Criteria for Fide rated tournaments - Anti-draw rules

[Niall Doran]

Hi all!

Here in France, there unfortunately seems to be a trend to try to abolish draws, or at least drastically reduce the amount of them. The latest culprits, who shall remain nameless, decided this year (in an under 2200 Fide-rated 5 round weekender) that no draw offers were to be made or accepted before each player had played 40 moves. Personally I find this ridiculous, as a draw is one of the natural outcomes of a game of chess, and offering a draw, and knowing when to accept, are part and parcel of the game.

I was disappointed, as I'd enjoyed the tournament last year under the old normal rules, and wrote to the organiser to tell them why I wouldn't be attending this year. I never got a reply.

Anyway, this got me wondering about how many local rule changes one can put in place before Fide will no longer accept to rate the tournament. Obviously if the tournament banned (or obliged people to play) certain openings (exchange French springs to mind!!!), the tournament would be unrateable. The same if draws were banned outright. So where does the limit lie? Could I effectively ban draws if I was a tournament organiser by saying, for example, no draw offers within the first 100 moves?

[MJMcCready]

Draws are a natural result but when players agree to quick draws to fix matches and tournament results, its very disappointing.

It's probably that sort of behavior that the organizers are hoping to stamp out.

[Roger de Coverly]

Could I effectively ban draws if I was a tournament organiser by saying, for example, no draw offers within the first 100 moves?

I rather think the Laws of Chess are worded in such a way that would permit this. Players would meet this by either playing out endings to stalemate or more simply just permitting a three fold repetition of position.

I would have thought naming the organisers was necessary.

[MJMcCready]

Could I effectively ban draws if I was a tournament organiser by saying, for example, no draw offers within the first 100 moves?

I rather think the Laws of Chess are worded in such a way that would permit this. Players would meet this by either playing out endings to stalemate or more simply just permitting a three fold repetition of position.

I would have thought naming the organisers was necessary.

It's only quick draws that are the problem though, not draws in themselves. I think the Sofia rules are sufficient.

[Roger de Coverly]

It's only quick draws that are the problem though, not draws in themselves. I think the Sofia rules are sufficient.

The specific rule is 9.1 a

The rules of a competition may specify that players cannot agree to a draw, whether in less than a specified number of moves or at all, without the consent of the arbiter.

So it's up to those writing the rules of a competition to specify the number of moves and perhaps the attitude of the arbiter.

Some competitions, Gibraltar springs to mind, have ensured that arbiters giving or denying consent are reasonably strong players.

[MJMcCready]

It's only quick draws that are the problem though, not draws in themselves. I think the Sofia rules are sufficient.

The specific rule is 9.1 a

The rules of a competition may specify that players cannot agree to a draw, whether in less than a specified number of moves or at all, without the consent of the arbiter.

So it's up to those writing the rules of a competition to specify the number of moves and perhaps the attitude of the arbiter.

Some competitions, Gibraltar springs to mind, have ensured that arbiters giving or denying consent are reasonably strong players.

I've seen a GM draw agreed within 30 seconds of the start of play. I think they got as far as move 4. Within a minute or two 2 of the top 3 boards had followed suit, ensuring that first and second prize was shared, offering no chance to those a point off the lead. It was a total anti-climax to what had been a great tournament. The arbiters did nothing to stop it.

[Niall Doran]

Regarding tournaments with GMs, either the rules have to be set out in such a way that 4 move draws either aren't allowed, such as setting a reasonable minimum of moves (around the 15-20 mark), or by creating financial incentives related to the number of wins, or not getting invited back, especially for GMs on conditions.

For amateur events, nobody is watching, the press or TV aren't present, and the amounts of money at stake are small. A minimum number of moves of around 15-20 would be more than enough to ensure 99% of players aren't still reciting theory.

In the case of the tournament in question, the organisers changed the rules, and while the change appeared in the official tournament regulations (which I'd imagine most people don't read beforehand), it was neither mentioned on the FFE website announcement nor on the tournament posters. Which is either incompetence or sneakiness.

[Jonathan Bryant]

... (exchange French springs to mind!!!)

How very dare you.

[Niall Doran]

I was thinking more of this Jonathan, which is why I asked about specific openings as well as the number of moves in my original post :

http://www.chessvibes.com/?q=millionair ... tober-2014

Specifically the part that says:

The TD can deem that players are not making a serious effort to play a real game. For example, some unacceptable situations would be:
• If two players on the top boards make a quick draw using some well known theoretical opening that forces a three-fold repetition.
• If the two players play an intentionally lifeless opening with the object of steering the game towards a dead draw as soon as possible. For example, playing the exchange French defense and immediately trading off all the pieces is not acceptable.
• Continuous repetitions in order to get to the time control will be considered an infraction of the rules.

[Michael Farthing]

3 points for a win; 1 for a draw seems to have left the limelight. It struck me that it dealt very ably with the problem.
Were there problems in practice? What's the considered view?

[Roger de Coverly]

What's the considered view?

For a Swiss a load of nonsense. Why should two draws possibly against stronger opposition place you lower in the standings than a loss to a GM and a win against a beginner?

[Niall Doran]

The 3 points and 1 point worked better in an all-play-all, but was still a poor idea. I'd rather the organisers say outright that they'd prefer to see more fighting chess and that the invites for the following year depend on that.

I was always surprised to see Lékó at Linares in 2006, having drawn all 12 games the previous year!

[Roger de Coverly]

For example, playing the exchange French defense and immediately trading off all the pieces is not acceptable.

They dropped the bit about the Exchange French. What it now says is

No game in the Open Section of the Millionaire Chess Open may be agreed drawn by the two players prior to Black having completed his/her 30th move.
If there is a situation where the two players believe that a draw must be agreed to, then only the player who wishes to accept the draw may stop clocks and request the assistance of the tournament director. The TD will then objectively decide whether or not it is appropriate to agree to a draw or whether the players must play on until move 30.
Having an “objectively” drawn or equal position does NOT allow you to agree to a draw. If this is the case, then you must play until at least move 30.
Continuous repetitions in order to get to the time control will be considered an infraction of the rules.
If the TD is unable to decide if a given situation clearly breaks the rules, he/she will consult with the chief organizer (GM Maurice Ashley) or a qualified representative. The decision reached by this body will be final.
In situations where an infraction is strongly suspected but impossible to penalize, the organizers reserve the right to prevent the players from playing in the future events. This decision is subject to written appeal.

[Jonathan Bryant]

They dropped the bit about the Exchange French.

Maurice Ashley will still be joining those first against the wall come the IFE revolution.

On the substantive point, while there are rather obvious problems in trying to ban draws in various ways (and you have to be fairly obtuse not to see that), I do wonder whether removing the possibility of draw offers might not be a 'good thing' for amateur chess. There’s a young chap down our way who routinely makes five or six draw offers a game. He’s extreme, sure, but most of us are guilty to a lesser degree rather than entirely innocent.

After hearing Chris Ward talk about this at Hastings one year I banned myself from offering draws. I try to keep exceptions for when the position is dead (most recently against Chris Rice of this parish a few weeks ago at Golders Green), but largely not offering draws has been good for me, I think. The trouble is, of course, is that one chesser’s "dead" is another’s opportunity to grind.

[MartinCarpenter]

Oh there's definitely a few people who'd benefit from having draw offers banned I might a little, but mostly to grind you have to really want to win and people like that don't offer early draws anyway!

Absurd to try and crack down on them in an ameteur swiss though. A chunk of the time you simply don't want to play for a bunch of perfectly sensible reasons and why on earth should the organisers try and stop you? You're paying, presumably to have fun.