I just got the July Chess Life. The article by Jon Jacobs is pathetic. And a horrible example for kids.
He advocates offering draws in unclear or slightly favorable positions (when you know there is little chance of the offer being accepted) with the sole purpose of disturbing your opponent and making them lose concentration. His theory is that the draw offer will make the opponent less likely to seek a draw later in the game, and perhaps look for wins where there aren’t any.
What is “a deliberate effort to manipulate an opponent’s mind-set” if not unsporting behavior? He’s guilty of what he says he’s not condoning: advocating draw offers “simply to annoy your opponent”.
Frankly, if I see evidence of someone making these types of draw offers repeatedly at my club, I would ban them from tournament play.
Rule 20G states that “it is forbidden to distract or annoy the opponent in any manner whatsoever”.
Imagine if this became standard practice!! How could the Chess Life editor publish this?
Jon Jacobs is not welcome at my events. These kind of cheap tricks do nothing to promote a good image for chess.
Most scholastic players never read the Official Rules of Chess … if they did they still do not understand all the rules. Rule 20G can only be used if the opponent makes a complaint … not the director making the complaint. Do not recall the last time someone made a claim on 20G (Annoying behavior prohibited). Think you are thinking about rule 14B5.
14B5. Repeated offers. Repeated draw offers may be construed as annoying the opponent, and penalties are possible at the discretion of the TD (20G). If the first offer has been declined, it is improper to offer another draw unless the opponent has since offered a draw or the position has changed substantially.
There is nothing illegal to offer a draw in the opening, if it is only offering a single draw in the opening. Scholastic players do offer me some times a draw in the opening. There is nothing wrong to offer a draw. Since the player is to offer a early draw just to get a advanage is a very weak case.
If you want to ban the players, that is your right. Myself do not see any breaking of the rules. Its’ just a single draw offer early in the game … if we start to ban players because of the grand master draw offers – there would not be very many players.
As long as the draw offer is made properly (immediately after moving and just before pressing the clock) there is no excuse for the opponent claiming he has been unjustly distracted or annoyed.
And don’t forget that the offer cannot be retracted, until the opponent declines it either verbally or by picking up a piece. The player making the offer might just regret his offer!
Making an unexpected draw offer is the same as making an unexpected move – there’s no ethics problem there.
I read the article when I received Chess Life. Couldn’t see how the advocated strategy could possibly work in practical application at my level, and figured they needed to fill space (a lot of space!).
It was pretty much a waste of space and time to read it. When I re-joined USCF after being away for 18 years, I was hoping the quality of Chess Life had improved. Three issues later, I’ve got to express some disappointment.
“It is unsporting and illegal to offer draws before a serious contest has begun, and the director should impose penalties at his discretion” - paraphrased, as I don’t have my rulebook handy.
If I’m right the last few games of the Botvinnik - Tal 1960, only had 12 moves. Hope someone can post how many moves were made on the last game of the match of Botninnik - Tal 1960 and 1961. Would love to see more fighting chess, then a simple draw that gave Tal the title.
FIDE did try to force the Grand Masters to make 12 moves before a draw back in the early 1960’s. What we call today the International Arbiters could not enforce the rule. In time FIDE did give up the rule, as it did not work.
There have talk of a 30 move rule before a draw can happen at some tournaments. Have been thinking of a new place on the forum to talk about it. Do not see much hope to force players to play on if they do not care to play on. If it failed for FIDE in the 1960’s, its’ all the information I need to understand it would not work today.
Terry you are right to say it is unsporting, and the director could impose penalties at the directors discretion. I’m not in the mood to impose a 30 move draw rule at my events. The reason, just do not have the time to go over the scoresheets on each and every draw. If it did not work with FIDE events, with a huge number of directors at the event; why would it work at my events with myself as the only director?
The last game of Tal-Botvinnik 1960 was drawn in 17 moves. (Botvinnik wanted to get things over so he could start preparing for the rematch.)
However, the last three games of their 1961 rematch went: draw in 85 moves, draw in 121 moves, win by Botvinnik in 33 moves. It only takes one player to make a fight.
You are probably thinking of the Botvinnik-Petrosian match, which ended with three draws (21, 10, and 10 moves).
Last week, I intentionally repeated the position twice to get in to my opponent’s head. Of course there was nothing wrong with that because whether or not there was a draw in that situation was under my control. There have also been times when in roughly equal situations, I dared my closely rated opponent to take a perpetual expecting them to decline, giving me an advantage. It usually works.
I disagree. I’ve used Jacobs’s strategy myself, and I believe it’s completely ethical gamesmanship–similar to Lasker’s strategy of making a provocative move.
It’s not unethical as long as one actually believes that one is slightly better. (It’s insulting for the weaker player to offer a draw in a worse position…) The point is to lull the opponent into believing that you (the slightly weaker player) are willing to settle for a draw in a slightly advantageous position. Of course, the opponent may accept. But the opponent who doesn’t accept may overreach trying to win. The experienced opponent will often appreciate the point of the draw offer and play for the win in a “safe” fashion.
Imagine a real war–one side (hoping for total victory) proposes an armistice–if the other side accepts, however, the war is over. One’s word is one’s word.