother-in-law and her sister, who
have never touched a pawn in their lives but who watched the entire
three hours (imagine that), expressed their opinion that there must
have been some prior arrangement agreed upon by the two competitors.
While I quickly let them know that neither side would be a party to
such nonsense, I couldn't help but wonder how many other viewers
across America were thinking the same thing.

As someone who has devoted my life to not only playing but also
popularizing chess, it hurt me to hear the game talked about so
negatively. Kasparov explained afterwards with astonishing frankness
that he just "didn't want to lose." After having thoroughly
outplayed Deep Junior in virtually every game of the match, he was
concerned that even his own amazing powers might falter in the last
game. Those of us who have lost important games know the feeling well.
Still, if chess is to ever get the popularity that Kasparov has made
his admirable mission from the beginning of his career, I think the
issue of draw offers will have to be addressed.

When I put in a phone call to Tom Brownscombe at the USCF he read me
rule 14.b.6 out of the USCF rulebook which states: "It is unethical
and unsporting to agree to a draw before a serious contest has
begun." Frankly, I didn't even know this rule existed, but the way
it is worded means it has no bite whatsoever. On top of that, it
doesn't address an even more fundamental question: why are we allowed
to offer a draw in chess? At what point did this become allowed? Tom
did not know the answer to this question, but referred me to USCF
President and chess historian John McCrary. When I asked him, he was
instantly able to tell me the origin of the fifty-move rule and the
three move repetition, but could not think of where the draw offer had
originated. He promised to look into it, and it wasn't long before I
received this e-mail:

Maurice, Your question turned into quite a research topic! I could
find nothing in my standard sources, so I did some quick original
research in my old books, and found the following: In Medieval chess (
Shatranj) the draw was recognized, but apparently only in simplified
endgames in which it was clearly impossible for either side to force a
win. There is no apparent reference to draws earlier than the late
stages of the endgame in Shatranj literature. Even until the 18th
century, there seems to have been no draws by agreement other than in
very simplified endgames. In the Oxford Encyclopedia of Chess Games,
the earliest draw of any kind was a perpetual check in 1750, although
that book has recorded games all the way back to the 1400's. Staunton's
Handbook (1848) refers to draws by agreement only if the forces are
greatly simplified, such as K+Q vs K+Q. The earliest reference to draw
by agreement I could find was in the American Chess Code of 1897, which
allowed draw by agreement at any time.

Certainly a draw can be a natural result of a well-played game. Few
would complain when two players slug it out, throwing caution to the
wind only for the fireworks to fizzle to a lifeless position (check out
Tate-Ashley, New York 1993 for an extreme example of this). But the
draw offer, especially one that is made after ten or twelve perfunctory
moves, seems just bizarre. Imagine a basketball game being played for a
few minutes before both sides decide to stop and call it a day. "You
know, we had long flight in, our players played last night and are a
little tired. Would you like a draw so that we can all go out and have
a beer?" As completely ridiculous as that sounds in most sports, we see
this happen in chess at almost every tournament. Even sports where ties
are allowed (soccer and hockey, and, surprisingly, American Football)
some attempt is made to avoid this somewhat unsatisfying result. Most
other sports resolve the problem in a clear way: basketball can go into
three or four overtimes, baseball has extra innings, tennis has the
tie-break, and golf has some kind of playoff. Of course, chess is
different since a drawn result is sometimes unavoidable. If only two
kings are left on the board, adding a few extra minutes won't make
difference. It would be pointless to play out many rook endings as well
as many bishop of opposite color endings. Draws are a natural part of
our game, and to play for a win in many positions is stupid if not
suicidal. However, the draw offer in a position full of life with
mysteries yet to be revealed has got to be the most abused rule in all
of chess. I am not even sure you can call this a rule: it is more like
a practice that has been regulated, or, in this case, not regulated
enough.

Now don't get me wrong: as much as I detest draws, I have also been
guilty of abusing this practice. Both times that I tied for first in
Foxwoods were due to early last round draw offers (one year my opponent
extended the courtesy while the next time I was the one who suggested
peace). My tie for first in the Bermuda Open was due to a quick draw
offer I made. In all three cases, against very strong GMs, I had come
into the round unsure if my opponents were as worried as I was about
losing out on a decent prize. However, at King's Island in 2002 where
I was in sole first by half a point going into the last round, I
expected and steeled myself for a heavy struggle. Imagine my surprise
when my opponent, a GM known for his fighting spirit, offered me an
early draw even though he had White! He said that he had been out the
night before and was too tired to play. The story got even more curious
when boards two and three, with some of America's strongest players
now with a legitimate shot of tying me for first, also saw quick draws,
one because of "fatigue" and the other because of friendship. I
know this "friendship" excuse because my great buddy Josh Waitzkin
and I had an unspoken agreement to draw our games before his Dad
suggested that organizers might stop inviting us to the same
tournament. We talked it through and decided that, as painful as it
was, our friendship could withstand the competition. Curiously, out of
our next ten games I think only two were decisive.

I say all this because it took me over twenty years to realize how much
of a spell we are all under. I can't remember when I first learned
that a draw can be offered at any time, and I certainly don't
remember questioning it. 'Bishops move diagonally, the object of the
game is to checkmate the king, and you can offer a draw whenever you
like.' In the lower rated sections of many youth championships, you
see some kids who have just learned the rule use it to almost harass
the other kid with draw offers on every move!

Unfortunately, the draw offer has been used in more devious ways.
Recently, it has come out that Bobby Fischer had been right all along
when he said that the Soviets ganged up on him in Curacao by drawing
each other quickly to save energy (Korchnoi has added that the he too
was a victim of this at the same event). The names of the conspiring
players are among the greatest to have ever touched a chess piece. In
some sense, who can blame them since if they had truly tried to defeat
each other the result may have ended in the same way? Why not save some
energy for later on, and to use against players who may be a bit more
tired from playing out long games? Yet we all know that this specious
argument smacks up against every element that makes sports so grand.
And while today's professionals are not in the business of fixing
games, we still see an epidemic of early draws even at the highest
levels.

Imagine for a moment that it was the last round of a major tournament
and Player X is leading the field by a half-point. His opponent, Player
Y has had a horrible tournament and really couldn't care less about
playing. They sit at the board, punch clocks, make a few moves and then
Player Y resigns! Of course, there would be an uproar that would
probably result in the player being banned from future events. Now
let's change the scenario and say the players agreed to a draw. That
would most likely elicit only modest grumbles even though Player X had
just been handed at least a tie for first for doing nothing at all.
Yes, Player X got into that situation by playing well in previous
rounds, but that does not change anything. Teams are constantly playing
well to get to the finals of major competitions without being handed
the title on a silver platter once they get there. In chess, the
attitude is, "We can do it so why not?"

If we were to agree that this is a serious problem that needs
addressing, the next question has to be "What can be done about
it?" When I brought up this subject with former Women's World
Champion Susan Polgar, she said that she remembers that in the old
Soviet and Hungarian championships players were not allowed to offer
draws before move thirty. She also reminded me that Rentero, the
organizer of Linares, used to have it in the players' contracts that
they were not allowed to draw before the first time control. I agree
that this is a great place to start, but why not after fifty moves
instead? We already have a fifty-move rule so this already creates some
harmony. The reason I am not jumping to eliminate the draw offer
entirely is to deal with the reality of those endgame situations where
there really is nothing to play for. Fifty moves seem like a reasonable
compromise although I would not be against someone saying sixty or
seventy. The key is for a real game to be played. Paul Truong, who also
shared in this discussion with Susan and me, suggested that if players
wish to draw then it's impossible to stop them. They could always
create a game that ends in perpetual check or three move repetition.
This is true, but I think the vast majority of players are more
honorable than that. Almost all early draws are not at all due to prior
agreement, but more out of convenience or fear of losing. If players
were not allowed to have quick draws, they would simply erase this
option from their minds and just play chess. Naturally, the older you
are, the harder it will be to adjust to the rule change. The ten year
olds who will be our stars in the next decade will have no problem
because they will not have known any other situation. Think back to the
time of adjournments: no one cares that now you can't adjourn your
games after the first time-control (although Kramnik managed to
resurrect this dead practice in his match against Deep Fritz).
Today's teenage chess players would think you insane if you told them
that Botvinnik used to be able to stop a game in progress, go have his
assistants analyze the position for several hours, and come back with
analysis that had been polished and spit-shined for him. Of course,
computers really precipitated the demise of this ridiculous exercise,
but it didn't seem so ridiculous back then. It was just accepted as
the way things are.

Even for players who are less than honorable, it is possible for
organizers to send the message. If a game ends in a quick perpetual
check between two players most everyone knows to be friends, any number
of things can be done, from warning to fining the players. It's
highly unlikely to have games end in quick perpetuals in the first
place so if this were to happen again, then collusion would be clear. I
think that ninety-nine percent of all players are honorable and would
not even think of doing something like that, but some strong measures
can nevertheless be agreed on by FIDE and the national federations.

I do not pretend to know the exact solution to this as I have not
thought through every possible situation. I hope FIDE will seriously
take up this issue at one of its future meetings. I know Mr.
Ilyumzhinov has been trying various methods of making the game more
accessible to a wider audience, some of which have met with limited
success. Possibly the idea of regulating draw offers will be one of the
easier changes to enact. No doubt, the world's top players can
expedite this change if they can come to some agreement. For the good
of chess, we can only hope that they do.

Maurice Ashley

I
know this "friendship" excuse because my great buddy Josh Waitzkin

....quit chess with a 2532 rating and about 15 years left before he reaches
his peak to become the "world champion" of something called "push hands tae
kwon do."


--
Ray Gordon, Author
http://www.cybersheet.com/easy.html
Seduction Made Easy. Get this book FREE when you buy participating
affiliated books!

http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
The Seduction Library. Four free books to get you started on your quest to
get laid.

Don't buy anything from experts who won't debate on a free speech forum.

"HB Super Event" wrote in message
oups.com...
The End of the Draw Offer?
An open letter by GM Maurice Ashley

To all chess fans:

Recently I have been thinking about a practice in chess that I believe
needs to be discussed by all of us who love this game, and that is, the
draw offer. This topic started to occupy my mind mainly because of two
events: the 2003 US Championships and the Kasparov-Deep Junior match at
which I was a commentator. In the former, with 8 players tied for first
going into the last round and a $25,000 first-place prize up for grabs,
draw offers were made and quickly accepted on three of the top four
boards. In the latter, after having captured the imagination of
millions of chess playing fans and the general public, the players
stunned everyone by agreeing to a draw in a position where the tension
was reaching its peak.


Well, I think that it isn`t the best example of a short draw. The best
examples of short draws come from Linares elite chess tournments.

There`s a simple solution to short draws given by Mark Dvoretsky : players
shouldn`t communicate with each other during the game i.e. they shouldn`t
make draw offers during the game. Sounds paradoxically ? Yes, but IMHO it
will work ;-)

Jerzy

Welcome to the HB Global Chess Challenge registration process. Please
read through this page of information completely as it contains
important information to help you get registered quickly.

You can register online by clicking the REGISTER NOW button below or by
calling the HB Global Chess Challenge registration center at
1-800-964-2448 or 205-941-4448.

If you are under 18 years old, you will need to have a parent or
guardians permission in order to play in the HB Global Chess Challenge.
You can still register today for the tournament, simply mail in the
permission forms afterwards. Please go to the FAQ/Policies section and
print out the Recording Authorization Form and the Release of
Liability/Parental Consent Form; both forms must be signed by a
parent/guardian and returned to the HB Foundation prior to the start of
the first round of the tournament.

By registering for the HB Global Chess Challenge all players agree to
abide by all of the stated policies under the FAQ/Policies section. By
registering for the Tournament you also agree that you will sign the
Release of Liability Form at the Tournament Check-in Booth at the
Minneapolis Convention Center.

Important items to know:
You can register online or via phone at the call center. Payments
accepted include Visa, MasterCard, Discover or a check (payment in U.S.
dollars only).


Check payments must be received within 15 calendar days of registration
or the registration will be cancelled. Check payments should be made
payable to HB Foundation, and mailed to: HB Foundation, 3140 Neil
Armstrong Blvd., Suite 311, Eagan, MN 55121.


You will receive a confirmation number after you have registered.
Please retain this for your records.


You will be asked to create a password during the registration process.
This password must be a minimum of 4 characters long and it is case
sensitive. Please write down your password in a safe place where you
will remember it.


You must be a member of the USCF to play in the HB Global Chess
Challenge. You can still register today for the tournament, but you
will need to supply your USCF membership I.D. # prior to the start of
the tournament. Please visit the USCF at uschess.org to purchase your
USCF membership.


You will receive a $50.00 discount off the registration price of
$345.00 if you register with a friend. There is no limit to how many
friends you can register with, every one of you will still receive the
$50.00 discount, making your final entry fee only $295.


If you choose to register with a friend and each of you wants to pay
separately simply enter the promo code "FRIEND2" when prompted, along
with your friend's name. As long as you enter your friend's name, you
each will receive the $50.00 discount even though you are registering
separately. Each person should only select a quantity of one ( 1 ) when
registering for the tournament.


If you choose to register with a friend and want to have only one
person pay all of the entry fees for everybody; the person paying will
still need to enter the promo code "FRIEND2" when prompted, along with
the friend's names. The person paying should select the appropriate
quantity for the number of people they are registering. The
registration system will then prompt you to enter all of the specific
information for each of your friends.


Please complete all of the required information in the online
registration form and follow the stated directions.

Very good background on an obviously angst ridden process. Here's a thought
for you:

"Players may not offer a draw before the 1st time control, or fifty moves
(whichever is greater), unless in the opinion of the arbiter the game is
hopelessly drawn. Draws are worth four tenths of a point."

After that, pre arranged draws will become more of a problem. But as GM
Ashley points out, 99% of the players are honorable, and at least you would
be taking a step in the right direction.


--
Tom Klem

"Fascinating!"
---Mr Spock



"HB Super Event" wrote in message
oups.com...
The End of the Draw Offer?
An open letter by GM Maurice Ashley

To all chess fans:

Recently I have been thinking about a practice in chess that I believe
needs to be discussed by all of us who love this game, and that is, the
draw offer. This topic started to occupy my mind mainly because of two
events: the 2003 US Championships and the Kasparov-Deep Junior match at
which I was a commentator. In the former, with 8 players tied for first
going into the last round and a $25,000 first-place prize up for grabs,
draw offers were made and quickly accepted on three of the top four
boards. In the latter, after having captured the imagination of
millions of chess playing fans and the general public, the players
stunned everyone by agreeing to a draw in a position where the tension
was reaching its peak.

I guess I might not have given the issue much thought if it had not
been for the bitter reaction that ensued in both cases. In Seattle, the
chief organizer Erik Anderson, was shocked, angered and deeply
disappointed. He felt that with all the sponsorship money that had been
raised, it was terribly insulting to the benefactors and the fans that
the top players (with the notable exception of Shabalov and Akobian)
had snuffed out most of the drama from the event. He also pointed out
that this was a lost opportunity for our nation's top players to show
what our game was all about. His anger propelled him to be even more
generous (!) by rewarding the two gladiators with a $5,000 bonus for
their fighting spirit. In the end, he said what really hurt him the
most was that one of his children interpreted the draw offers as
cheating because this fixed the result before the real contest had
occurred.

In the case of the Man vs Machine match, the reaction was even worse.
Naturally this match received a mountain of hype and arguably, in our
internet age, it was the most covered chess event ever with over 45,000
papers reporting on the first game alone. Even more amazing, the
prominent sports network ESPN2 sent a crew to broadcast the event live
across America. It was a fantastic moment for chess as approximately
400,000 households were tuned in. Needless to say, the finish was
disappointing. The in-house audience booed raucously while my usually
eloquent co-commentator, Yasser Seirawan, and I struggled to make sense
of it for the TV viewers. Even my mother-in-law and her sister, who
have never touched a pawn in their lives but who watched the entire
three hours (imagine that), expressed their opinion that there must
have been some prior arrangement agreed upon by the two competitors.
While I quickly let them know that neither side would be a party to
such nonsense, I couldn't help but wonder how many other viewers
across America were thinking the same thing.

As someone who has devoted my life to not only playing but also
popularizing chess, it hurt me to hear the game talked about so
negatively. Kasparov explained afterwards with astonishing frankness
that he just "didn't want to lose." After having thoroughly
outplayed Deep Junior in virtually every game of the match, he was
concerned that even his own amazing powers might falter in the last
game. Those of us who have lost important games know the feeling well.
Still, if chess is to ever get the popularity that Kasparov has made
his admirable mission from the beginning of his career, I think the
issue of draw offers will have to be addressed.

When I put in a phone call to Tom Brownscombe at the USCF he read me
rule 14.b.6 out of the USCF rulebook which states: "It is unethical
and unsporting to agree to a draw before a serious contest has
begun." Frankly, I didn't even know this rule existed, but the way
it is worded means it has no bite whatsoever. On top of that, it
doesn't address an even more fundamental question: why are we allowed
to offer a draw in chess? At what point did this become allowed? Tom
did not know the answer to this question, but referred me to USCF
President and chess historian John McCrary. When I asked him, he was
instantly able to tell me the origin of the fifty-move rule and the
three move repetition, but could not think of where the draw offer had
originated. He promised to look into it, and it wasn't long before I
received this e-mail:

Maurice, Your question turned into quite a research topic! I could
find nothing in my standard sources, so I did some quick original
research in my old books, and found the following: In Medieval chess (
Shatranj) the draw was recognized, but apparently only in simplified
endgames in which it was clearly impossible for either side to force a
win. There is no apparent reference to draws earlier than the late
stages of the endgame in Shatranj literature. Even until the 18th
century, there seems to have been no draws by agreement other than in
very simplified endgames. In the Oxford Encyclopedia of Chess Games,
the earliest draw of any kind was a perpetual check in 1750, although
that book has recorded games all the way back to the 1400's. Staunton's
Handbook (1848) refers to draws by agreement only if the forces are
greatly simplified, such as K+Q vs K+Q. The earliest reference to draw
by agreement I could find was in the American Chess Code of 1897, which
allowed draw by agreement at any time.

Certainly a draw can be a natural result of a well-played game. Few
would complain when two players slug it out, throwing caution to the
wind only for the fireworks to fizzle to a lifeless position (check out
Tate-Ashley, New York 1993 for an extreme example of this). But the
draw offer, especially one that is made after ten or twelve perfunctory
moves, seems just bizarre. Imagine a basketball game being played for a
few minutes before both sides decide to stop and call it a day. "You
know, we had long flight in, our players played last night and are a
little tired. Would you like a draw so that we can all go out and have
a beer?" As completely ridiculous as that sounds in most sports, we see
this happen in chess at almost every tournament. Even sports where ties
are allowed (soccer and hockey, and, surprisingly, American Football)
some attempt is made to avoid this somewhat unsatisfying result. Most
other sports resolve the problem in a clear way: basketball can go into
three or four overtimes, baseball has extra innings, tennis has the
tie-break, and golf has some kind of playoff. Of course, chess is
different since a drawn result is sometimes unavoidable. If only two
kings are left on the board, adding a few extra minutes won't make
difference. It would be pointless to play out many rook endings as well
as many bishop of opposite color endings. Draws are a natural part of
our game, and to play for a win in many positions is stupid if not
suicidal. However, the draw offer in a position full of life with
mysteries yet to be revealed has got to be the most abused rule in all
of chess. I am not even sure you can call this a rule: it is more like
a practice that has been regulated, or, in this case, not regulated
enough.

Now don't get me wrong: as much as I detest draws, I have also been
guilty of abusing this practice. Both times that I tied for first in
Foxwoods were due to early last round draw offers (one year my opponent
extended the courtesy while the next time I was the one who suggested
peace). My tie for first in the Bermuda Open was due to a quick draw
offer I made. In all three cases, against very strong GMs, I had come
into the round unsure if my opponents were as worried as I was about
losing out on a decent prize. However, at King's Island in 2002 where
I was in sole first by half a point going into the last round, I
expected and steeled myself for a heavy struggle. Imagine my surprise
when my opponent, a GM known for his fighting spirit, offered me an
early draw even though he had White! He said that he had been out the
night before and was too tired to play. The story got even more curious
when boards two and three, with some of America's strongest players
now with a legitimate shot of tying me for first, also saw quick draws,
one because of "fatigue" and the other because of friendship. I
know this "friendship" excuse because my great buddy Josh Waitzkin
and I had an unspoken agreement to draw our games before his Dad
suggested that organizers might stop inviting us to the same
tournament. We talked it through and decided that, as painful as it
was, our friendship could withstand the competition. Curiously, out of
our next ten games I think only two were decisive.

I say all this because it took me over twenty years to realize how much
of a spell we are all under. I can't remember when I first learned
that a draw can be offered at any time, and I certainly don't
remember questioning it. 'Bishops move diagonally, the object of the
game is to checkmate the king, and you can offer a draw whenever you
like.' In the lower rated sections of many youth championships, you
see some kids who have just learned the rule use it to almost harass
the other kid with draw offers on every move!

Unfortunately, the draw offer has been used in more devious ways.
Recently, it has come out that Bobby Fischer had been right all along
when he said that the Soviets ganged up on him in Curacao by drawing
each other quickly to save energy (Korchnoi has added that the he too
was a victim of this at the same event). The names of the conspiring
players are among the greatest to have ever touched a chess piece. In
some sense, who can blame them since if they had truly tried to defeat
each other the result may have ended in the same way? Why not save some
energy for later on, and to use against players who may be a bit more
tired from playing out long games? Yet we all know that this specious
argument smacks up against every element that makes sports so grand.
And while today's professionals are not in the business of fixing
games, we still see an epidemic of early draws even at the highest
levels.

Imagine for a moment that it was the last round of a major tournament
and Player X is leading the field by a half-point. His opponent, Player
Y has had a horrible tournament and really couldn't care less about
playing. They sit at the board, punch clocks, make a few moves and then
Player Y resigns! Of course, there would be an uproar that would
probably result in the player being banned from future events. Now
let's change the scenario and say the players agreed to a draw. That
would most likely elicit only modest grumbles even though Player X had
just been handed at least a tie for first for doing nothing at all.
Yes, Player X got into that situation by playing well in previous
rounds, but that does not change anything. Teams are constantly playing
well to get to the finals of major competitions without being handed
the title on a silver platter once they get there. In chess, the
attitude is, "We can do it so why not?"

If we were to agree that this is a serious problem that needs
addressing, the next question has to be "What can be done about
it?" When I brought up this subject with former Women's World
Champion Susan Polgar, she said that she remembers that in the old
Soviet and Hungarian championships players were not allowed to offer
draws before move thirty. She also reminded me that Rentero, the
organizer of Linares, used to have it in the players' contracts that
they were not allowed to draw before the first time control. I agree
that this is a great place to start, but why not after fifty moves
instead? We already have a fifty-move rule so this already creates some
harmony. The reason I am not jumping to eliminate the draw offer
entirely is to deal with the reality of those endgame situations where
there really is nothing to play for. Fifty moves seem like a reasonable
compromise although I would not be against someone saying sixty or
seventy. The key is for a real game to be played. Paul Truong, who also
shared in this discussion with Susan and me, suggested that if players
wish to draw then it's impossible to stop them. They could always
create a game that ends in perpetual check or three move repetition.
This is true, but I think the vast majority of players are more
honorable than that. Almost all early draws are not at all due to prior
agreement, but more out of convenience or fear of losing. If players
were not allowed to have quick draws, they would simply erase this
option from their minds and just play chess. Naturally, the older you
are, the harder it will be to adjust to the rule change. The ten year
olds who will be our stars in the next decade will have no problem
because they will not have known any other situation. Think back to the
time of adjournments: no one cares that now you can't adjourn your
games after the first time-control (although Kramnik managed to
resurrect this dead practice in his match against Deep Fritz).
Today's teenage chess players would think you insane if you told them
that Botvinnik used to be able to stop a game in progress, go have his
assistants analyze the position for several hours, and come back with
analysis that had been polished and spit-shined for him. Of course,
computers really precipitated the demise of this ridiculous exercise,
but it didn't seem so ridiculous back then. It was just accepted as
the way things are.

Even for players who are less than honorable, it is possible for
organizers to send the message. If a game ends in a quick perpetual
check between two players most everyone knows to be friends, any number
of things can be done, from warning to fining the players. It's
highly unlikely to have games end in quick perpetuals in the first
place so if this were to happen again, then collusion would be clear. I
think that ninety-nine percent of all players are honorable and would
not even think of doing something like that, but some strong measures
can nevertheless be agreed on by FIDE and the national federations.

I do not pretend to know the exact solution to this as I have not
thought through every possible situation. I hope FIDE will seriously
take up this issue at one of its future meetings. I know Mr.
Ilyumzhinov has been trying various methods of making the game more
accessible to a wider audience, some of which have met with limited
success. Possibly the idea of regulating draw offers will be one of the
easier changes to enact. No doubt, the world's top players can
expedite this change if they can come to some agreement. For the good
of chess, we can only hope that they do.

Maurice Ashley

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 05:54:44 -0800, "Tom Klem"
wrote:

Very good background on an obviously angst ridden process. Here's a thought
for you:

"Players may not offer a draw before the 1st time control, or fifty moves
(whichever is greater), unless in the opinion of the arbiter the game is
hopelessly drawn. Draws are worth four tenths of a point."

If you make draws worth .4, you probably don't need the additional
regulation prohibiting early draw offers.

Well, I was thinking about that too after my initial post. Perhaps not, but
it would be great if the option to toughen things up via the arbiter (who is
usually part of the organizers team) and take some of the incentive out of
the practice by making three draws necessary to overcome a one point
deficit.

Something like that, but it seems to me to be a sensible two pronged
approach as written. The statement is certainly easy enough to understand
being only two sentences long.

Just a thought.

Tom Klem

"Mike Murray" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 05:54:44 -0800, "Tom Klem"
wrote:

Very good background on an obviously angst ridden process. Here's a
thought
for you:

"Players may not offer a draw before the 1st time control, or fifty moves
(whichever is greater), unless in the opinion of the arbiter the game is
hopelessly drawn. Draws are worth four tenths of a point."

If you make draws worth .4, you probably don't need the additional
regulation prohibiting early draw offers.

When my children play, they hardly draw. Why do stronger players draw
more?

Thanks!
Maria
Chess Mom

"Maria Perez" writes:
When my children play, they hardly draw. Why do stronger players draw
more?

The only way to lose a game is by making an error. If both players
play perfectly, they will draw. However, nobody plays perfectly. The
way to win is to make fewer errors than your opponent.

Strong players make few errors, and their errors are usually minor, so
they get a lot of draws. Weaker players make big errors that result
in losses.

I agree with Paul Rubin.