English Chess Forum

I notice that the two French GMs Maze and Bacrot drew by repetition in 18 moves. However, the rules say that tacit agreements to draw are not allowed. Given that the game saw

10 d4 Bf5
11 Nc3 Bc8
12 Nb1 Bf5
13 Nc3

retreating pieces to their starting squares and then re-developing them to the original square does seem very odd unless a draw had already been agreed?

Bacrot then castled before they repeated position three times and cleared off!

... and the computer gives a huge advantage for White after 12.Ne4 instead of 12.Nb1.

If they aren't penalised in some way for doing this then the rule is pointless. But then, in my opinion, the rule is pointless anyway. You can't force two people to play a competitive game if neither of them wants to. They just play a line where most of the pieces get exchanged off quickly leaving a symmetrical position. What, then, is the point of playing another 10 or 15 moves? Where's the entertainment for the spectators in that?

Hi Ian

"Where's the entertainment for the spectators in that?

The look on the players faces when both are double defaulted should be entertaining.

Agree there are a dozen standard 'swap-off' draws or perpetual checks that the
two could have played out. There is no sensible way of stopping it.

The game in full:

[Event "8th Gibtelecom Chess Festival Masters"]
[Site "Gibraltar, "]
[Date "2010.01.31"]
[Round "7.3"]
[White "Maze, Sebastien"]
[Black "Bacrot, Etienne"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[WhiteElo "2554"]
[BlackElo "2713"]
[PlyCount "32"]
[EventDate "2010.??.??"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Bxc6 dxc6 5. O-O Ne7 6. Nxe5 Qd4 7. Nf3 Qxe4
8. Re1 Qg6 9. Ne5 Qf6 10. d4 Bf5 11. Nc3 O-O-O 12. Qh5 Bg6 13. Qh3+ Bf5 14. Qh5
Bg6 15. Qh3+ Bf5 16. Qh5 Bg6 1/2-1/2

Hi Jack

10 d4 Bf5
11 Nc3 Bc8
12 Nb1 Bf5
13 Nc3

these moves posted differ from the game posted.

Geoff Chandler wrote:Hi Jack

10 d4 Bf5
11 Nc3 Bc8
12 Nb1 Bf5
13 Nc3

these moves posted differ from the game posted.

Indeed. The moves I've got are taken directly from the scoresheet. There was probably a malfunction of some sort on the DGT board.

Cheers Jack.

"Where's the entertainment for the spectators?

When there is a malfunction of some sort on the DGT board.

Sean Hewitt wrote:I notice that the two French GMs Maze and Bacrot drew by repetition in 18 moves. However, the rules say that tacit agreements to draw are not allowed. Given that the game saw

10 d4 Bf5
11 Nc3 Bc8
12 Nb1 Bf5
13 Nc3

retreating pieces to their starting squares and then re-developing them to the original square does seem very odd unless a draw had already been agreed?

Bacrot then castled before they repeated position three times and cleared off!

Out of curiousity I looked at the regulations on the website which read:

"Draws by mutual agreement in under 30 moves are not allowed. There must be no pre-arranged or tacit agreements to draw games of any length, by repetition or otherwise. Genuine draws by repetition or stalemate are acceptable. Penalties may involve loss of prize money. "

I'm no arbiter but as it appears to be a theoretical line then I wonder if this is permissable or not. Is it a genuine draw by repetition? I had the same thought when Kramnik repeated moves against David Howell in the opening at the London Chess Classic. As David deviated then I didn't get my curiousity satisfied but I did wonder at the time what would happen if they repeated three times. Would one player be forced to deviate? What if neither player can deviate without playing a losing move? Can the arbiter force them to play another game? Can any arbiter advise?

This reminds me of Jonathan Rowson's discussion of the pyschology of 3-fold repetition in "Chess for Zebras". Upon whom does the onus lie to avoid the repetition? If white repeats twice, does black have to deviate, even if that would mean playing an inferior line, to avoid being snared by this rule in the event that white wants to repeat three times? It seems a bit problematic. Furthermore, Geoff is surely right that if the two players really want to draw, nothing is going to stop them from playing out some prearranged flashy perpetual.

LozCooper wrote:I'm no arbiter but as it appears to be a theoretical line then I wonder if this is permissable or not. Is it a genuine draw by repetition? I had the same thought when Kramnik repeated moves against David Howell in the opening at the London Chess Classic. As David deviated then I didn't get my curiousity satisfied but I did wonder at the time what would happen if they repeated three times. Would one player be forced to deviate? What if neither player can deviate without playing a losing move? Can the arbiter force them to play another game? Can any arbiter advise?

I would say that there is usually a clear distinction between a genuine draw and a game where the players have just played a series of nonsensical moves. Sponsors have some interest in making sure that the games are interesting for paying audiences, though how or whether you can ensure that is a subject for a long debate.

That said, I think the arbiter's role is to ensure that the game is not brought into disrepute, not to tell players how to play tournament chess. A single quick draw in the course of an all-play-all event is not surprising, given the physical intensity of the competition at the level we're talking about. Sometimes players take a quick draw one day, then spend all their energies the next day producing real fighting chess!

Adam Raoof wrote:A single quick draw in the course of an all-play-all event is not surprising, given the physical intensity of the competition at the level we're talking about. Sometimes players take a quick draw one day, then spend all their energies the next day producing real fighting chess!

Isn't this what bothered Fischer ?

Not so much that draws take place, but that all the russians drew against each other, but then came out with "real fighting chess" against him.

Adam, I think you're right - the draws are inevitable. Isn't is it when two buddies in this case from the same nation - choose to save their efforts for other competition that the problem becomes more serious ?

My own preference is to introduce the 3-1-0 system that was used in the London Chess Classic.

Peter Rhodes wrote:My own preference is to introduce the 3-1-0 system that was used in the London Chess Classic.

When I get some free time, I'm going to get some statistics that debunk the 3-1-0 myth.

Alex Holowczak wrote:

Peter Rhodes wrote:My own preference is to introduce the 3-1-0 system that was used in the London Chess Classic.

When I get some free time, I'm going to get some statistics that debunk the 3-1-0 myth.

3-1-0 would be a disaster in Swiss tournaments under current pairing regulations, IMO, for fairly obvious reasons. It is fairly easy to create situations where throwing a game would be an arguably preferable result to a hard fought draw. People winning tournaments with the a very weak average opposition would become more common. There also seems to be a unrealised assumption underlying such debates that players have a choice between guaranteeing a decisive result (other than by throwing the game), and maintaining the possibility of a draw - the implication being that introducing a "bonus" for a win would encourage the former option.

It is slightly different in All-play-alls where any one result does not determine the strength of the opponent in the subsequent games.

One other consideration is that 3-1-0 arguably increases the incentive for corruption - decisive results in last round games would become more valuable. Much as leading boards "halving out" for shares of prize money is a disappointment for spectators, would it really be an advantage to replace it with tacit "no draw" agreements between the players (either with one player throwing the game from the start, or both playing initially for the win with one player expected to "find a way to lose" once the draw starts appearing on the horizon)? That is not to say that such things don't occur at the moment - there are often occasions when the combined prize money of two players is higher with a decisive result - but i'm fairly sure that they would increase.

Alex Holowczak wrote:When I get some free time, I'm going to get some statistics that debunk the 3-1-0 myth.

Good luck with that Alex. My recommendation would be to "do it" rather than "talk about it".

In the meantime I've been playing at a club that has used the 3-1-0 system for at least 5-years (if not much more), and the chess players there seem to have been swayed by it's efficacy. 7 distinct all-play-all tournaments of 10 players a piece. That's hardly small for local club chess and imho shows it's popularity.

Of course, popularity is not "proof" but I think you're going to need something pretty convincing to dispell this so-called myth.


Fortunately for us, the game statistics at my local club are available online, and it is possible for us to analyse them.
I've done some very brief analysis on your behalf although - this is only club chess and I don't pretend to claim this has any bearing on chess at the highest level.

At Coulsdon so far this year, there have been 544 games of which there have been 122 draws (22.43%).

This can be split into games that use the 3-1-0 system and games that do not use the 3-1-0 system.

The competitions that use the 3-1-0 system are : 7 all-play-all competitions of 10 players a piece : Named "The Premiership", "Div1", "Div2a", "Div2b", "Div3a", "Div3b", "Div3c" in addition the qualifying stages of what is effectively a "club championship" known as the "WorldCup".

Under this category, there have been 303 games of which 59 resulted in a draw (19.47%).

The competitions that DO NOT use the 3-1-0 system are : Two Superleague events - each one is a 8 team 4-board event with a total of 16 teams in two divisions. In addition to this there is a further 6-board FIDE rated event. Then there are the standard "handicap club tournament" known as the "Dicky White", and I am also including the knockout phase of the "Club Championship" where the 3-1-0 system is not in use, and a draw results in a rematch of which there have been quite a few so far. Oh, last but not least - the matches of the two Coulsdon teams participating in the "Surrey League".

Under this category, there have been 241 games of which 63 resulted in a draw (26.14%).


All of this data is available at http://www.ccfworld.com/chess


I am not a statistician, and am unfamiliar with the methods dealing with confidence intervals and "all that stuff", I have no idea whether this data is statistically significant in the sense that Alex would want it to be.

However, going from this preliminary set of data, I think Alex, you're going to have a pretty hard time showing that the 3-1-0 system is a "myth". As far as I can see it's a reality in action.

Peter,

Comparing draw ratios in an all play all with draw ratios in a team event is meaningless (it's not comparing apples with apples as my old lecturer would have said) because you don't know if the difference is down to three points for a win. Maybe it's because draws have a higher frequency in team chess per se? Or there may be some other reason.

What you need to know to make an accurate comparison is the draw ratio in your clubs all play all events when (if) they ran on the 2/1/0 scoring system and the draw ratio now. You would also need to look at other factors such as average strength of the opposition as well as the spread of the playing strength as I suspect that these factors too affect the draw ratio.

The football league did this analysis when it switched to 3 points for a win and found the draw ratio was almost exactly the same (it actually increased slightly) from 2 points for a win. This experience was mirrored throughout football as far as I know.

Which is not to say that 3 points for a win is not meritorious in football - but it doesn't reduce the incidence of draws.



Sean