Draw by agreement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article uses algebraic notation to describe chess moves.

In chess, a draw by (mutual) agreement is the outcome of a game due to the agreement of both players to a draw. A player may offer a draw to his opponent at any stage of a game; if the opponent accepts, the game is a draw. The relevant portion of the FIDE laws of chess is article 9.1. The vast majority of drawn chess games at the amateur club/tournament level and higher are draws by mutual agreement rather than the other (technical) ways a game can be drawn (stalemate, threefold repetition, fifty move rule, or impossibility of checkmate).

The FIDE laws state that a draw should be offered after making the move and before pressing the game clock. Draws made at any time are valid, however. If a player makes a draw offer before making their move, the opponent can ask them to make their move before deciding. Once made, a draw offer cannot be retracted, and is valid until rejected. A draw may be rejected either verbally or by making a move (thus the offer is nullified if the opponent makes a move). The actual offer of a draw may be made by asking directly "Would you like a draw?" or similar, but players frequently agree to draws by merely nodding their heads.

Contents 1 Etiquette 2 Grandmaster draw 2.1 Spassky-Petrosian 2.2 Reshevsky-Portisch 2.3 Grandmaster draw problem 3 Discouragement of draws by agreement 4 Notes 5 References 6 External links

[edit] Etiquette

Although draws may be offered at any time, those not made as outlined in article 9.1 run the risk of falling under article 12.6 which states: "It is forbidden to distract or annoy the opponent in any manner whatsoever. This includes unreasonable claims or offers of a draw." This rule is applied with the arbiter's discretion: a player loudly offering a draw while his opponent is thinking may well suffer a time penalty or even forfeit the game, but it is unlikely that a player would be penalized for, say, offering a draw in a lifeless position when it is not their turn to move.

There are certain behavioural norms relating to draw offers not codified in the FIDE laws of chess, but widely observed. For example, many consider it bad manners for a player who has offered a draw once to do so again before their opponent has himself or herself offered a draw. Such repeated offers of a draw have also sometimes been considered distracting enough to warrant the arbiter taking action under article 12.5.

It is bad etiquette to offer a draw in a clearly lost position (Benjamin 2006:30), or even when one has no winning chances but the opponent still has winning chances (Burgess 2000:461). But such offers are sometimes used as psychological tricks. The position in the diagram on the right arose in the game Samuel Reshevsky versus Fotis Mastichiadis, Dubrovnik 1950. Reshevsky played 24. Nd2?, and saw at once that he is put into a very bad situation with 24 ... Nxf2. Thinking quickly, he offered his opponent a draw, who was busy writing down the move in his scoresheet. Mastichiadis, a minor master, was so happy to get half a point against his illustrious opponent that he did not pause to examine the position before accepting the offer.

[edit] Grandmaster draw

A "Grandmaster draw" is a draw in a few number of moves, usually without much battle, usually between high-ranked players. British expert P. H. Clarke talked about the positive aspects of a short draw:

Unless you are of the calibre of Botvinnik – and who is – you cannot hope to play at full power day after day. the technical^[1] draws are a necessary means of conserving energy. As such, they contribute to raising the standard of play rather than lowering it. (Evans 1970:85)

In the 1958 game^[2] between Yuri Averbakh and Bobby Fischer, the players agreed to a draw in an unclear position where White is a piece ahead. Asked about the draw, the teenage Fischer said "I was afraid of losing to a Russian grandmaster and he was afraid of losing to a kid." (Evans 1970:86) Averbakh stated that Fischer offered the draw and that each player had only about ten minutes to make the 19 or 20 moves before time control.

All of the games of the second Piatigorsky Cup were annotated by players, including the short draws. Here are their comments on two short draws. Two such games follow.

[edit] Spassky-Petrosian

"The present game once again demonstrates how grandmasters play when they do not care to win. Of course, it is not an interesting spectacle for the onlookers. However, if chess enthusiasts could find themselves in the positions of the grandmasters they would not judge them so severely." - Boris Spassky (Kashdan 1968:119-20)

[edit] Reshevsky-Portisch

"Here Reshevsky offered me a draw, which was accepted. Is this a grandmaster draw? I do not think so. Reshevsky had consumed most of his time, and had only 30 minutes for the remaining moves. On my part it would have been pointless to rely on his time trouble as I saw that after 17. PxN N-Q4 18. BxB QxB 19. NxN BxN 20. B-K4, the draw is evident. (See descriptive chess notation.) In such a strong tournament and against such outstanding players it would not be wise to try to win a game of this kind. One could only lose energy. Neither side had any advantage, so why try to force the issue?" - Lajos Portisch (Kashdan 1968:52)

[edit] Grandmaster draw problem

Draws are very common among high-level chess players and the majority of games between grandmasters are drawn. Nunn article has a good summary of the situation and his proposal is to simply not invite players who frequently draw to tournaments. The following is a summary of the other known proposed solutions:

1. Sophia rules, where draw offers are not allowed before move thirty. Also used by the HB Global tournament. This method does reduce the short draws, but if both players trade off pieces, they can essentially agree to a draw, without a draw offer. FIDE instated this rule in 1962, with the intention of enforcing it. The penalty was a loss of the game by both players. However, players ignored it or got around it by repeating positions. Directors were unable or unwilling to enforce the rule, and it was dropped in 1964 (Just & Burg 2003:xxiv).
2. Proposed cure for severe acute "drawitis" by FIDE officials Eliminates draws completely by forcing a fast time control game to be played after a draw to ensure there is always a winner and a loser. One potential issue for this proposal is that both players can quickly agree to a draw in the tournament game and then play a speed chess game to decide things. The FIDE 128 player tournament has seen many matches where the two tournament time control games are drawn and advancement is decided by rapid (thirty minutes for a game) or blitz (five minutes) games. This was tried in the 2006 Danish Championship, see gladiator chess.
3. BAP System makes it undesirable for one or both players to agree to a draw by changing the point value of win/loss/draw based on color played. three points for black win, two points for white win, one point for black draw, no points for white draw or any loss. Only one tournament Bainbridge Slugfest tournament games has been played under BAP, so there is not enough data to make firm conclusions with. However, there were no short draws in the Bainbridge Slugfest and all the draws were fighting draws.
4. Letting the computer arbitrate it by having a strong computer program evaluate the drawn position. An offshoot of this is the "Prove it" proposal where both players that agreed to a draw play out the game at a fast time control against a strong computer chess program.
5. Russell Miller proposed a chess skins game, where the points for the draw go to the next round. Draws would not directly be discouraged, but it would not be logical to settle for a draw if there are winning chances.
6. Adopting new point-scoring rules akin to soccer, where FIFA has adopted a system that gives 3 points for a win, 1 point for a draw, and 0 points for a loss. This system discourages draws since they would only be worth ⅔ of their current value. The "3-1-0" system was adopted by FIFA after various soccer leagues around the world had used it to reduce the number of stalling draws.

[edit] Discouragement of draws by agreement

Although many games logically end in a draw after a hard-fought battle between the players, there have been attempts throughout history to discourage or completely disallow draws.

Chess is (besides match play golf) the only widely played sport where the contestants can agree to a draw at any time for any reason. Even if draw offers are banned, both players can tacitly agree to a draw simply by trading off all the pieces to a dead drawn position.

In the very first international round-robin tournament in London in 1862, drawn games had to be replayed until there was a decisive result.^[3] A similar format, called gladiator chess, was introduced in the Danish Chess Championships 2006.

More recently, there has been concern in some quarters about agreed draws in positions which are very unclear and in which either player could still play for a win. This may be for a number of reasons: in the last round of a tournament, for example, two players who are tying for the lead may agree to a quick draw in order to guarantee a share of first place; one of the players may be short of time and so agree to a draw to avoid losing on time or blundering in time trouble; or the players may simply not be in the mood to fight for a win, and so take a draw to effectively have a day off.

Because such quick draws are widely considered unsatisfactory both for spectators (who may only see half-an-hour of play with nothing very interesting happening) and sponsors (who suffer from decreased interest in the media), various measures have been adopted over the years to discourage players from agreeing to draws.

In 1929 the first edition of the FIDE laws of chess required thirty moves to be played before a draw by agreement. This rule was discarded when the rules were revised in 1952. In 1954 FIDE rejected a request to reinstate the rule, but it did state that it is unethical and unsportsmanlike to agree to a draw before serious contest had begun. FIDE stated that the director should discipline players who repeatedly disrespect this guideline, but it seemed to have no effect on players. In 1962 FIDE reinstated a version of the rule against draws by agreement in fewer than thirty moves, with the director allowing them in exceptional circumstances. FIDE had the intention of enforcing the rule and the penalty was a loss of the game by both players. However, players ignored it or got around it by intentional threefold repetition. Directors were unable or unwilling to enforce the rule. In 1963 FIDE made another attempt to strengthen the rule. Draws by agreement before thirty moves were forbidden, and the penalty was forfeit by both players. Directors were to investigate draws by repetition of position to see if they were to circumvent the rule. The rule was dropped in 1964 because it was decided that it had not encouraged aggressive play (Harkness 1967:50-52), (Just & Burg 2003:xxiv).

A small number of tournaments in the past have adopted an alternative scoring system, whereby a win is worth three points, while a draw is worth only one (a recent tournament using such a system was Lippstadt 2003). Similarly, there have been proposals that certain kinds of draw should be worth more points than others – for example, awarding only half a point for an agreed draw, but three-quarters of a point for a side delivering stalemate (one-quarter of a point going to the side who is stalemated). In the BAP System, Black only gets one point for a draw, or three points for a win; a white win is worth two points. As of 2005, these proposals have not been widely adopted.

In 2003, GM Maurice Ashley wrote an essay The End of the Draw Offer?, which raised discussion about ways to avoid quick agreed draws in chess tournaments.

The 2003 Generation Chess International Tournament in New York City had a rule that draws could not be agreed to before move fifty (draws by other means, such as threefold repetition or stalemate, were permissible at any stage). Players agreeing to premature draws were to be fined 10 percent of their appearance fee and 10 percent of any prize money won. In a similar vein, the tournament organiser Luis Rentero (best known for organising the very strong tournaments in Linares) has sometimes enforced a rule whereby draws cannot be agreed to before move thirty.

The respected chess trainer Mark Dvoretsky, writing in a column for the Chess Cafe website, suggested that agreed draws should not be allowed at all, pointing out that such an agreement cannot be reached in other sports such as boxing. Although some have claimed that outlawing agreed draws entirely requires players to carry on playing in "dead" positions (where no side can reasonably play for a win), Dvoretsky says that this is a small problem and that the effort required to play out these positions until a draw can be claimed by repetition or lack of material, for example, is minimal. He also suggests that draw offers could be allowed if sent through an arbiter—if the arbiter agrees that a position is a dead draw, he will pass the draw offer on to the opponent who may either accept or decline it as usual; if the arbiter believes there is still something to play for in the position, the draw offer is not permitted.

The very strong Sofia 2005 tournament employed a similar rule. The players could not draw by agreement, but they could have technical draws (stalemate, three-fold repetition, fifty move rule, and insufficient material). Play could stop when the arbiter allowed it. Of the thirty games played, eighteen were draws (60 percent).

There is no indication that any of these proposals will be adopted on a widespread basis, and it seems likely that except in specific tournaments expressly forbidding them, draw offers will continue to be allowed at any stage of the game.

In 2005, GM John Nunn wrote that he believed the rules didn't need to change, and that the simple solution was for organisers to not invite players known for taking short draws. The draw problem – a simple solution, by John Nunn

The FIDE Grand Prix 2008-2009 (part of the World Chess Championship 2011) did not allow players to offer a draw. The draw had to be claimed with the arbiter, who was assisted by an experienced grandmaster. The only draws allowed were:^[4]

• Threefold repetition of position
• Fifty move rule
• Perpetual check
• A theoretical draw.

In the first of the Grand Prix tournaments (in Baku), 53 of the 91 games were draws (58.2 percent).^[5]

[edit] Notes

[edit] References

• Benjamin, Joel (2006), “The Best of 'Ask GM Joel'”, Chess Life: 30-31, <http://beta.uschess.org/frontend/magazine_124_174.php>. Retrieved on 13 December 2006 
• Burgess, Graham (2000), The Mammoth Book of Chess, Carroll & Graf Publishers, ISBN 0-7867-0725-9 
• Evans, Larry (1970), Chess Catechism, Simon and Schuster, ISBN 0-671-20491-2 
• Harkness, Kenneth (1967), Official Chess Handbook, McKay 
• Just, Tim & Burg, Daniel B. (2003), U.S. Chess Federation's Official Rules of Chess (fifth ed.), McKay, ISBN 0-8129-3559-4 
• Kashdan, Isaac, ed. (1968), Second Piatigorsky Cup, Dover (1977 reprint), ISBN 0-486-23572-6 

[edit] External links

• FIDE laws of chess
• Chess Cafe archive page (Previously included a downloadable .pdf file of Dvoretsky's article "Draw?", but this seems to have disappeared by May 2007)
• "Issues on the Chess Table: Short Draws", by Mark Weeks
• Sofia draw rule
• Interm report on Sofia tournament by Chessbase
• Sofia 2005 final results