At least two participants in this discussion (including both this thread and the other short draws thread) have expressed opinions that a 1-move draw should be met with forfeits of both players, and that the players should also not receive their prizes. The basis for this opinion is apparently the sentence: “In case of clear violations of the moral principles of the game, penalties should be imposed at the director’s discretion.”
Boyd Reed has stated in no uncertain terms that, in the absence of a tournament-specific rule prohibiting draw agreements before X moves, any TD’s decision to forfeit players based on the above-quoted sentence would be overturned on appeal. As a player, I am happy to know this. But given the fact that multiple TDs in this discussion have expressed a willingness to issue forfeits, and probably numerous other TDs around the country who don’t read these forums would do the same, wouldn’t it be a good idea to change the above-quoted sentence to state more clearly what penalties are (and aren’t) allowed? If nothing else, it would save all involved parties tremendous time and aggravation of going through the appeals process. Not to mention the appeals committee itself.
I haven’t suggested that players should not be awarded their prizes.
I’m kinda mellowing (I feel horns rising from forehead ) to the fact that it’s just an impossible rule to enforce without advance publicity that a financial, penalty could be applied.
An appeals committee (or special referee) is not supposed to impose the ruling they would have made, but rather determine whether or not the TDs ruling was plausible. I’ve upheld rulings that didn’t match what I would have done.
So I would not have any confidence of such a ruling being overturned on appeal (and since a game with only one player moving is technically not ratable) I’d tell the players to play at least one move each, and may tell them to play a realistic game.
When I consider appeals, I look for errors in application of the rules. I also look for precedent, where available.
The precedent I’ve seen in these cases is that, as long as a ratable game was played, the players were ultimately allowed to draw, even if sent back to play a few more moves. I have never seen a forfeit enforced in this situation. (If the players refused to comply with the chief TD’s instruction to play more moves, a forfeit could be imposed. However, I have yet to hear of such a situation.) If a TD is going to reject a draw as being too short, then I believe the TD needs to give the players some specific number of moves that must be played. Otherwise, the standard of playing “a real game” is again impossibly subjective.
In this particular case, I would say that both Mr. Minear and Mr. Wiewel are generally correct. A one-move draw (i.e.: two ply were played), in the absence of any other pre-announced standard, should not be rejected. A half-move draw (i.e.: one ply was played) must be rejected, because the game is not ratable.
Mr. Bellon previously noted the Long Island Chess Club’s 25-move minimum for agreed draws. As this is a standing rule, and published on the club’s website, I have no problem with that being enforced for their events. Those organizers who are violently opposed to minimally short draws would do well to consider implementing a similar measure for their events. I do not think USCF should have such a measure, but if the Delegates want to introduce one, I wouldn’t really care.
It sounds like the NTDs in this discussion are in agreement on the following:
A draw agreement before both sides have played at least one move may be met with either forfeits or a mandate to play more moves, but should NOT be considered acceptable because it is not ratable.
A draw agreement after both sides have played at least one move may be considered acceptable, or may be met with a mandate to play more moves, but players should NOT be forfeited based on subjectivity alone.
At most tournaments, the above are not applied with any degree of consistency, undoubtedly because they are not clear to most TDs or players. To clarify matters for everyone, and to minimize the number of disputes that reach the USCF Court of Appeals, how about replacing the highly vague “In case of clear violations of the moral principles of the game, penalties should be imposed at the director’s discretion” with some version of the two sentences above? Would such a change likely be approved by the Delegates? If not, why not?
Note that I am not trying to suggest any substantive change to 14B6. I’m just hoping to have the rule rewritten in a clearer way that will (hopefully) allow it to be enforced with greater consistency.
One other question, out of curiosity: Where in the rulebook are TDs/organizers given the option to impose a minimum required number of moves before draw agreements? I know that this practice is considered acceptable, and I personally agree with Mr. Reed that it is a good way for TDs/organizers with some moral or other opposition to short draws to enforce their wishes in a consistent, clear and unambiguous way. But I cannot find this option mentioned anywhere in the rulebook. Unless it is stated somewhere obvious that I’m missing, how about adding this language to 14B6?
There’s many things that aren’t covered in the rule book. Situations which aren’t covered, are reasonably expected to be under TD discretion. I look at the rule book as a permissive document, in that, if it isn’t prohibited, then it’s allowed, usually requiring advance notice.
The option of imposing a certain #-of-moves for valid draw claims is permitted, but announcement in advance would be appropriate.
It as always been assumed that players will act with honor and integrity when playing a game of chess with each other. Those words, “honor” and “integrity” are not in the Rulebook. Do we have to put them there? Will it be necessary in announcements before a tournament begins, or in advance publicity, to tell players that they must act with honor and integrity not only toward each opponent but also toward all of the players in the tournament?
Mr. Minear prefers we split hairs. He wants to limit the discretion of TDs to protect organizations and tournament players from the poor actions by a few that undermine the game of chess. He and others think it is okay to cheat other players out of a chance to compete fairly and equally. It is to be reminded to everyone that it was an International Master and a noted master that contrived to play this minimum of a game. This was on the outermost of extremes to avoid playing a game. They could not and would not produce a scoresheet demonstrating what they had done. They did this in the sight of young players competing in a state scholastic championship. They modeled poor behavior and the most cynical of practices. They also defied a request to go back and play the game. Some honor and integrity. Mr. Minear thinks we should applaud their action. He would have you fiddle with a rule when we all know what the players did was wrong.
It has come to my attention recently that there is another precedent for such a minimal game being played, a game between GM Gata Kamsky and some other master, at a major event. Was that game rated? Will it go into Chessbase as a sample of the quality of chess played in the US? In many tournaments, GMs and IMs receive free entry to play. To turn around and play such short games or even non-games is a slap in the face to the organizer and to the players who fund these tournaments. Players come to tournaments not only to play but also to see how the better players play. When such minimal games get played it cheats these other players who come to see high quality play so that they can learn from it. It is a poor excuse to say that just because it is not perfectly defined in the Rulebook that players can get away with playing such games. We have given TDs discretion to act against the poor but ill defined behavior of those distracting each other, to forfeit players for answering phones in the tournament room, and even the authority to eject spectators for vaguely defined acts that disturb the players. But we do not want TDs to have the discretion to protect the integrity of the game? The Rulebook grows heavier each year from redefining what should be the common wisdom and principles for playing the game of chess. It is more than a shame when masters play with such a lack of professional integrity.
Line in sand. If two players do what the players in the Lancaster Open did in a tournament where I am the organizer and/or chief TD, they will be forfeited. Their game will not be sent in for rating. They will not receive a prize. I should not be alone in having this standard, but I will if I have to be. The Continental Chess Association and other organizers should be stepping up and stopping these short games and non-games from taking place, too, if only to protect their own reputations for creating quality chess events.
Apparently the rule means nothing. Players should be able to enter results directly on the pairing sheets in advance of the round. No need to limit it to the last round; strategic draws are often made in the next to last round.
There is also the Swiss gambit: Round 1 1.d4 draw and both players happily stride toward the pairing sheets. I think for the first round the players should be forced to play a half-ply. I’m mean that way.
I refer to the previous thread on this subject, and the three wildly different standards proposed or demonstrated therein, as proof that there is no “clear violation” of Rule 14B6 so long as a game: is played without prearrangement; is ratable; and is not in violation of a pre-announced tournament rule regarding minimum game length before draw by agreement. (This is a recording.)
With regard to the 2015 Lancaster Open: Did the chief TD make an error by allowing the game to stand as played? IMO, yes. Was this an intentional error? IMO, no. How egregious was this error, given the facts as established in the previous thread? IMO, not very egregious at all.
So, the two most recent posts in the thread notwithstanding, we still face the question of whether/how to clarify the “premature draw” language in Rule 14B6 - which was the entire point of Mr. Minear’s proposed ADM. Is there any chance we could get back to addressing that?
Interestingly in the Fresno Chess Club there has been a long standing tradition of intense pride in no short draws in last rounds. The social pressure is strong and even visiting players seem to honor it.
I have seen fighting chess in last rounds where I expected short draws. Even if the ‘outsider’ wants a short draw, our strong players are not going to agree to it.
I’m thinking of adding to my last round announcements, “Anyone intending to play a short draw in the last round, can come up now and report the result to me before the round begins.”
Virtually all players do behave in ways which they would consider honorable and with integrity. But if you ask ten different players to make a list of such behaviors, you will get ten different answers.
Just like if you ask ten different TDs to define when “a serious contest has begun” in the context of rule 14B6, you will get ten different answers!
I’m trying my best to understand the logic in this emotional rant. That last sentence sounds like an argument that players who agree to a draw on the top board(s) are somehow “cheating” those behind them in the standings by denying them a “fair” chance to catch up.
This argument conveniently ignores the fact that players finishing a tournament on top board(s) have, by their superior play, earned the right to be there. These players have absolutely zero obligation to take undue risks which may jeopardize their own tournament standing. Players on lower boards have no business feeling “cheated” by this. They have nobody to blame but themselves for falling out of contention earlier in the tournament.
It is worth mentioning that both players on board 2 at the Lancaster Open’s final round (who stood to benefit more than anyone else from a decisive result on board 1) openly stated that they had no problems with the short draw on board 1.
I really doubt that very many scholastic players had any interest in what was happening in the Open section. Especially so early in the round, when the scholastic players were just getting started with their own games.
Uhm, it’s quite obvious from the 100+ posts in these two threads, and from the actions of most TDs around the country in allowing these short draws to take place, that your opinion is not shared by everyone. So the statement “we all know what the players did was wrong” is clearly false.
It’s fine to have your opinion, but don’t act as though your opinion is some absolute universal truth handed down from the heavens, because it’s not!
For the record, I would not be opposed to having a USCF rule requiring a specified number of moves before any draw agreement. I also would not oppose having no minimum requirement. I also think it’s fine to allow individual TDs/organizers the option to specify a minimum number if they wish. But I think it is a problem to have some TDs forfeiting players for an action that is completely approved by other TDs.
First of all, does anyone reading this honestly believe that there aren’t thousands of other precedents for one-half move draws or zero move draws?
I was at the event where GM Kamsky offered a one-half move draw to his IM opponent. Of course the IM accepted. (What player in the 2400-2500 rating range would turn down a draw offer from Kamsky?) Yes, the game was rated. No, the TDs did not care even a little bit. In fact, a group of players, including one of the TDs, could be seen joking about it outside the playing room.
An interesting observation is that the IM who accepted GM Kamsky’s one-half move draw offer just happened to be the same player who offered the one-half move draw in the Lancaster Open! I can’t speak for him, but maybe, just maybe, he assumed that the rules would be the same from one tournament to another, especially absent any announcement to the contrary. After all, that is a fair thing for players to assume, right? This is a great example which proves my point that consistency is needed, and rule 14B6 as currently written is not being enforced with any consistency!
Gee, where are all these organizers crying in pain from being slapped in the face? The overwhelming majority who allow such short games or non-games obviously don’t feel the pain, or they would institute a minimum move requirement. Even Eric Johnson (the only other organizer I personally know who shares your view on this issue) has now instituted a 15-move requirement for draw agreements at his tournaments, quite possibly because of this forum discussion.
Another item worth mentioning: The FM who accepted the one-half move draw offer at Lancaster has, for the past 3 years, organized a round-robin invitational tournament for masters and experts in his local area. He does not care if players agree to short draws. He is smart enough to realize that, if two players want to draw but are forced to play a few moves before doing so, they will just draw anyway after playing the required number of moves. So why put them through charades?
Let’s take a poll: At any random tournament, how many players come primarily to play, and how many come primarily to see high quality play of others? To placate the extremely tiny portion in the latter category, just remind them that it is usually only a single game, if any, that results in a short draw on a top board late in the tournament. There are many other examples of high quality play they can witness. Also, a simple database search for games played between two players of a high rating will reveal far more examples of high quality play than can be seen at any one tournament.
A quick search on this position reveals that the #1 most popular continuation here is … drawn by agreement! That’s about twice as popular as the next most common continuation, 13. Ne2.
Does anyone seriously consider the above 12-move game to be of significantly “higher quality” than 1. d4 d5 1/2-1/2? (Making it a full move rather than a half-move to eliminate any concerns about ratability.) Although one game is 12 moves, and the other is 1 move, the players’ intent is exactly the same in both situations! Therefore, logically, anyone who considers the 12-move draw acceptable should consider 1. d4 d5 1/2-1/2 acceptable also.
Another thought: If the USCF considers 1. d4 d5 1/2-1/2 a ratable game, wouldn’t that also imply it’s a legal game (absent proof of prearrangement)?
Almost nobody (except possibly a few power-hungry TDs) likes rules which are highly subjective, and are not enforced consistently. Another rule with exactly these same problems is 14H: “Insufficient Losing Chances”. No wonder that there is an ADM to either remove or significantly modify that rule. Hopefully the same will happen with 14B6!
They will also keep the USCF Court of Appeals busy!
Judging from the popularity of CCA events, and how many decades CCA has been in business, their reputation for creating quality chess events appears to be quite good.
This thread is evidence it is not, for the reason you gave. If most TDs are allowing 1.d4 d5 draw but it might get you double forfeited if you are playing in the wrong TD’s event, that’s a problem.
Not major, but enough to potentially cause an issue.
3-5 Craft an ADM that is specific and unambiguous and I’ll consider those questions. Using the original post as a starting point. I would definitely not require advance publicity. I would be inclined not to have it as a variation. Something like "Players may not agree to a draw before the game has begun. Players must complete the minimum number of moves to make a game ratable (currently one each). More stringent minimum move requirements may be set if they are posted at the site. Players not meeting this requirement may be double-forfeited.
This is specific, non-subjective, not onerous, and gives TDs whose views on the subject mirror Mr. Magar’s the opportunity to set a more stringent standard for their events. It also specifically applies only to draws by agreement, so draws by repetition are allowed."
I don’t know if that was Tom’s intent, but if it was, he is correct.
Sportsmanship calls for everyone to be treated fairly. If others are also in contention for prizes, then I would submit that they should, in fact, be given “a fair chance to catch up”. I always thought that was one of the intents of the rule in the first place.
It doesn’t make any sense to talk about a “serious contest” without an objective definition of what that means. To make that point, these are 4 games I’ve played at various points of my life:
And the scenarios they occurred in (not necessarily in the right order):
a) The players were tied for first going into the final round, spent ~10 minutes on the game, and took a quick draw to secure their placement.
b) The players spent almost all of their time reaching the (equal but unclear) position, and took a draw as a result.
c) The lower rated player happily took an offered draw.
d) The higher rated player was caught out of preparation and took a draw to avoid risk (with one eye on the tournament situation)
Perhaps you can guess which permutation of <a,b,c,d> corresponds to <1,2,3,4>. I would not be comfortable with a director making that guess in the middle of a tournament, and I would definitely not be comfortable being told to go keep playing until a “serious contest” had occurred (particularly with no objective guidelines as to what that means) - particularly when I would consider exactly one of these to be a “serious contest”.
I too dislike short draws, and I take/offer them very rarely. However, while the notion of “fighting spirit” and whatnot is a romantic one, it’s impossible to ignore the very real practical considerations surrounding them. If there’s 4-5 figures on the line, I (quite literally) can’t afford the risk of losing. If I’m exhausted after just playing a long game and a GM offers me a draw in 10 moves, it’s very difficult to reasonably say no. If I’m not sure what my plan is in some opening and my opponent’s blitzed out every move, a draw offer becomes far more tempting. These are not hypothetical situations - I’ve had each of them within the last year - and they’re not things that can just be brushed away. If the players on the board below me don’t like it then, simply, tough - they could have just as easily been drawing on the board above me and preventing me from moving up. There is nothing unfair about, for example, someone starting 7/8 and then taking a draw in the final round so that someone with 6/8 can’t catch up; the player who started 7/8 earned that right through his superior score.
By the way, the aforementioned permutation is d (I spent all morning preparing against 1. e4 lines, and rightly suspected preparation), b (we were both 1800s who had never seen the position after move 3), a (this is all main line Caro theory), c (white went for the forced draw rather than risking playing on). Did you get that one right?
)
