Zero move game: should it be graded?

[John Upham]

Weren't they both defaulted for that game, though? Or is my memory faulty (very possible these days)

I believe that the result of that "game" stood but subsequently SR has informed this place of more recent games in which he was involved in defaulting the players for not playing approved moves.

For example, the second player was defaulted for 1.e4 e6 2.d4 Ke7 at the Lloyds Bank Masters.

[MJMcCready]

I think it should stand. If you're suspicious whether the game was played, you could ask them to play through it for you and show the final position, that might help?

[David Sedgwick]

I believe that the result of that "game" stood but subsequently SR has informed this place of more recent games in which he was involved in defaulting the players for not playing approved moves.

For example, the second player was defaulted for 1.e4 e6 2.d4 Ke7 at the Lloyds Bank Masters.

Actually, it was 1.e4,d6; 2.d4,Kd7; 3.Nc3 1-0 (SR forfeit), but that doesn't affect the substantive point.

The Laws of Chess, now at any rate, stipulate that "The players shall take no action that will bring the game of chess into disrepute."

Who is bringing the game into disrepute; the players who agreed the zero move draw, or the Black player who behaved as above?

Regarding your original question, I agree with Kevin Thurlow, up thread. From what you say the league in question has accepted the result as a draw. That being so, the game should be graded in my view.

[David Shepherd]

I would still like to know if the clocks were started, if not, whether the result was accepted by the league or not, I fail to see how a game can be graded if it never started. The league might allow games to count even if they didn't take place but that should not impact on whether to grade it. I suspect from what has been said one player had to leave urgently and that the draw will have been agreed without waiting for the start of the match or starting the clocks.

[John Upham]

As I understand it the timers / clocks were not started but both players did attend the playing venue prior to the scheduled start time.

I'm not clear that these circumstances are any different to a pre-arranged draw in which a draw is agreed before scheduled start time or say even, the day before?

[PeterFarr]

Not turning up at all to the venue is getting a bit beyond it I think; then the game really is a fiction. Also many leagues have default penalties, so physically being there can make a difference.

Making no moves at all is arguably more honest than making a few moves for form's sake, then shaking hands, but pragmatically it seems ill-advised; better to make some moves, even if only for a couple if minutes, then there's much less chance of any fuss.

In terms of grading, one assumes it wouldn't make much difference, as I guess most pre-arranged draws are between players of similar strength (or if there is a big difference in grading, you would wonder what's going on).

[David Shepherd]

John yes I agree, the only way I can see the result should stand and be graded (although I don't really like it in terms of the aspect of bringing the game into disrepute), is if the draw had not been pre-agreed, the clocks were started and a draw offer made and accepted.

In the case stated in my opinion the game never took place (so in that respect the fact that they intended a pre-arranged draw becomes irrelevant, if the clocks were started but the draw was pre-arranged there should be a double default).

Peter it does make a difference if a 200 grade loses 5 games to a 200 grade his grade is 150. If he the pre-agrees 5 draws with another 200 grade his grade is overall 175. I suspect a number of GM's operate partly in this way not that the games are pre-agreed just draws tend to maintain grades.

I am surprised the some arbiters above see no problem with grading it, so maybe I am missing something.

[PeterFarr]

David, yes I was assuming that one player wouldn't do it too often; if it happened 5 times in 10 games you'd get suspicious about what was happening, I guess.

On the bright side, no-one could accuse the players of computer cheating.

[MartinCarpenter]

If it has made it to the grading controller for the league then it will have been fine by both of the captains involved in the match, and listed on the match card etc. So the game has definitely taken place as far as the league is concerned.

It isn't actually that automatic that the controller will have found out how many moves it took

[John Upham]

If it has made it to the grading controller for the league then it will have been fine by both of the captains involved in the match, and listed on the match card etc. So the game has definitely taken place as far as the league is concerned.

It isn't actually that automatic that the controller will have found out how many moves it took

The game did not take place earlier this week. The League grader will create the grading submission at the end of the December playing period.

I am aware that a game did not take place since one of the players volunteered the information to me.

[David Sedgwick]

I am surprised that some arbiters above see no problem with grading it, so maybe I am missing something.

A game of chess essentially takes place between two players. The role of an arbiter is to assist that process, not to interfere needlessly. The same is true of a grader.

I am assuming that, when the draw was agreed, both captains accepted this at least tacitly and both players expected the game to be graded.

If the league controller is not prepared to accept the result and instead decides to default one or both players, that is up to him or her, subject to any appeal process.

If the league accepts the result as a draw, I do not consider that the grader should interfere.

[kishanpattni]

Grades and ratings are meant to represent playing strength. Fixed draws do not do ratings any justice and I think some action should be taken against such agreements.

[Geoff Chandler]

"Grades and ratings are meant to represent playing strength."

Grades and ratings represent a very rough and basic idea of playing strength
based on results v players he has met in the recent past.

The only real good they do is give a team captain his board order,
other than that you can safely ignore them.

No league score cards I know of have a space reserved for the number of moves played.
They were there, they agreed a draw.

The could have sat down and played 1.e4 e5 and agreed a draw and everyone would be happy.
The justice of the grading system would been preserved.
I personally cannot see the difference.

[Stewart Reuben]

For the future: Why not follow the FIDE Rules for Rating Games?
5.1 Whether these occur because of forfeiture or any other reason, they are not counted. Any game where both players have made at least one move will be rated.
{It should read: In order for a game to be rated both players must have made at least one move.}

Thus my 'game' against Tony Miles would not now be rated. It was only BCF Graded anyway and neither Tony nor I cared about that. I believed at the time, and still do, that this was the most honest of all pre-arranged draws. After the criticism that game came in for, I recommended that players always play a few moves. Thus Shirov Shabalov last round Lloyds Bank Masters. I asked them point blank whether they intended to draw. I didn't even put it on the demonstration board. It was the same situation as my game against Tony.
Shirov agreed a draw in Gibraltar against Sutovsky and confessed this to me some time before the 'game' actually happened. I chickened out this time and left it on the DGT boards.
The ones I really dislike are the concocted draws which players pretend to play seriously. I was told of one between two very strong players indeed. I don't intend to give the names.

A grade or rating is supposed to give some idea of the playing strength of a player. If this includes his agreeing a number of very quick draws, why shouldn't it represent the reality?

[David Sedgwick]

For the future: Why not follow the FIDE Rules for Rating Games?
5.1 Whether these occur because of forfeiture or any other reason, they are not counted. Any game where both players have made at least one move will be rated.
{It should read: In order for a game to be rated both players must have made at least one move.}

Let me get this straight:

At present, for a game to be rated, it is a sufficient condition, but not a necessary condition, for both players to have made at least one move.

You're saying that that should be a necessary condition, but not a sufficient condition.

I don't see why you want to change things. Do you really want a player to be able to turn up, decide he doesn't fancy the game, and leave without the game being rated?

Or be able to sit at the board without moving until his flag falls, with the same result?