When I was in High School, my chess league played two round matches with the teams in the league. I hope that is clear. In any event, the time control was 30/30, SD/30. I don’t think anyone had digital clocks back then. Anyway, there was a proviso. If the game was not finished after one hour the players would have to agree to a draw, one would have to resign, or they would have to agree to make the game worth two points. None of the matches were rated back then, and I’m not even sure there was ever, except by accident, a certified TD on site, but I was wondering if that woudl be ratable now.
The part about making the game worth two points appears to be a match scoring or pairing issue, and that shouldn’t affect whether the games are USCF-ratable. Other than that, the rest does not seem to offer either player an advantage, so it probably shouldn’t affect ratability, either, but this may be something to run past Walter Brown and/or the Ratings Committee.
Um, I don’t get it. How could the time control be 30/30 SD/30 if, after one hour, the players are required to agree on something? And how can you ever force two players to agree? If one refuses, is the other required to reverse himself in order to get the two of them into agreement?
It’s sort of like the doubling cube in backgammon. If you have a lost game, you probably should resign or otherwise you will be playing out that lost game for double the points.
I’m not entirely sure I understood the premise, but I think it goes like this. The game may last two hours. However, unless the game has ended earlier, after one hour, one of three alternatives must happen:
The game ends with an agreed draw.
The game ends decisively with one player resigning.
The game continues, but a decisive result is then worth two game points instead of one. (I don’t know what happens in the case of a draw, but my guess would be each team scores one game point.) This is almost like “doubling down” as I understand the term.
OK, I guess that makes sense. Agree on a result within 1 hour, or the consequences double.
If a higher-rated player has K+P vs his lower-rated opponent’s lone K, and the position is an easy draw, the higher-rated might be more motivated to agree to a draw to avoid losing double rating points, rather than to play on and hope for a blunder.
I’ve seen 1800s with a lone king make a mistake. They were not time pressure induced errors.
Also, some K+P positions are wins (white Ke4, Pe2 vs black Ke6).
Finally, the lower rated opponent may be the one preferring to play on for a doubled-draw. That would be particularly true if the format was one where the first game was 30/30, G/30 and the second game is only played (at G/30) if the first game finishes within an hour.
It’s only doubled points for team scoring purposes. It would still be just a single result for rating purposes. We rate USAT games where a player might agree to a draw in a favorable position to clinch a team result or risk a sure draw to play for a win if necessary. This isn’t really all that different; the game result may be skewed somewhat by the team situation, but probably not by as much as the USAT situations.
Players agreeing to a draw to clinch a team victory could happen in any event that has team prizes, especially one that uses team scoring for pairing purposes. (Think Olympiads or USATE)
But in general, how is that different from players taking a draw to clinch an individual prize? Both involve making decisions taking into account factors other than the position in the game.
One time in a scholastic tournament the only two 4-0s were teammates and playing each other (the team had already clinched first). The person with a material advantage thought it would be good if they drew so that the team could also get both the first and second place individual trophies. After the draw they ended up getting third and fourth.