Paris Final: Disappointing Finish

[Mats Winther]

That's how ChessBase news formulates it. Such things never occur in other sports. In race car tours, the drivers won't stop at a third of the distance and agree to discontinue the race. I don't know how the chess public can tolerate this year after year. In Rome's arenas, the gladiators were expected to fight to the bitter end. A lax attitude was punished and the public booed. These players have a high income. One would expect them to do their duty and put up a good fight. In other well-paid occupations, we would not tolerate that the employees leave the workplace at 10 AM.

How about a new rule according to which cowardice will incur rating loss? After all, the rating system should also measure a player's will to fight.

M. Winther

[Chris Rice]

I have a lot of sympathy for the view that agreeing a draw prematurely is tantamount to match-fixing. In football, when Austria contrived a 0-0 draw with Germany so that they could both go through in a World Cup Group game many years ago now there was absolute outrage and the rules were changed.
Ultimately though the chess pro players will want to maximise their results and a quick draw is just part of their day to day business. So asking them to change their ways is probably a waste of time.
Why should a draw be the ultimate result anyway? Why not just have a winner and a loser? Clearly this means some sort of Armageddon finish to every game (or a second game 5v4 etc). I know the purists don't like it but from a spectator point of view I'm always gripped watching one of these games. Fast, exciting, anything can happen, good for the TV too.

[Kevin Williamson]

In football, when Austria contrived a 0-0 draw with Germany so that they could both go through in a World Cup Group game many years ago now there was absolute outrage and the rules were changed.

Actually that game (in 1982) was a 1-0 win for West Germany. The teams knew that a one or two goal winning margin for the Germans would send them both through. Anything else and Algeria would have qualified at the expense of one of them.

[Chris Rice]

Sorry Kevin you are of course correct. The point I was struggling to make is that when one team agrees to lose and by consequence the other win its seen as outrageous but when both players agree to draw its seen as routine and ok and I can't go along with that as someone may suffer as a consequence much as Algeria did.

The bottom line is if we are to avoid these last round sessions of quick draws we should look to changing the format so that we get the outcomes we want to achieve rather than hoping players will "do the right thing" and play exciting chess when it may well not be in their financial interest to do so.

[Angus French]

The Chess Mind has a similar take to ChessBase. Both seem to me to be a little unfair to Caruana who I assume missed Dominguez's Bxb5 sacrifice (though it's not usual) and then *may* have mis-evaluated his chances after 15... Qd8 (as opposed to the move he played: 15... Qc6, which led to a repetition). Both ChessBase and ChessVibes have interesting lines after 15... Qd8 (or 17... Qd8 or 19... Qd8 - it's the same thing after either one or two repetitions).

If all results were counted for each player, rather than the best three, Caruana would have come first, just ahead of Topalov - see here for the points tallies.

[Kevin Williamson]

Sorry Kevin you are of course correct. The point I was struggling to make is that when one team agrees to lose and by consequence the other win its seen as outrageous but when both players agree to draw its seen as routine and ok and I can't go along with that as someone may suffer as a consequence much as Algeria did.

The bottom line is if we are to avoid these last round sessions of quick draws we should look to changing the format so that we get the outcomes we want to achieve rather than hoping players will "do the right thing" and play exciting chess when it may well not be in their financial interest to do so.

Chris, you made your point perfectly clearly it was just me being pedantic.
Possibly just as outrageous, but far more entertaining, was the 2-2 draw at Euro 2004 between Denmark and Sweden which eliminated Italy - the victims of a quirky tie-break rule. Anyway, I’ve taken this thread way off topic so I’ll shut up now.

[IM Jack Rudd]

Sorry Kevin you are of course correct. The point I was struggling to make is that when one team agrees to lose and by consequence the other win its seen as outrageous but when both players agree to draw its seen as routine and ok and I can't go along with that as someone may suffer as a consequence much as Algeria did.

The bottom line is if we are to avoid these last round sessions of quick draws we should look to changing the format so that we get the outcomes we want to achieve rather than hoping players will "do the right thing" and play exciting chess when it may well not be in their financial interest to do so.

Chris, you made your point perfectly clearly it was just me being pedantic.
Possibly just as outrageous, but far more entertaining, was the 2-2 draw at Euro 2004 between Denmark and Sweden which eliminated Italy - the victims of a quirky tie-break rule. Anyway, I’ve taken this thread way off topic so I’ll shut up now.

I'd have had more sympathy with Italy in that situation had they not also had the worst Goal Difference and the worst Goals Scored of the three tied teams.

[Kevin Williamson]

Sorry Kevin you are of course correct. The point I was struggling to make is that when one team agrees to lose and by consequence the other win its seen as outrageous but when both players agree to draw its seen as routine and ok and I can't go along with that as someone may suffer as a consequence much as Algeria did.
The bottom line is if we are to avoid these last round sessions of quick draws we should look to changing the format so that we get the outcomes we want to achieve rather than hoping players will "do the right thing" and play exciting chess when it may well not be in their financial interest to do so.

Chris, you made your point perfectly clearly it was just me being pedantic.
Possibly just as outrageous, but far more entertaining, was the 2-2 draw at Euro 2004 between Denmark and Sweden which eliminated Italy - the victims of a quirky tie-break rule. Anyway, I’ve taken this thread way off topic so I’ll shut up now.

I'd have had more sympathy with Italy in that situation had they not also had the worst Goal Difference and the worst Goals Scored of the three tied teams.

Well that's true, but once the Denmark-Sweden game got to 2-2 Italy knew that it didn't matter how many they beat Bulgaria by as they would go out anyway if the other game remained that way.