Maurice Ashley has a column at http://www.chesscenter.com/twic/ashley03.html,
in which he discusses the possibility and desirability of eliminating the draw
offer. He brings up some of the usual recurring situations: The last round of
a major tournament, early draws on the top boards to secure the top spots,
spectators get mad, non-chess players think the fix is in, sponsors mad that
they aren't getting enough bang for their buck, et cetera. You know the drill.

He also brings up the usual comparisons with other sports. Suppose that two
basketball teams agreed to a draw in the opening minutes of a game because they
were tired from travelling? Would we stand for that? Other sports try to
avoid ties, and don't allow them to be simply agreed upon by the players.
Certain conditions have to be met.

Mr. Ashley also suggests the scenario of a player who resigns without a fight
in the last round of a tournament, handing victory to the leader, and questions
whether this is much worse than handing him victory through a bloodless draw.

Well, one answer to all of this is that even in other sports, it is not
necessarily de rigeur to try for the best possible result at all times. And
yes, even in those other sports, the fans don't always like that fact. Imagine
in football, for example, if a player intercepted in the end zone, late in the
game. If this player could ensure victory by downing the ball, he would not
only be praised for doing so, he would likely be lynched if he were to
jeopardize his team's victory by trying to run the ball out for another
(meaningless) score. Even when the risk factor is virtually nonexistent, teams
do not always try for the best result in the short term. I still remember a
1981 Cowboys-Eagles game, in which the Cowboys, leading 21-10 in the final
minute, and with the ball on the 1 yard line, simply ran out the clock, rather
than try for a rather easy score, that would not have jeopardized the outcome
at all, even had they fumbled and had it run back 99 yards. In such a
situation, it's considered bad form to show an opponent up by running up the
score. In one sense, it's unfair that one team is "allowed" to try their best,
and the other isn't. I certainly didn't "get it" at the time, and thought they
should have played for the meaningless touchdown. But on reflection, it was
probably for the best.


I think the problem here is in regarding a single game of chess solely as a
*contest unto itself*. In a single skittles game that's true, and thus
agreeing to an early draw in an exhibition game would be pointless. But in a
match or tournament, a game is merely a PORTION of a larger contest. The real
contest. Let's take Maurice's basketball analogy again. We wouldn't stand for
it if two teams agreed to draw a game in the opening minute, no. But we'd
think nothing of it at all if they decided to pull a top star in the middle of
a game, to rest him for the final stretch. We don't demand that Michael Jordan
play the entire game. If some did demand that, if they complained that they'd
paid to see Michael Jordan play and that it was unfair that he was on the
bench, that would, unfortunately, be too bad for them. That wouldn't be best
for him, or for the team. Even though they pay the bills, what's best for the
players and the team has to come before what the fans want to see. Similarly,
we wouldn't think anything of it if a football team with a large lead in a
playoff game benched its top stars and finished out the game with the second
string. They're not trying for the very best result *at that moment*, but they
are in fact fighting as best they know how, to achieve the best possible result
when all is said and done. Another such example from football is the dreaded
Prevent Defense.

In Chess, we can see an example of this at the 1962 Curacao Candidates
tournament, a marathon 28 round event. Viktor Korchnoi played at 100% in every
game, tried to win everything, and assumed a large early lead, but burned
himself out through exhaustion and went into a tailspin in mid tournament that
knocked him out of contention; (the Caissic [love that word] equivalent of
playing Michael Jordan for 48 minutes). Petrosian, Keres, and Geller, who
paced themselves for the competition better, were all still in contention at
the end. The early draws they took in some rounds, were not made because they
simply didn't WANT to win, it was part of a successful strategy to maximize
their ultimate result.

In discussing this "pacing" strategy in relation to the Curaco tournament,
Maurice says that it "smacks up against every element that makes sports so
grand," but is it really that different from the way a basketball or football
coach might conduct a long campaign? Baseball teams certainly don't make their
star pitcher start every game, or use their closer every day. They regulate
their use, to maximize their effect. It's part of the reason that a Pete Rose
can get in trouble for gambling, even if he only bet *for* his own team. A
baseball season is another marathon event, where maximum energy is not expended
at all times, rather it's distributed for maximum effect, and a manager who
redistributes his team's energies around private wagers he has made is in fact
affecting the outcomes.

(Incidentally, on a side note, Maurice also states as a fact that it has come
out recently that Petrosian, Keres and Geller agreed to draw the 12 games they
played with each other at that tournament. Pre-arranging a result is, of
course a different issue than simply *agreeing* to an early draw, but is it
really clear that such a thing ever happened? Sure, Fischer and Korchnoi say
so, and I may have been guilty in the past of accepting this claim too readily,
without actual evidence. I've never heard it said that these three were caught
"red-handed", and I doubt that Fischer bugged their rooms or that they
confessed to Korchnoi. If three players employing a conservation of energy
strategy meet, they may very well agree to early draws even without prior
verbal agreement. Geller and Petrosian, as good friends, usually drew their
games bloodlessly anyway (their lifetime record as Grandmasters against each
other was +2-2=31). If there is any evidence of collusion, and I admit there
may easily be some that I've never heard, then none of the many people I've
heard make this claim have ever bothered referencing it.)


But back to the main topic. This also illustrates the difference between a
player who throws his last round game without a fight, and one who agrees to a
bloodless draw. The man who draws without a fight IS trying to maximize his
result. He thinks the odds of his winning are not appreciably better than the
odds of his losing, and wants to secure that half point. Better half a loaf
than nothing at all. The man who loses without a fight, however, isn't trying
to maximize anything. There is no lesser result that he's trying to avoid,
he's *deliberately* taking the worst result. Maurice quotes Kasparov as
explaining an early last round draw by saying that he just "didn’t want to
lose." Clearly, someone who resigned without a fight could not make this
claim.


Maurice quotes the USCF rule saying that it's unethical and unsporting to agree
to a draw before a serious contest has begun. I might gently suggest that
while the USCF has the power to legislate *rules*, they don't have the power to
legislate ethics. It isn't entirely clear how a player trying as best he knows
how, to maximize his result, *within* the limits of the existing rules is
behaving unethically. It's also hard to see how he's breaking the *rules*
since, as Maurice points out, this one is written too nebulously to have any
bite. Correcting this problem, if it needs correcting, cannot be achieved by
"enforcing" this rule, as Maurice points out. It would require a new rule.

Well, what kind of new rule, then? Maurice mentions the old 30 move draw rule.
That might help, and it's certainly a lot more specific than the Draw rule
quoted previously. But if we had it, would we enforce it? And enforce it
fairly? Remember again, Fischer's (unproven?) charges of pre-arranged draws at
Curacao. It happens that, that very same year, at the Varna Olympiad, Fischer
publicly flouted the then-existing 30 move draw rule by agreeing to an 18 move
draw with Wolfgang Uhlmann, and when called on it, excused himself on the
grounds that the rules didn't apply to him. ("That rule is for the Communist
cheaters, not for me!") He not only broke the rules, but did so in broad
daylight, and publicly challenged the authority of the arbiter. He put them in
a choice where they realistically had no choice but to double-forfeit the game,
but instead they did nothing at all. (Or perhaps, since Uhlmann was the only
Communist involved in the game, and therefore the only cheater, and therefore
the only one that the rule applied to, the game should simply have been awarded
to Fischer? I'm moderately surprised that Fischer didn't make that claim while
he was at it.)
Having a rule like this without having the determination to enforce it would be
worse than having no rule at all. And worse still if we enforced it, but only
some of the time. And there would still remain the problem of what to do if it
is suspected that players have agreed to draw a game by repetition sometime
before Move 30. In some cases this may be obvious (i.e. 1. N-KB3 N-KB3 2. N-N1
N-N1 3. N-KB3 N-KB3 4. N-N1 Draw), but what if it isn't so clear?

Granted, this might at least improve the situation, even if it didn't solve
things. Many players who would be willing to accept an *impromptu* early draw
offer might still balk at going so far as to actually pre-arrange moves, as
Maurice himself points out. And not that many games naturally end in early
perpetuals, so certainly the early draw problem could be improved, if not
eliminated entirely this way. Maurice thinks that if two friends played an
early repetition draw, that their collusion would be clear, but this is not
necessarily the case. Two friends, who know each other's play and have
analyzed lines together, might see their friend playing into a line they'd
previously discussed, and, *without prior verbal agreement* play along into it.


One problem is that even for honest players, there may be psychological factors
present, but not obvious to an onlooker. I remember the shortest draw I ever
agreed to; a three mover in the final round of a tournament with a couple of
hundred dollars on the line. Knowing that a tie meant a tie for first, and a
win meant sole first, and knowing that my opponent was somewhat higher rated,
and had been in our rating class for years longer than I had, I judged that my
chances, even with White, were no better than even, and so decided to play for
the even result, and to answer his favorite French Defense with the Exchange
Variation. After 1. P-K4 P-K3 2. P-Q4 P-Q4, my opponent took one look at 3.
PxP, and offered a draw. Although I'd been fully prepared to play a full
length game, and even entertained some small hopes of winning if got
overaggressive, the draw offer would have been difficult to refuse, for a
variety of reasons. It would certainly have been obnoxious to refuse it, after
virtually admitting, with 3. PxP, that that's what I wanted. After he'd paid
me the compliment of admitting that he didn't think he had much chance of
winning if I was going to play like that, how could I continue playing without
looking foolish? Nothing in the game had changed, he hadn't had time to get
overaggressive, and had just admitted with his draw offer that he didn't plan
to. To refuse would be to admit that I'd just changed my entire game plan for
no particular reason, which would have put me a definite psychological
disadvantage. The result: 3 move draw. Not that a spectator, if there had
been any, would have been aware of any of these considerations. All they'd
have seen was a 3 move draw, and been left to wonder if it had been
pre-arranged.

A more famous example of the psychology of the bloodless draw can be found in
the last round of the aforementioned Curacao Candidates tournament. Trailing
Petrosian by half a point after a disastrously upsetting loss to Benko the
round before, Keres found himself having to beat Fischer in the last round to
have even a chance to catch up. He seized the initiative early, and seemed to
have some real chances, when Petrosian, in an even position against Dr. Filip
offered an early draw. This assured Petrosian of at least a share of first,
but did much more than that, by setting Keres a nasty psychological problem.
Once Keres realized that he actually had some chances of catching Petrosian,
his previous aggression gave way to... caution. Becoming fearful now of
dissipating his advantage, he... dissipated his advantage. Fischer capitalized,
and quickly secured the draw. Two drawn games, one of them a quickie. Not
much on the face of it, but probably the most exciting ever conclusion to a
Candidates tournament.

In any case, these exceptional circumstances aside, it can easily be argued
that a problem does exist, not only with mutual willingness to draw, but with
collusion. One famous example that may or may not illustrate a general
attitude can be seen in the final round of the 1975 U.S. Championship. In that
game, Reshevevsky, believing that he had an agreement to draw with Benko if and
only if Reshevsky's Interzonal chances were eliminated, became incensed when
Benko refused his draw offer. So incensed that he actually complained to the
Tournament Director that Benko was violating an illegal agreement.

So, what's the solution? Well, Ashley doesn't know, and neither do I. He may
have something in the idea of considering bringing back the 30 move draw rule,
but it might be worth adding one little twist to it. Repeated positions don't
count as part of the 30 moves. For example, if players played a 30 move game
that consisted of repeating the same two moves over and over, it wouldn't count
as 30 moves, it would count as only 2.

And
yes, even in those other sports, the fans don't always like that fact.
Imagine
in football, for example, if a player intercepted in the end zone, late in
the
game. If this player could ensure victory by downing the ball, he would
not
only be praised for doing so, he would likely be lynched if he were to
jeopardize his team's victory by trying to run the ball out for another
(meaningless) score.

Players often do this by reflex when they intercept late.

They also intercept long passes on 3rd down and turn them into good punts at
times. I've even seen fourth-down interceptions and runbacks (when batting
the ball down would move the ball further up for the defense).

Even when the risk factor is virtually nonexistent, teams
do not always try for the best result in the short term. I still remember
a
1981 Cowboys-Eagles game, in which the Cowboys, leading 21-10 in the final
minute, and with the ball on the 1 yard line, simply ran out the clock,
rather
than try for a rather easy score, that would not have jeopardized the
outcome
at all, even had they fumbled and had it run back 99 yards.

Actually, a runback would make it 21-18 and set up for an onsides kick!

You never saw the Heidi Game?

Players often do this by reflex when they intercept late.

They also intercept long passes on 3rd down and turn them into good punts at
times. I've even seen fourth-down interceptions and runbacks (when batting
the ball down would move the ball further up for the defense).


That's true, but I bet their coaches get on them for it. When they intercept
on 4th down, the announcers usually rag 'em too.



Actually, a runback would make it 21-18 and set up for an onsides kick!

You never saw the Heidi Game?


21-17. They didn't have the 2 point conversion back then, but I see your
point.

Okay, let's say there was a small element of risk in that game and so Landry
definitely did the right thing by just running out the clock. Let's compare
that to guaranteeing first place with a last round draw in an advantageous
position, rather than trying for a win. We wouldn't blame a football team for
that, but we would blame a chessplayer.

Though even chessplayers don't always do that. Botvinnik won the last game of
the 2nd Tal match, when a draw would have given him the title just the same.
Kasparov did the same thing in Kasparov-Karpov II.

Still, I think that regarding a tournament game as simply a part of a contest
rather than a contest by itself is the right way to look at it. One round of a
tournament is not equivalent to a ballgame, it's equivalent to a single inning
of a ballgame. You may not always be swinging for the fences.