Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Only Chess Forum

Only Chess Forum

  1. 06 Feb '07 17:03
    A common complaint in GM, especially top tier GM tournaments, is the number of short draws.

    One way around this has simply been to ban draw offers - unless an arbiter agrees there's no point playing on. This is the Sofia rule. It's not universally popular although I personally don't mind it. Another suggested way is to move chess to a football-like scoring system as an incentive to increase competitiveness - ie 3 points for a win, but only 1 for a draw - although this has never been tried, I believe.

    HOWEVER!! I believe I have just invented a third system, which is surely much better than the other two. Here is my new way to solve this problem.

    First, let's suppose the playing time for a game is 6 hours - but the players finish after 1 hour. Under my new rule, another game would then start, with swapped colours and a playing time of 5 hours. This would continue until a game with less time than half an hour each was reached. The final score of the days play would be fractional - so let's say you won one and drew one, you'd get 0.75, your opponent 0.25.

    What does everyone think? Shall I write to Kirsan?
  2. 06 Feb '07 17:14
    The reason they take early draws is because they play many games in a tournament and therefore try to focus their energy on games where it matters. I do not think that system you suggest will be any more popular.. in fact, if there was a change I would prefer the 3-1-0 point system - just forbidding it is dumb.

    I am not totally against agreed draws since I respect those choices of tournament players. It might be boring, but the players might really want a draw and it should be allowed for them to take it if they want. If anything, increase the reward for a draw (3-1-0) so that there is a good reason to risk a little. And, if they still really want to draw because they are tired or for whatever reason, they are allowed to.
  3. 06 Feb '07 17:20
    3-1-0 sounds good. that would encourage sharp play and also reward uncompromising players.
  4. 06 Feb '07 17:37
    Originally posted by Jusuh
    3-1-0 sounds good. that would encourage sharp play and also reward uncompromising players.
    3-1-0 penalises *all* draws, not just short draws. This is not the aim and hence it isn't appropriate. Why penalise someone who plays for 6 hours but can do no more than draw?

    Also, supposing 3 club mates play each other in a tournament and all games are draws. It would benefit them if they each took a win and loss, rather than two draws. How would you prevent this happening?

    My preference is for no draw offers prior to a given move, e.g. move 40, but I'm not entirely sure what this figure should be.
  5. 06 Feb '07 17:42
    I don't like 3-1-0 because I don't think it's meritocratic. It would mean Topalov would win all tournaments, whilst Kramnik and Leko never would - even if they got higher Elo ratings and average score per game. People might actually lose rating points from tournaments they won - that kind of thing.
  6. 06 Feb '07 17:48
    One solution proposed by the ACP was to allow draws only after a certain number of moves, say 20 moves or so.

    Before 20 moves there aren't that many positions that merits a draw.
  7. 06 Feb '07 17:52
    Originally posted by TommyC
    A common complaint in GM, especially top tier GM tournaments, is the number of short draws.

    One way around this has simply been to ban draw offers - unless an arbiter agrees there's no point playing on. This is the Sofia rule. It's not universally popular although I personally don't mind it. Another suggested way is to move chess to a football-like scoring ...[text shortened]... you'd get 0.75, your opponent 0.25.

    What does everyone think? Shall I write to Kirsan?
    Your solution has a simple problem. the players will simply slow down by agreement and use most of their time. If one long game is exhausting, imagine what 3 or four could do.
  8. 06 Feb '07 17:55 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by UndeadNightOrc
    One solution proposed by the ACP was to allow draws only after a certain number of moves, say 20 moves or so.

    Before 20 moves there aren't that many positions that merits a draw.
    Though you do get some:

    http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1448709

    Incidentally, that was from a tournament with a 'no quick draws' rule in place.
  9. 06 Feb '07 18:00
    Originally posted by Varenka
    3-1-0 penalises *all* draws, not just short draws. This is not the aim and hence it isn't appropriate. Why penalise someone who plays for 6 hours but can do no more than draw?

    Also, supposing 3 club mates play each other in a tournament and all games are draws. It would benefit them if they each took a win and loss, rather than two draws. How would yo ...[text shortened]... ers prior to a given move, e.g. move 40, but I'm not entirely sure what this figure should be.
    I don't see it penalising draws. I see it rewarding wins. Why does one even play chess if he isnt trying to win?
  10. 06 Feb '07 18:02
    Originally posted by zebano
    Your solution has a simple problem. the players will simply slow down by agreement and use most of their time. If one long game is exhausting, imagine what 3 or four could do.
    But any system is open to behind the scenes agreements.

    Do you think we don't have behind the scenes agreed draws now?

    And this system would make such agreements utterly transparent:

    1.d4: clock time, 3h:00 d5 clock time 3h:00 2. Nf3 1h:20 2. Nf6 1h:19...

    - would be equivalent to game fixing, and thus cheating.
  11. 06 Feb '07 18:03
    Originally posted by Jusuh
    I don't see it penalising draws. I see it rewarding wins. Why does one even play chess if he isnt trying to win?
    The Swiss System seems to encourage draws - especially with the Fritzed out openings, 3-1-0 would work.

    Or, similar to Tommy's idea, what if, if a draw is reached, players playoff 2 more games to give better chances for a decisive result - and if one is reached only that result counts.
  12. 06 Feb '07 18:06
    Originally posted by Jusuh
    I don't see it penalising draws. I see it rewarding wins. Why does one even play chess if he isnt trying to win?
    But to reward a win more, a draw has to be penlised more. Can't have one without the other.

    I agree that we're trying to discourage short draws without a fight. But what about two players, both trying to win, and after many hours only having their kings left... are you going to score them the same as two players agreeing a draw after 5 mins of play? It may well be that the perfect game of chess is a draw.
  13. 06 Feb '07 18:09
    Btw, my system has teh advantage that

    (1) you can agree a draw whenever a draw position is reached
    (2) it does not unfairly penalise any kind of draw - short or hard-fought

    which is better than its rivals, imo.

    Personally I would like to play in this kind of system.
  14. Subscriber BigDoggProblem
    The Advanced Mind
    06 Feb '07 18:14
    "I know what is drawn better than you or your FIDE" -Fischer
  15. 06 Feb '07 18:16
    Originally posted by TommyC
    Btw, my system has teh advantage that

    (1) you can agree a draw whenever a draw position is reached
    (2) it does not unfairly penalise any kind of draw - short or hard-fought

    which is better than its rivals, imo.

    Personally I would like to play in this kind of system.
    As already mentioned, all the players have to do is take their time. If the max game length is 6 hours and they can sense a short draw coming, they can simply slow down their play and finish well beyond the 1 hour you propose.