Maybe one of the players can explain. Was it repition of a position (although I count 2 not 3)? Or can I just not see deep enough and the game is destined for a draw?
Maybe one of the players can explain. Was it repition of a position (although I count 2 not 3)? Or can I just not see deep enough and the game is destined for a draw?
Technically, there was not a forced draw, but if white offered a draw, and black accepted it, then it is a draw by mutual agreement.
How do I know that it was white who offered the draw? Well, you offer a draw and do tha move at the same time, that's the way how it's done, and white was the one making the last move.
It could ended like this: Black made his final move Nc4, and then it would be a draw automatically, if claimed. But it didn't as far as I can see.
Both the players are highly rated therefore the 3 position repition was allowed to happen on purpose (I can't see either of these guys making such a mistake though).
Or a draw was offered and accepted.
But why was the draw offered and, more-over, why was it accepted?
Originally posted by RDM Ok - I'll pose the question differently.
Both the players are highly rated therefore the 3 position repition was allowed to happen on purpose (I can't see either of these guys making such a mistake though).
Or a draw was offered and accepted.
But why was the draw offered and, more-over, why was it accepted?
because the position was equal with no hope of improving position for either side
Hmmm - I don't think I'll ever be in a position to be able to figure that out.
At what point does the situation become a "no hoper"? Are they just both playing ultra defensive and neither of them is willing to "make the first move" or do they just concede that their opponent is stong enough to prevent the situation from become one in which either is disadvantaged?
Hmmm I might not have the patience for such level of thought. I'll keep bashing on down here in the twelve hundreds 🙂
Originally posted by RDM Ok - I'll pose the question differently.
Both the players are highly rated therefore the 3 position repition was allowed to happen on purpose (I can't see either of these guys making such a mistake though).
Or a draw was offered and accepted.
But why was the draw offered and, more-over, why was it accepted?
Black had achieved a very good position. He was either trying to force a Q +p v 2 R exchange on c3, or he could win the a3 pawn giving him a passed a pawn. With the centre tied up, he could have worked on pushing that. c4 was also an excellent outpost for his knight, so I'd put black a little ahead at that point.
However, he is 450 odd points lower rated than his opponent, so unless he could take advantage now, the chances of him getting another advantage is probably slim. A draw with a player 450 points above you is a good result in my eyes.
I have occasionally offered a draw to lower rated players if I thought they played well for someone of their rating, I do this as a mark of respect for my opponent and a well done for a good game.
Winning doesnt actually matter to me that much as long as I have played the best I can play I am happy, if someone much lower than me keeps level for 20 or 30 moves then I think they deserve a draw, I have also offered a draw when I am clearly winning because my opponent played very well but made one sole huge blunder that swings the game in my favor, if this happens I feel that my victory is not really earned so I may offer a draw.
Tournament and clan games are obviously not included as more is at stake but any other games (if me and my opponent dont have a chance of going through to the next tournament round then I treat it as a friendly and would be more likely to offer or accept a draw)
Once in every hundred or so games I get into a clearly winning position but resign the game out of respect to genuinely good play.
Short story....
Maybe David Tebb simply thought his lower rated opponent played well enough to earn a draw, or maybe he wanted to lower his game load, at a glance I cant see any strong advantage for either side so a draw is not that suprising at that level of play where the players already know the next ten moves ahead!
Towards the end of the game, Black looks better. I'd estimate maybe a half-a-pawn advantage (I'm no Fritz so an engine might disagree). White's pawns at a3 and c3 are harder to defend than the weakness at e6, and he's in no position to sacrifice them for a K-side attack.
But being better is not the same thing as winning. Black was playing typical moves (Rac8, Nc4, Na5) and discovered that White was willing to repeat the position (from a chess perspective he didn't have much choice). At this point, it's Black's choice to force an immediate draw or find some alternate continuation that keeps pressure.
No doubt the rating difference figured into the decision to some extent. Gameload or time pressure could also be factors in this kind of decision.
Originally posted by DawgHaus Towards the end of the game, Black looks better. I'd estimate maybe a half-a-pawn advantage (I'm no Fritz so an engine might disagree). White's pawns at a3 and c3 are harder to defend than the weakness at e6, and he's in no position to sacrifice them for a K-side attack.
But being better is not the same thing as winning. Black was playing typical move o some extent. Gameload or time pressure could also be factors in this kind of decision.
Black looks only slightly better (if at all). The Knight on f4 is very strong, e6 is weak and black has some worries for his kingside which is vulnerable to an attack (given time white can prepare to play g4 to open up some lines). All in all the position is balanced I think.
If you did not agree to a draw...and a draw was determined for you, then there was a three-fold repetition between you and your opponent, by moving back and forth 3 times the same pieces. I assume you know the other ways to draw without an agreement.
22 Jan '08 08:12
Why was this game drawn
Back to Top