Originally posted by exigentskyI think there has been some talk at FIDE about agreed draws not being permitted before about 20 moves.
A 13 move draw by Kramnik! This is f*ing unbelievable!! If I were a sponsor I would never fund a chess tourney where someone is allowed to do that. It's horrible for the spectators and for chess. I think drawing games by agreement should be against the rules unless there is insufficient material. Yeah, that means sometimes playing an extra 50 moves, but it's far better than this. It's absolutely insane. What other sport allows this nonsense!
This would make sense as at GM level most games are still in book at that stage.
Some of you might not know the rules - a draw can be agreed at any time (even if the spectators want to ask padded or non-padded or should xyz have happened etc). A draw with black gives him time to go and do some serious preparation for his next game with white. What's the use of stretching a 120 move draw with one or two pieces and then losing energy for the next game?
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI agree (except it is usually 1 for a win, 0.5 for the draw). 2 draws should not equal a win. I think it would make a lot of tournament games more competitive. It would reward risk taking. When players arrive at the table it should be their intention to win, not just playing for a quick draw.
I think wins should be given 3 points, not 2.
There have also been attempts to have tournaments with the no-offer-draw-rule but this is plain stupidity in my opinion. Some opening lines lead to theoretical draws and so GMs follow these if they are leading or want a draw in one game to concentrate on another. See http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chesscollection?cid=1008234 for a list of drawing lines.
Chess is a game of strategy if you want to see some gladiatorial game of death watch karate or wrestling instead. There is a bit of strategy involved in knowing which openings to play at which occasion.