I recently declined a properly made draw offer by simply making a move. I believe this is normal and customary protocol but apparently some, including a GM, think this is rude.
On rejecting a properly made draw offer, The Official Rules of Chess 5th Edition No. 14B1 says “[t]he opponent may accept the proposal or may reject it either orally or by deliberately touching a piece (10B).”
I am interested in knowing what others think about responding verbally to decline a properly made draw offer vs. just making a move. Not saying anyting is within the rules but is it rude? If you believe something should be said, what is your customary response or does it vary?
Patzer’s perspective FWIW: I think it is better etiquette either to simply make the move or to say “I decline” as the move is made. The alternative can lead to conversations, invitations to offer instead of offers (“Are you playing for a win?”), that are unethical.
What if one’s opponent does not hear the draw offer? This happened to me once. Best to make the offer in normal speaking voice rather than “tournament stage whisper” voice. If one is not sure that the offer was heard, I don’t think it’s ethical in the general case to repeat the offer.
I agree with you both. Never heard that it’s rude to indicate you decline opponent’s draw offer by simply making your move; in fact in my experience this is by far the most common way I’ve seen draw offers declined (both by myself and opponents).
When I was starting out, in late 1960s or early 1970s, I do recall at least one (older and higher-rated) opponent I offered a draw answered immediately, “I’ll consider it.” If my memory is right, he eventually made a move, thereby indicating he declined my offer. (Btw, explicitly acknowledging an opponent’s offer in that way would avoid the problem of an offer not being heard, or the offer-er not being sure it was heard, that Bill touched on.)
I have heard of people responding to an opponent’s proposal with something like, “Let’s play on a bit first,” or “Offer it a few moves later.” I tend to agree with Bill’s comment that that sort of thing borders on collaboration, which would be unethical.
I’ve used a phrase something like “I’d like to play on a few more moves”.
Personally, I don’t see a problem with it. I only recall saying something like this when I’ve been playing a much lower rated player who’s managed to achieve an equal position. I see it as being polite to recognize that my opponent (that I still hope to beat) had played well up to that point. I might also say something like that if I’ve got an advantage against a higher rated opponent. I consider it a way of being more polite than just a flat refusal. I’m certainly not collaborating on some kind of arranged result!
What kind of “collaboration” could it be, anyway? If I had wanted a draw, I could have had it immediately!
Remaining silent after your opponent has made a draw offer is just fine. In fact, you’re entitled to do it this way – you’re not obliged to decide immediately whether to accept his offer. You can think about it during your move, with your clock running. If you postpone a decision, your opponent cannot retract the offer (until you decline it, either verbally or by making a move), unless, of course, your time expires, in which case he can claim a win.
Saying “I’ll consider it” seems like a super-polite approach, but a little beyond the call of duty.
If X offers a draw with 5 minutes still on Y’s clock, then Y sits there for 5 minutes, why shouldn’t X be entitled to a win? What if Y sits there for 15 minutes? Would X have to wait indefinitely, long after Y’s time is gone, for Y to decline the draw so that X can claim a win?
I think there are other rules to cover that kind of abuse, admittedly they probably cannot be used until after the fact.
If a player in a dead lost position sits there the last five minutes and loses on time, would you do anything about that? Why is a draw offer any different?
We have rules that apply only in the last 5 minutes of the time control in other areas of the rulebook, I’d be willing to say that a draw offer made in the last 5 minutes is binding even if the player’s flag falls.
This is a bit – may I say – specious. Of course he would prefer a win but offered a draw because of the game and/or tournament situation. I disagree with Nolan on this. Having a draw offer in your pocket should not absolve you from all concern with the clock.
Actually, I think things are too easy on the guy with the draw offer in his pocket already. To allow him to run out almost all his time then take the draw – that’s very annoying and makes the option value of a draw offer in the pocket too high imho. (I can’t think of a good phrase in English that captures the essence of this exploitation, maybe someone else can.) But it would be hard to implement a fairer rule, which to me would say something like you have five minutes to answer, else the offer becomes null. To me, the purpose of the draw rule is to allow communication between opponents about settling for a draw with minimum distraction. It should promote politeness not annoying exploitative behavior.
(And just to be ultra clear, this may not apply to offering a draw when the opponent has 3 seconds remaining on his clock. Side topic: due to the potential for distraction, would that even be a proper draw offer?)
From my experience, if I offered a GM a draw I would hardly expect an answer. If he accepted it he would do so grudgingly; he would hate any result but beating me. So with that unfortunate reality in mind, I should not have to be nicer than that. But I can be nicer.
If I don’t respond to the offer and just make a move, maybe I didn’t hear the offer or maybe I’m just refusing it. It doesn’t matter, I give up the formal option of a draw, the opponent should not repeat the offer soon, and the game goes on.
However professional etiquette among GMs is probably a bit nicer than that. That’s a good thing. As for “are you playing for a win” being unethical, I don’t even see that. I think it means that the players settle on a result (without bribes) in view of the tournament standings as well as the position on the board. That’s not unethical.
Artichoke, first, I see you must be in my business (“Monte Carlo simulation”, “option value” – and both used correctly, to boot). Know anyone who needs a good fixed-income analyst/strategist? (My employer just gave me notice.)
Second, there is a specific context behind “Are you playing for a win?”, that you seem unaware of. That was Sammy Reshevsky’s signature way of offering a draw. Reshevsky was notoriously unethical, always pushing the limits of the rules, willing to accept time-forfeits he hadn’t earned, and all manner of similar shenanigans. (In the most famous case, the TD turned the clock around before checking whose flag had fallen, then awarded the game to Reshevsky even though HE was the one whose flag was down. This ruling reportedly decided first place in the US Championship!)
Apparently Reshevsky wasn’t above exploiting “Are you playing for a win?” as sort of a “retractable” draw offer: I’ve heard that on at least one occasion, after his opponent accepted, Sammy replied with something like, “Oh, I never offered a draw; I merely asked whether you were playing for a win.”
This was the subtext of Bill Brock’s earlier comment that the question “Are you playing for a win?”, and other less-than-clear communications revolving around a draw offer, border on the unethical.
Regarding question #1 I don’t know of anything offhand but PM me with info and I’ll check.
On the Reshevsky sort-of draw offer, that isn’t a draw offer and it isn’t unethical in the sense of collusion. It is however unethical in the sense of distracting the opponent in my view. It’s not one of the limited set of things that a player is allowed to say during a game: draw offer, resign, announce mate, j’adoube, check, check to your queen for the really old fashioned – there aren’t many more than that.
It is a draw offer and it is not retractable. If you say something like that, and then deny that you were offering a draw, the TD will rule against you. There are many precedents, which I won’t cite since the players are mostly still alive (unlike Reshevsky).
I agree since one of the reasons you may have gotten the draw offer is because you have a won game but are short on time. If this is the case and you spend all your time trying to figure out how to win and lose track of time, I think you should lose on time. If you don’t like this then accept the draw offer in the last few seconds you have on the clock.
Why would one offer their opponent a draw if their opponent had only 3 seconds left on his clock? Wouldn’t you let their clock run out and take the win?
I’ve had to offer draws in won positions when I had an indeterminate amount of time on my clock – could have been anywhere from 5 seconds to 25 seconds, no way to tell with an old-fashioned analog.
An opponent pondering a draw offer in that situation is faced with 2-way risk: the uncertainty as to just how many seconds (which directly affects how many MOVES) I have left is a critical factor for him as well as for me, since 25 seconds would be ample time to reach checkmate while 5 seconds would pretty much assure him a time-forfeit win. And neither of us knows which it is.
So if one of your problems with chess is it’s not enough like poker or backgammon because it lacks an element of pure chance, then keep bringing analog clocks to your tournaments, stick with SD time controls, and eschew Rule 14H.
Watch for a forthcoming Chess Life article on this theme, titled, “Invest in a Delay Clock.”
With delay, of course, the problem posed by the previous two comments wouldn’t arise if the player with a few seconds on his clock had a big advantage on the board; in most cases he could still safely play on for the win.
Many TDs would rule that that IS a draw offer, and for good reason.
It’s unethical in a much more specific sense than that.
By asking “Are you playing for a win?”, a player is pumping his opponent for more information than he is entitled to. No player has a right to know whether his opponent is playing for a win or a draw, except by offering a draw and risking his opponent’s acceptance.
Of course, the opponent could remain silent, or say “I do not intend to answer that question”, but even then, such an answer (or such silence) could give away his intentions. (An opponent who wants a draw is far more likely to want to keep his intentions hidden than an opponent who wants a win.)
I see nothing unethical in offering a draw when your opponent has only a few seconds remaining – as long as the offer is done properly, i.e. as part of a move and just before pressing the clock. It’s akin to making an unexpected move when your opponent has only a few seconds.
As for WHY anybody would want to offer a draw when the opponent is so short of time, that’s an easy one. Your position might be dead busted, and you may be hoping that your opponent’s fear of time trouble will cause him to accept your offer. If you wait until time trouble is over (in a two-control tournament), of course he won’t accept.
While Reshevsky was not exactly a prince among men, he seems to be getting a bad rap here. “Do you play for a win?” was a standard method of offering a draw in international tournaments for a very long time. It did not imply anything unethical. It did lead to occasional confusion, especially when the players didn’t have much in the way of a language in common.
I agree with Bill Smythe and disagree with Mike Nolan.
It often happens that when both players have only a few seconds left on the clock and the position no longer matters because the game will be decided by whomever’s flag falls first, that one player offers a draw. If the opponent’s flag falls before he accepts he looses the game. I have seen this happen many times especially in five minute chess and it has never been called a draw.