Commission for the Modernisation of FIDE

[David Sedgwick]

http://www.fide.com/component/content/a ... lease.html

The thing I noticed in particular was the proposal for the complete abolition of agreed draws.

[Roger de Coverly]

http://www.fide.com/component/content/a ... lease.html

The thing I noticed in particular was the proposal for the complete abolition of agreed draws.

The Commission wanted to make it clear that a draw is an integral part of the game of chess and was not looking at radical solutions. The key issue was to ensure that chess games would not end prematurely and hence the recommendation was for the draw offer to be removed from the rules of chess, allowing only instances of draws to occur following repetition of position, perpetual check, stalemate or inadequate mating material.

There is no such thing in the Laws as a draw by perpetual check.

Quite why the Commission want to force players to agree draws by artificial repetitions isn't obvious. That's the effect surely. If no one is paying you to play, or even watching, then you should be free to stop playing at any time you wish. Perhaps it's the Commission for the abolition of (amateur) chess.

[David Sedgwick]

If no one is paying you to play, or even watching, then you should be free to stop playing at any time you wish.

That's the approach we've had ingrained into us for (in your and my case) about fifty years. I'm not convinced that it's axiomatic.

If no one is paying you to play, or even watching, should you be free to take moves back by agreement?

[Adam Raoof]

If no one is paying you to play, or even watching, should you be free to take moves back by agreement?

If nobody is watching a game, does it even take place?

[Roger de Coverly]

If no one is paying you to play, or even watching, should you be free to take moves back by agreement?

In "social" or training chess, yes. In chess played under competitive conditions, then no. But as you say, that is a long standing convention.

So does the ECF and for that matter the Chess Arbiters Association intend to support or oppose this proposal?

Didn't FIDE try to do something like this back in the days of Fischer? It lasted about as long as it took for RJF to agree a draw.

[Alex Holowczak]

So does the ECF and for that matter the Chess Arbiters Association intend to support or oppose this proposal?

Give us a chance, we were only aware of it a few minutes ago.

[Sean Hewitt]

Quite why the Commission want to force players to agree draws by artificial repetitions isn't obvious. That's the effect surely. If no one is paying you to play, or even watching, then you should be free to stop playing at any time you wish. Perhaps it's the Commission for the abolition of (amateur) chess.

Is there an analogy with football, including the amateur game, where although a draw is part and parcel of the sport and a perfectly legitimate result, no one would suggest that the two teams can agree a draw half way through a match?

I wonder if our initial objection is down to what we are used to rather than an objective view of the proposal?

Of course, football doesn't have ways to engineer draws by repitition after 12 moves

[James Friar]

Abolishing the draw is a stupid idea as if wanted the players will just do 3 fold repitition...

[Christopher Kreuzer]

There was also this:

"The Commission also recommended that organisers should review the way prize money is awarded and consider incentives for wins."

Maybe that is the best way to do this, though organisers should reward fighting draws.

[Sean Hewitt]

There was also this:

"The Commission also recommended that organisers should review the way prize money is awarded and consider incentives for wins."

Maybe that is the best way to do this, though organisers should reward fighting draws.

The problem is that most players do not win prize money. 3-1-0 scoring system has been tried. I'm not sure that it's been a definitive success (or disaster come to that).

[Alex Holowczak]

3-1-0 scoring system has been tried. I'm not sure that it's been a definitive success (or disaster come to that).

Three points for a win makes as much difference in chess as it does in football: Absolutely none whatsoever.

[LozCooper]

Until they find a way to stop repetitions such as 1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 Nf3 Nf6 4 Nc3 dc 5 a4 Bf5 6 Nh4 Bc8 7 Nf3 Bf5 etc then the 30 move rule or not being allowed to offer draws doesn't really solve the problem.

It's really at the organiser's discretion to invite players that will play fighting chess or to have other incentives such as win money or penalising players a percentage of their prize money for premature draws.

Of course, these problems are more relevant in sponsored and elite events and not in local events or even big swisses.

[Stewart Reuben]

This particular proposal goes against the intention of the CMC not to make radical changes. It can't come in until 2013 anyway. The current Law 9.1, which I drafted, permits organisers to ban draws if they so wish. I see no reason for change.
I expect the proposal is political. Ignatius Leong has recommended banning repetition (as in Shogi) or more than 5 consecutive checks by a queen. So this is a sop to him. These particular ideas are crazy, but he is a FIDE VP. Doing away with stalemate would be much more effective - and even crazier.
The problem arose this year because of the number of quick draws in the Candidates. Those are matches and 3/1/0 can have no effect on a match. It could be 100/1/0 and it make no difference. The problem was that the matches were too short at 4 games.

I suspect the only way to change having short draws in a match would be to use the 3/2/1/0 system I introduced in Rumania. A plays B and wins. He scores 3 and B 0. If drawn they play an Armageddon game. If A scores the point he gets 2 and B gets 1. But 4 games is very short for the effect to work. In Rumania there were about 20% quick draws where people wanted to save energy. But you did get one real game, albeit lasting less than 10 minutes.

Stewart Reuben

[Roger de Coverly]

I suspect the only way to change having short draws in a match would be to use the 3/2/1/0 system I introduced in Rumania. A plays B and wins. He scores 3 and B 0. If drawn they play an Armageddon game. If A scores the point he gets 2 and B gets 1. But 4 games is very short for the effect to work. In Rumania there were about 20% quick draws where people wanted to save energy. But you did get one real game, albeit lasting less than 10 minutes.

Shipov seems to be saying something similar.

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=7439

Whether these schemes are attractive to spectators remains to be seen. I would think almost any system of compulsory replays is unattractive to (amateur) players. So what are the aims of such reforms? Are they to discourage participation and encourage spectating instead?

[Alex Holowczak]

I suspect the only way to change having short draws in a match would be to use the 3/2/1/0 system I introduced in Rumania. A plays B and wins. He scores 3 and B 0. If drawn they play an Armageddon game. If A scores the point he gets 2 and B gets 1. But 4 games is very short for the effect to work. In Rumania there were about 20% quick draws where people wanted to save energy. But you did get one real game, albeit lasting less than 10 minutes.

This is used in international Ice Hockey, even in group-based games. 3 points for a win and 0 for a loss. If drawn, the game goes to golden-goal overtime and then a shoot-out. The winner scores 2, the loser 1. The NHL has also adopted this system, but the winner always gets 2 points, regardless of when they win.