English Chess Forum

Instead of having artificial methods like deferred draw offers, why not just get rid of the draw offer altogether?

Check out my new article on the subject athttp://yorkshirechess.org/the-art-of-draw/.

Don't forget to answer the poll and comment!

It is easy to avoid the effects of draw offers in your own games. Never offer draws and never accept them.

Do those advocating the abolition of draw offers actually do this or not?

I have played approximately 60 standard-rated games this season and offered one draw which was accepted.

I have accepted draws in clearly worse positions on several occasions, particularly when it is obviously going to be beneficial to the team I am playing in. I have also turned down draws in positions where I am worse, typically when I have some sort of dynamic play.

Just because I don't like the rule doesn't mean I won't use it to my advantage when it is there to be taken advantage of!

Andrew Bak wrote:Instead of having artificial methods like deferred draw offers, why not just get rid of the draw offer altogether?

This topic comes up every so often. Last time, we made up a list of other games, sports and pastimes where the participants could agree that is was boring and pointless to continue and could agree to split the point. Time is of course an issue as well, when you are playing with finite time resources. Oddly enough for some of us, chess is a leisure activity and supposed to be fun. Being forced to play fifty moves of a dead position or contriving with your opponent a repetition isn't. I suppose it could be worse, there's an advocate in Iran who doesn't think "resigns" should be permitted either.

I mentioned in the Gibraltar post how much I liked the no draw until 30 moves and how I wished it was applied everywhere. I feel that people will think twice about playing boring stuff if they know that a quick draw isn't an option.

If one were to ask 100 people who don't play chess why they don't I wonder how many would reply "because in chess you can draw at any stage".

Andrew Stone wrote:I feel that people will think twice about playing boring stuff if they know that a quick draw isn't an option.

I wouldn't be so sure. There was a fair amount of potentially boring stuff in the London Classic, not least when Nigel revisited an opening he'd probably last played at the age of 10. Much of the really sharp stuff can peter out to a level ending quite quickly if played correctly, so you might want to avoid that if you didn't want hours of tedium in the level ending until the arbiters would allow a draw.

Christopher Kreuzer wrote:It is easy to avoid the effects of draw offers in your own games. Never offer draws and never accept them.

Do those advocating the abolition of draw offers actually do this or not?

I'm just the opposite of those who advocate the abolition of draw and then draw very often theirselves. In most cases, I think that nothing is wrong in just splitting the point, it's a natural thing that two players fear each other and this happens also in many other situations of life, just think about the Cold War.

You won't believe it, though, during the last 10 months I played 12 FIDE-rated tournaments, and only once offered a draw first, that is, in a game where my opponent hadn't offered it before. Many times I refused repeated draw offers: once a rumanian player made me 12 draw offers and I refused all of them, the funny thing is that when at the end I offered draw myself, he refused, only to re-offer it 2 moves later!! Since last September, I have a score of +27 =5 - 16, with 4 draws out of 5 reached in the very endgame.

In fact, I think that:

- When I am better, I have no reason nor to offer nor to accept the draw; actually, it could make sense when I have a better position but I am short of time, but even in that case, I would feel guilty for not having tried to win;

- When I am worse, I think it's my opponent duty to offer draw; offering draw in a worse position often is useless, sometimes is even unpolite;

- When the position is more or less even, I almost always prefer to play, otherwise it would have been much simpler to stay home!!

So, though I usually don't blame early drawers, I almost never early-draw myself.

In my opinion, the ordinary players are just following the fashion and precedent set by the 'GM-draw' that arose when tournaments could be long and arduous.
In Moscow 1935 Capablanca came 1st by 1 point (+8,=10,-0) that's a lot of chess in a relatively short time. And, he once said something like - why should I kill myself? (Meaning: try maximally in every game.)

I've made a follow up post to my original article, addressing the points I hadnt considered before, check it out!

http://yorkshirechess.org/the-art-of-draw-part-2/

Andrew Bak wrote:I've made a follow up post to my original article, addressing the points I hadnt considered before, check it out!

You don't mention time pressure. Both that and relative gradings are reasons why players accept draws where in other circumstances, they might continue. In the Blackmar-Diemar game, Black might have decided to play for another 20 moves or more, defying time shortage to make a winning attempt, but why be that egotistic? From White's viewpoint, discretion is the better part of valour, so why continue if there's only likely a half point in prospect which is immediately offered?

This brought a smile to my face:

Proposed Rule Change Regarding Draw Offers

Susan Polgar clearly read my article!

3 of my 14 matches have been draws, all of them draw by agreement. In 2 of these I felt my opponent was winning but they offered me the draw, so I accepted. In the other game I offered the draw because I thought it was an even game with no chance of either of us winning. I'll post the final positions if you like so you can judge for yourself. 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. Nc3 Bg4 4. Be2 h6 5. d4 Bxf3 6. Bxf3 Nd7 7. Be3 exd4 8. Bxd4 c6 9. O-O a6 10. Re1 Ngf6 11. e5 dxe5 12. Bxe5 Nxe5 13. Rxe5+ Be7 14. Re3 Qc7 15. Qe2 Rd8 16. Re1 Rd7 17. Ne4 Nd5 18. Nc5 Nxe3 19. Nxd7 Qxd7 20. Qxe3 Kd8 21. Rd1 Bd6 22. Qb6+ Kc8 23. Qa7 Kc7 24. Qd4 f6 25. Bg4 Qe7 26. Qd2 Rd8 27. g3 Bb4 28. Qxd8+ Qxd8 29. Rxd8 Kxd8

David Blower wrote: In the other game I offered the draw because I thought it was an even game with no chance of either of us winning.

Symmetrical pawn structure, opposite coloured bishops, one of the deadest positions you ever could meet. If you weren't allowed to offer a draw, the simpler and natural way to end such a game is to repeat the position.

(edit) Anyone playing through the whole game will get the impression that Black was lucky to draw. Analysis would probably show where White missed decisive winning ideas. (/edit)

Yeah I was white. I didn't really mean to post the whole game, just the final position! (How do you do that btw on these forums.) Analysis of the game by myself and by other members of the chess club said I probably should have made more use of a pinned bishop. I should have forked the bishop and g pawn with my queen on move 22. Got a bit greedy moving my queen with the plan to skewer the king against the rook on the back row, which was easily defended against!