Short draws and the ambiguous rule 14B6

Running Chess Tournaments
1

I have a couple questions regarding the following rule:

14B6. Premature or prearranged draws. “It is unethical and unsporting to agree to a draw before a serious contest has begun.”

My understanding is that the phrase “before a serious contest has begun” is intentionally vague in order to allow TDs some latitude in their interpretation. Most TDs seem to interpret it as “before the game has started”, although some take the stricter interpretation of “before X moves have been played”. The recent Millionaire Open and the HB Global several years ago come to mind as examples of the latter.

I am curious whether an even stricter interpretation is allowed. Does a TD have authority to tell players: “You must play a real game”, without clarifying what he considers to be a ‘real game’, and then potentially penalize or forfeit players who fail to satisfy his unspecified standards?

Or would the following rule:

25. Introduction to Chapter 2: Tournament Section. “A player entering a competition has a right and an obligation to know the rules and conditions.”

require TDs to give advance notice of the specific requirements of 14B6 which will be used?

My other question regarding rule 14B6 involves a TD playing in his own event. Obviously a playing TD has extra responsibilities that other players do not have. Does a need to attend to these responsibilities provide valid justification for a playing TD to offer/accept his own short draws which would violate the 14B6 conditions he has imposed on other players?

Thanks in advance for any feedback!

2

Do they really? This is not a sarcastic question, I would not interpret that way. How many TDs here interpret the ruling the way pminear describes?

What was the Millionaire Open’s interpretation on this? Could you cite examples of the stricter interpretation?

I don’t believe so. The TD has the right to refuse a result if he believe the result was arranged. Whatever penalties the TD decides can be appealed to the USCF.

No!

3

I witnessed a big money class section game in the last round of a Philadelphia tournament. The two players (who would share the large first and second prizes with a draw) came to the board smiling like canary swallowing cats. The only thing the haters could do was watch the flamboyant show these two put on. A few pieces were ceremoniously twirled and then the handshake, draw agreed! I just wonder what would have happened if a blunder had occurred in that sequence of moves? Honor won that day.

4

I think this interpretation of the rule is mostly used in large/high-prize tournaments where directors don’t want to have to evaluate many potentially-suspect draws. I agree that this interpretation seems rather willfully ignorant, but it is used occasionally when a director just doesn’t feel like enforcing it.
(And no, I am not the director whose methods are being debated in this thread)

5

Specifics of the incident that inspired this post might be helpful.

This topic has been debated on the forums and elsewhere. I dislike essentially pre-arranged draws, but I also believe that at amateur level the players own their own results, as a chess friend once said.

Look up Rogoff-Huebner, for high-level reference point. Down in the trenches, consider the NY Opens from the 1980s and '90s. That event had a consolation prize fund for players who did not win a place prize but still scored +2. (At least some years it did.)

That led to literally unplayed draws in the last round among players sitting at +2, who knew their chances for a ‘real’ prize were close to zero, but a draw guaranteed their EF back. The one time in 35 years I played a “GM draw” was in just that situation, in the '98 NY Open. My opponent and I played six moves of a d3 Italian game, I took a deep breath and offered a draw, he chuckled, thought for a minute and shook hands. Back then, $230 (the consolation prize that year) was more than half a month’s rent for me.

Not proud of it, but would likely do it again. Put it down to good intentions on the part of the NY Open organizers, who wanted players to be happy—and come back the next year.

But I am pretty sure Peter is talking about a game with very little or no money on the line. Right?

6

In the club in question, the maximum prize in a regular weekly event is $60; the main purpose of the club is to provide a venue conducive to fun, sportsmanlike chess. Some special annual events (e.g. memorials) have higher prize funds, and also have defined move counts for legal draws by agreement.

In this specific incident, a player requested that the director divulge the exact number of moves required for a “legal” draw - immediately before a final-round game where a draw would secure the player first place ($30). The request was denied because the director understood that the spirit of 14B6 would be violated with a “n+1-move-draw” if he provided a black-and-white cutoff.

7

In a smaller (or local) event, it’s much easier to assign stringent standards to rules like USCF Rule 14B6.

This is virtually impossible in a larger event. Even many European events have more or less abandoned the “Sofia Rules” concept, due to the impossibility of enforcement.

This game was played in a very late round of the 2013 Tradewise Masters: 1. d4 Nf6 2. Bf4 c5 3. e3 Qb6 4. Nc3 Qb2 5. Nb5 Nd5 6. Rb1 Qa2 7. Ra1 Qb2 8. Rb1 Qa2 9. Ra1 Qb2 10. Rb1 1/2-1/2. The two players (both highly combative) were in the running for first prize. Black had a half-point lead on White, and everyone was expecting a no-holds-barred fight here.

So, what happened? White says he simply forgot about Black’s third move. White burned over an hour on this game, most of it between moves 4 and 8, trying to find a way to play on. (Black barely used anything beyond his increment time.) Eventually, White decided he had nothing better than to permit the repetition.

I was the arbiter who handled this result as it happened. This game is an excellent example, to me anyway, of why trying to enforce such provisions in anything other than a small-bore local event is a waste of time. No arbiter in his right mind is going to forfeit these two players…and once such a draw is permitted, most any reasonable repetition has to come in too.

Yes, I have run events where a firm 30-move minimum was in place. One organizer abandoned this after two GMs turned in a 13-move repetition from a sharp but balanced position.

Now, I do view pre-arranged draws as illegal, and yes, I have caught players discussing such an arrangement prior to the round. However, such a discussion can easily be held without a TD’s knowledge. (Note here that “knowing” and “proving” are vastly different concepts.) Moreover, if two players really want to draw a game, they often find a way to do it without any sort of pre-arrangement at all.

8

The real test of Sofia Rules in Open swisses arises when a much lower rated player finds a combination to force a repetition around move 15. The much higher rated player, who has no incentive to take a draw, cannot avoid the sequence without significant material losses. Which TD in their right mind would reject this result?

Michael Aigner

9

How does a TD prove that a serious contest has occurred? This can be a subjective interpretation. The TD would have to have the chess skills to understand whether a real game is being played or not. Strong players can rattle off 25 moves of one of the main lines of the Ruy Lopez, Queen’s Gambit Declined, or Najdorf Sicilian and sit at the board for a while. No real game has been played.

What if they play 1. Nf3 Nc6 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. Ng1 Nb8 4. Nb1 Ng8 and then play 5. h3 h6 6. a3 a6 6. Ra2 Ra7 7. Rh2 Rh7 8. Ra1 Ra8 etc. until they make the 30 move rule. Has a serious contest begun? They are making moves. They may sit there with a frown on their faces. The clock may be running. Will the TD see and understand that the players are fooling around rather than playing seriously? Is there intent to play a serious game? There have been arguments on this forum that the TD should not try to divine players’ intent when applying a rule.

If the players play the Petroff’s Defense or the Berlin Wall, will a “serious contest” necessarily ensue? What if the players rattle off 20+ moves of a famous game that dives straight for a drawn position? Will the TD have the knowledge and skill to see that the known draw has been played? If they players want to draw they will do so. Why make them play a game of charades?

As a player, I have been on both sides. Watching two players on Board 1 taking a quick draw and knocking me out of a chance for a prize is no fun, but I understand that risking it all just for the spectators fun does not pay the rent. I have also been ahead of an opponent by half a point and had him offer me a draw on move 6, handing me 1st place on a plate while guaranteeing him a prize. Naturally, I took it. The TD was unhappy, but he does not pay my bills or put gas into my car. When they offer appearance money, then they can demand a “serious” game every round. This is a rule that has never been consistently applied. If you are a TD/organizer that likes to apply it, good luck with directing a 5 round Swiss tournament when only 3 players show up.

10

I think the conversation has strayed somewhat from the OP’s question regarding the legality of this type of rule enforcement to directors’ (and players’) opinions on applying the rule. It isn’t really a question of whether a director should enforce 14B6 in the method described; it’s a question of whether he can (although I do find the former debate interesting as well…).

11

Sounds like there was no real dispute in this case, which is good. I am pretty sure I know the TD involved, and possibly the player. When you post to this forum–and more so Issues—folks tend to assume any ‘theoretical’ questions arose from an argument.

But it’s a good question. Is four moves not a real game, but seven moves is? Does it depend on ‘which’ moves are played—which would require the TD to be a decent player to grasp? Does thinking time factor into it? Does it make it better–or worse—if it’s at a local club than at much higher level?

Good debate fodder.

12

There would be no need for a TD to reject this draw. A player cannot be forced to lose and a three fold repetion would draw this contest. It is doubtful that any competent TD would be so dogmatic as to become a puppeteer.

13

Four moves is certainly a real game. I was in the open section of a big money tournament and played this “gem” 1.e4,e5 2.Qh5, Nc6 3. Bc4, Nf6 4.Qf7# I really didn’t want to deliver that blow but the people still setting up for the round were laughing so it had to be done.

14

I should probably provide some background on the motivation for introducing this topic.

Despite the shortcomings of rule 14B6 which others have mentioned (difficulty of enforcement, subjectivity of judgment, ease of achieving a draw without prearrangement, etc.), I know one local TD who insists that everyone play a “serious contest”, and threatens to forfeit players who don’t. He also insists on remaining non-specific on what a “serious contest” means to him. A couple of alleged incidents at his club have led me to question whether his policies are within USCF rules. Descriptions below are based on friends’ hear-say, as I did not personally witness either incident.

In one recent event, this playing TD is said to have offered his opponent a draw after 9 moves. Players were surprised, as the TD’s opposition to short draws is well known at his club. Some wondered aloud why the TD did this, and whether his own 9-move offer would result in a 9-move limit becoming his club’s new standard. The explanation given was that he was eager to finish his game, as he had TD-related duties to take care of, and he would not accept other players agreeing to draws so quickly.

A few years earlier, this same TD is said to have declared that no draws could be agreed upon until 30 minutes after the start of the current round. At some point during that event, the TD allegedly offered a draw only 12 minutes into the round.

My feeling is that if these alleged incidents did indeed happen as described, they would constitute double-standards in violation of rule 21E regarding a playing director (not to mention a loss of trust, credibility, etc.). Do other TDs agree?

In my view, such examples illustrate the potential dangers of allowing too much TD discretion in general, and also raise the question of whether such a vague, subjective ban on short draws is allowed (or should be allowed) under 14B6.

All answers given so far suggest that prearranged draws are clearly illegal. But what sort of proof of prearrangement would be needed to justify penalizing players? Would the TD (or a witness) need to overhear a conversation between the players along the lines of: “Want to play X moves, then go have beers?” “Okay, sure!” … ?

What about short draws by agreement which have not been prearranged? Can a TD just hand out double-forfeits at his whim? Would he need a series of silly, repetitive moves such as 1. Nf3 Nf6 2. Ng1 Ng8 etc. as justification to do so? Would a draw agreement after following 20+ moves of theory (which the players may or may not even be aware that they are doing) be a valid justification for forfeiture?

Basically, I just cannot understand how a TD can have any right to penalize players for not playing a “serious contest” if no criteria for a “serious contest” has been given.

15

Same thing happened years at the PA Champ several years ago an IM and an FM agree to a draw on Board 1.
I’m not sending the back to rattle off 30 moves of theory

16

A standing policy at the club is (and has been) that short draws are acceptable if one or both participants has a pressing personal reason that requires them to leave the game or event early (i.e. family emergency, work call, etc.). Thus, the director in question claimed that he was following his rule because of difficult directing circumstances. Whether this is a violation of the rules or not can be debated, but it is certainly not such a black-and-white issue as the OP claims.

Also, the statement “a player entering a competition has a right and an obligation to know the rules and conditions” as presented in Chapter 2 has no bearing upon this issue at present, because the director is disclosing the full criteria of the rule as he interprets it. He is not hiding personal guidelines from players - it is not as if he has a “magic number” and is simply not telling players.

Furthermore, the claim that the director walks around threatening to forfeit players is bogus. In the lifetime of the club in question, there have been no incidents of double forfeiture for this reason, and the acting policy is to first request that the players carry on with their game if they cannot provide a suitable motive for drawing very early, and to forfeit them only if they refuse. As stated by previous posters, the criteria for “serious contest” are incredibly difficult to define succinctly with black-and-white rules, and there are (and always will be) appeals processes for players who feel wronged. Until such point as the director in question clearly abuses this discretionary power, however, there is no need to challenge his authority under 14B6.

17

In any case, Sofia rules don’t forbid draws by repetition.

18

The actual rules imposed at Mtel Masters 2005 (where “Sofia Rules” term was first coined) did indeed permit draws by repetition.

There are numerous implementations of what are, collectively, loosely called “Sofia Rules”. One of those implementations does indeed ban all draws prior to a certain move number. The Linares tournaments were the highest profile example of this that I recall.

19

I wonder what they would have done had the players reached a stalemate prior to the specified move number?

It is possible to stalemate in 10 moves: 1.e3 a5 2.Qh5 Ra6 3.Qxa5 h5 4.h4 Rah6 5.Qxc7 f6 6.Qxd7+ Kf7 7.Qxb7 Qd3 8.Qxb8 Qh7 9.Qxc8 Kg6 10.Qe6

20

Now THAT is a game that could only happen if it was prearranged. So if a TD double-forfeited the players I wouldn’t blame him.