can someone please explain this to me. play thru opening, determine both equal at middlegame, and agree to draw. doesnt this just say both know openings well? there is still a lot of chess to be played - a lot of strategy, tactics, traps, position, sacrifices, and yes mistakes. i thought 2 players played to determine who is better. i can see the player losing in a game wanting to get into drawn situations (perpetual, rook pawn, etc) for a save, but draw with most pieces still on board and equal position is sad to me. i saw this at a local tournament between 2 2200+ players, e4 e5 draw!!! why because they share 3rd place winnings $80 each. this is truly sad. i can understand that in certain positions IF both players play perfectly game will be draw at END, but how often do players play the best move every time. long time controls is one reason, but i think another reason why chess is difficult to catch on as mainstream (like sports, etc) is this sad early draw thing.
am i missing something? am i the only person who feels this way?
14B6. Premature or prearranged draws. It is unethical and unsporting to agree to a draw before a serious contest has begun. The same is true of all arrangements to prearrange game results. In case of clear violations of the moral principles of the game, penalties should be imposed at the director’s direction. See also 20L, Manipulating results.
20L. Manipulating results. Collusion to fix or trow games, whether before or during the game, in order to manipulate prize money, title norms, ratings, or for any other purpose is illegal and may result in severe sanctions, including arrangements to split prize money no matter what the results of the game. See also Chapter 6, USCF Code of Ethics.
There is nothing the director can do with this, as the tournament is over and the prize money has been granted. If it was 1. e4 e5 draw for the $80 prize money, take it up with the USCF Ethics Committee.
thnx for the info. i didnt know that. that wasnt my point however. e4 e5 draw was an extreme situation and just stood out in my mind so i mentioned it.
im just curious about draws agreed to at middle game when position is equal and most pieces still on the board. now this happens a lot at every level. why not play thru whole game and determine who is better at all phases of game. “we reach middle game and neither one of us has advantage. lets draw.” terrible for spectators, terrible for me as a chess enthusiast, and certainly terrible for promoting the excitement of this game. since only one person replied to my post with a formal rule (thnx though), im guessing not too many others mind these very common draws. oh well.
No, you have plenty of company, but most people have given up on that particular soapbox by now.
A possible answer is the plus-score prize format. I have moved a copy of this reply to the Plus Score thread (in this Tournament Organization forum) so that you, and others, can read the discussion there. With prizes by score instead of place, and with a decreasing-differences prize structure, fighting chess is encouraged.
Extreme cases should be brought to the TD’s attention as he/she may not be aware of the circumstances of the draw. It may not make a difference, depending on the TD. I TDed a scholastic section many years ago that ended in a draw immediately after the game began. I asked and both players agreed it was a draw. I told them my interpretation of the rules in this regard and that I would give them the option of taking a double loss or playing a “real” game. They started again. The game finished in a draw but they took my hint and it took them about 20 moves.
Which means it still wasn’t a “real” game. They knew they had to play 20 moves in order to convince you, or at least to get you off their backs. That’s why most TDs have long since given up on trying to force a real game.
A way better solution is a prize structure – like the Plus-Score format – that encourages fighting chess to begin with. With $100 for 4-0, $50 for 3.5, and $25 for 3-1, two players at 3-0 paired against each other in round 4 are punishing themselves, to the tune of $25, if they agree to a draw. And even if they do, nobody else’s prize is affected, so there’s no unfairness to any other players.
In this case, it probably was a real game as it was a scholastic and the players were probably under 10. I really wanted to leave them with the impression that agreeing to a draw after 2 or 3 moves is frowned upon. I think there’s a strong argument to be made by experienced players agreeing to a draw after a dozen moves or even less. They’ve had a chance to try an opening surprise they planned, they may have reached a position that they both know as being lifeless,… As a TD, I don’t think I would question adults drawing in under 20 moves. Two moves, yes. Where to draw the line?
I agree about using cash incentives. In fact, I’m organizing a small open in conjuction with a scholastic in a couple of months. A single cash prize for 1st and 1st under 1800 with a cash bonus for clear 1st in either case. Also, a cash prize for top upset.
If players want to agree to a draw, let them. If someone has a 3 hour drive ahead of them and want to get their cash and head home to their nagging wife, it should be their choice.
There are a lot of different factors and strategies to win cash prizes, this is one of them.
If it’s a couple of scholastic players, then they probably didn’t want to play chess in the first place and they didn’t care about the game. Maybe they wanted to get back to playing on their XBoxes.
let me be clear about one thing - i dont mean agreeing to a draw even before the game starts. that is totally unethical (at least IMO, not sure officially).
what about when money is not involved? players are out of prizes, but still agree after 17-20 or so moves because position is equal at middlegame. this also happens at all levels. do both players think that he and his opponent will play perfectly from that point on and game will end in draw??? forget money, players will still agree to draw regardless. is it that they dont want to lose ratings? i thought you were supposed to play thru game and ratings gauge your skill.
at high level for ex, kasp v kram agree to draw after 19 moves. position equal and purse is guaranteed for both regardless of outcome. why? play on to see whos better!
for the record, i have 3 draws ever - 1 i was losing to a hi rated kid but stalemated cuz he moved to fast without thinking, 2 i was down big material, but found perpetual to save game, 3 i was up rook pawn, but opponent king got to corner.
i was offered a draw by a guy rated 400+ higher than me at approx move 25 equal position and i declined. he didnt say anything but glared at me as if saying “how dare you”. we played on and he beat me then again said nothing but smirked at me probably thinking “your an idiot”. he was overall better than me and in losing my rating will acurately reflect my skill level. i played on because i love the game, want to get better at it, and i had FUN. i have no illusion of making a living off of chess and i’d say 95% of us are in the same boat. i know too idealistic. now to be honest i dont know what i’d do if a $10,000 prize was looking me in the eye and was only a draw away.
Playing a game of chess for some becomes a risk. At our amateur level, we are familiar with the risk of losing rating points and the risk of being humiliated by a much lower player. Sometimes in big money tournaments, we amateurs face the risk of missing out on a big prize. If you’ve played 4 really strong games and have positioned yourself such that a draw guarantees a nice reward for your efforts, I think it should be okay to take an early draw. “A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.” At the professional level, not only is there money, but there is also prestige. A GM can give away a draw to an IM, but a loss in front of the whole crowd probably takes a toll on the ego. Further, at the upper levels, there is an impression – perhaps fallaciously acquired – that GMs at the top of their game should only draw against each other. The risk is that the GMs will press hard against each other and either make a mistake from fatigue, or tire themselves out for a draw and then ruin the next round against the IM. Risk takers are rewarded by the adoration of the chess public and the beauty they create in their games, but my guess is that the middle-of-the-pack Swiss tournament finishers are filled with people who refused draws, only to regret it later.
A personal anecdote to illustrate that I’m not really a proponent of draws. I was tied with four other people at 4.5/5 in a big money tournament. Going into the last round, I had White, but I knew that my opponent was a seasoned veteran of the Class A circuit. I was sorely tempted to offer a draw early, but this was probably as close as I would ever get to winning the tournament outright, which was more valuable to me than the prize money. So I stuck in there and should have been losing in two spots. My opponent even offered a draw and I refused. I obtained a winning endgame and my opponent resigned. I split top prize with one other person, but I won the 1st trophy on tiebreak. My wife teases me, “and you wanted to offer a draw?” I would have missed out on my greatest tournament victory. The money’s nice, but for me, it’s got a lot to do with glory. Why do we play chess anyway? I believe it’s to prove ourselves in mental combat.
terribly sad for chess, but i guess its good for an individuals wallet huh? imagine spectators gather to see the final, but the leader wants to assure himself a reward and draws in a few moves. as i said good for you personally, but its why chess will never be mainstream. in doing a little bit of research i found this awesome article by Maurice Ashley found here:
i think draws should not be allowed unless forced - no agreed draws. if you have a long drive home request a bye for last round. if you want a reward earn it (yes, by getting to the final youve played well, but why agree to draw in the game everyone looks forward to - thinking of yourself only of course). if dont want to lose to lower rated player??? i dont know what to say to that. thats all we need now. GMs drawing IM because theyd be embarrased to lose.
[quote=“renochess”]
Playing a game of chess for some becomes a risk. At our amateur level, we are familiar with the risk of losing rating points and the risk of being humiliated by a much lower player. Sometimes in big money tournaments, we amateurs face the risk of missing out on a big prize. If you’ve played 4 really strong games and have positioned yourself such that a draw guarantees a nice reward for your efforts, I think it should be okay to take an early draw. “A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.” At the professional level, not only is there money, but there is also prestige. A GM can give away a draw to an IM, but a loss in front of the whole crowd probably takes a toll on the ego. Further, at the upper levels, there is an impression – perhaps fallaciously acquired – that GMs at the top of their game should only draw against each other. The risk is that the GMs will press hard against each other and either make a mistake from fatigue, or tire themselves out for a draw and then ruin the next round against the IM. Risk takers are rewarded by the adoration of the chess public and the beauty they create in their games, but my guess is that the middle-of-the-pack Swiss tournament finishers are filled with people who refused draws, only to regret it later.
As a director, one of the saddest things that I’ve witnessed recently was two C players playing K+R vs. K+R. No pawns. One of them had about twelve seconds left on his clock, but as they were playing with delay, there were no real chances of losing on time. In your scenario, they would have had to do what they ended up doing: playing until they traded rooks and drew by bare king.
While I won’t dispute that there’s a big difference between this game and the two move games that we’ve all seen, either in the last round or in the last round of the day, it seems like whereever you draw the line between what is an acceptable draw by agreement and what isn’t, the players will push it, or get arround by other means. Surely it is easy enough to draw by repetition in virtually any position if the players have a mind to draw. Are you suggesting that we forbid that as well?
As the older among us will remember, it wasn’t so long ago that the USCF forbade agreed draws in the first thirty moves. It didn’t work.
There’s no way to force players disinclined to play for a win to do so, and any attempts will just result in shams. Watch what happens in the HB if you don’t believe me.
Using the rules Douglas quoted above, my response to these types of draws, is “continue play”. I had this situation at least once in my TD career between two players who were vying for state finals. They were friends, and of course i knew that they had agreed to this result beforehand. This would have had the consequence of eliminating the 3rd place score from a chance at state. I sent them back, rejecting the draw as premature and warning them not to do so again. They returned to their game, came back to me 3 minutes later and after 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 =, whereupon, I double forfeited them and removed them from the tournament.
I still hold to that policy. I will not tolerate these types of manipulations.
TDs don’t have to appeal to the USCF Ethics Committee. They can use the rulings quoted above as I did.
Over the years all sorts of methods have been devised to stop so many players from drawing. My favorite theoretical method is to count only wins towards gaining a prize. Draws still count for ratings and pairings. I wonder how an event like that would go over?
If two players really want a draw all they need to do is take 10 minutes or so to clear the board of all the king’s men until only the two royal monarchs are left.
i agree with you Alex. if 2 players agree to draw but there is a 30 move rule they will just play 30 even moves and get into perpetual or whatever. but the players that do that are completely unethical. i believe most players are honest and wouldnt deliberately break a rule (if there was one on this).
in your example of k+R, reasonably that can be declared a draw. yes i know, whats “reasonably”? as an experienced player you should know that this is an honest agreed on draw.
no, draw by rep should be ok if done honestly, not pre arranged. how would anyone but the actual players know this??? have a little faith in people to to the right thing.
should we do away with murder being illegal because psychos are going to murder anyway? of course not. a lot of people would do things like speed if there were no speed limits, but dont speed because there are speed limits. yes, you will get those that always break the rules, but generally people will follow the rules.
What happened after that? Did they scream and holler and disrupt the tournament? Did they follow you around yelling at you, refusing to get off your back? Did they demand an EF refund (did you give it to them?)? Did they demand an appeals committee or a special referee? Did they appeal to USCF? Did they ever show up at your tournaments again? Would you care if they didn’t?
These questions are not intended to sound prosecutorial, although I realize they may seem so (except the last one). I’m just curious what happens when you try to force an honest contest.
There was some headache over it from the ones I forfeited. The 3rd place contestant was, of course, happy, and there were no reversals of my decision from our State Scholastic Coordinator. After explaining the situation to the parents, and showing them the relevant rules, they reluctantly understood. They disagreed with the intent of the rule, but understood that I was the enforcement officer, not the legislator, and I was bound to follow those rules.
As a side note, the players in question were two of MY students. I had taught them better than that BEFORE the tournament, and I guess I may have been more impatient with them than I would have with a player I didn’t know. I truly felt that they were attempting to use my implied bias toward them. They, and all others in the tournament found out that I try my best to be as fair and impartial as possible.
The most important point I want to make here is that when I had decided that I was going to forfeit them, I got their parents together and held a meeting with them before I made the ruling. I explained what was going to happen, and though they weren’t happy, they accepted it and there was no disruption of the tournament. This is an important thing to do when expecting to make extreme decisions like this. At least I was able to keep the debates out of the tournament room.
They did return to my tournaments, and continued playing two more years. After all was said and done, I’m proud to say that they turned out good players both over-the-board and away.
Thanks for the interesting details. I hadn’t realized it was a scholastic tournament. Would you have done the same thing if it had been an “adult” (open) tournament?
but I’d play a dozen moves first.