.
Decades ago it was suggested that the draw problems in chess could be reduced by increasing the duration of a draw offer (by a few moves) before it expired. The latest mentions have been in recent articles published on ChessBase.com.
From http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4362
Question_1: Is Vlad correct that games under this rule would not be rate-able by FIDE?
Question_2: Would games under this rule be rate-able by the USCF?
.
I don’t see why. In effect, players are merely agreeing to reoffer a draw a few moves after the initial offer. I fail to see why this is any different then agreeing not to offer (or accept) any draw offer in the first thirty moves, or play a specific opening, for that matter.
Alex Relyea
We’d have to ask someone like Carol Jarecki about FIDE (she is on the FIDE Rules Committee), but IMHO as long as this deviation from USCF rules is announced in advance, this should be USCF-ratable. (However, I’m not on the USCF Rules Committee and I have at times disagreed with some USCF rules regarding draw offers.)
FIDE rules Section 9.
9.1 A player wishing to offer a draw shall do so after having made a move on the chessboard and before stopping his clock and starting the opponent`s clock. An offer at any other time during play is still valid, but Article 12.6 must be considered. No conditions can be attached to the offer. In both cases the offer cannot be withdrawn and remains valid until the opponent accepts it, rejects it orally, rejects it by touching a piece with the intention of moving or capturing it, or the game is concluded in some other way.
Emphasis mine. The moment any move is made or must be made (since a piece was touched), the draw offer is rejected.
So, yes, Vlad is correct IAW FIDE.
My main objection to this is a practical one. How do you enforce it? It might work in a small round-robin, but in a hundred-plus player Swiss? Every time someone offered a draw, the TD would ave to go to the board and make a note of the move number. And in time pressure when neither is keeping score?
Agreed.
However, there is a viable alternative: the irrevocable draw offer.
Yes, this warps play - the question is whether it warps it in a way that more players prefer.
Offering an irrevocable draw offer is a bit (just a little bit, not all that much) like offering the doubling cube in backgammon. You give something over to the opponent, with no way of getting it back.
Draw offers would become more dangerous, because your opponent can now play for a win with no fear of losing (except, perhaps for an unnoticed mate-in-one). Once players realize this, the “tactical draw offer” will disappear, and draw offers/acceptances will happen only in perfectly obvious cases. There will be no more “I don’t like the novelty you just played, so…I’d rather give you a draw than work at the board to refute it” draw offers. “Unclear” positions will be played out until someone gets lucky (is that really a good thing???) or until the position resolves into a clear draw.
Unlike the “4-move draw offer”, the “irrevocable draw offer” is easy to enforce - well, at least it’s just as enforceable as the current rule. Players with scoresheets are already required to notate draw offers. Players without scoresheets might use some standard physical token (like the doubling cube).
I think it’s worth some experimentation.
Ken, what if someone’s flag falls after receiving an irrevocable draw offer? Doesn’t this create two absolutes that are in conflict with each other?
I’ll answer for him, since the answer should be obvious.
A game isn’t over on a flag fall until a claim is made.
A game isn’t drawn until an offer is accepted.
So whichever happens first…
(could be fun to watch 
)
.
Fair points.
Players are already required to write something like “=W” when White offers a draw to Black.
The practical truth is the majority do not make draw notations. If there were a stronger need to make draw notations, player might change very quickly.
Near the end of the first time control, if both players are in a time scramble and are not writing notation anymore, then maybe nobody is permitted to offer a draw until they get their scoresheets up-to-date.
Indeed this enforcement mode would prevent the two players from prematurely terminating an exciting game that each knows is turbulent enough to be decisive.
.
Doesn’t FIDE already require that draw offers be notated on the score sheet? (I doubt any arbiter enforces that rule strictly, though.)
No.
I certainly hope these games would not be rateable.
Ditto.
Besides, wouldn’t such a rule increase the number of draws? For example, if a draw offer lasted five moves, and if the opponent’s fourth move was a blunder, the opponent could still accept a draw (no longer wanted by the claimant) on the fifth move.
Bill Smythe
Not necessarily. I think that far fewer draw offers will be made in the first place. If a draw offer is irrevocable, players will only “offer” draws as a formality in order to agree to “obvious” draws. It will be too dangerous to offer a draw in an unclear position. Currently, draw offers in unclear positions work because the opponent is afraid to play on and possibly lose. As long as the game is “unclear”, it would be an obvious error to immediately accept an irrevocable draw offer. Best (and obvious) strategy would be to continue to play until it is literally impossible to win.
The same point applies (less strongly) to “5-move draw offers”. It would be best to play on for 4 moves AND THEN accept the draw. Given this strategy for the opponent, it becomes too dangerous to make the offer.
You make a good point, especially regarding the irrevocable draw offer.
It’s not unlike the argument that a 5-second increment (cumulative addback) can shorten a game, compared to a 5-second delay (non-cumulative addback). The argument goes, if your opponent is down to 1 second in an easily drawn position, with the delay you might play on for a long time, hoping for a blunder, whereas with the increment you’ll only see his time increase with each move, so you’d better take the draw before he figures out a way to beat you.
Bill Smythe
Huh? With an “irrevocable” draw offer, there would be no reason ever to accept a draw offer until one move before mate (or one second before flag fall). If your opponent offered a draw, the rational response would be to play as insanely and recklessly as possible. After all, your opponent might drop dead. Accordingly, there would be no incentive ever to offer a draw except in the case of a forced repetition. This would probably have a limited effect in the games of GMs, who would simply repeat moves if they really didn’t want to play. (I am reminded of the review in “Not The British Chess Magazine” of 200 Grandmaster Draws. “Let’s play #74 today.” “No, I’ve played that three times already. Let’s do #177 instead.”) It would, however, result in a lot of pointless and time-wasting play in the games of average players. It probably would reduce the number of draws to some degree, but it seems like using a nuke to kill a mosquito.
The one situation where it is rational to accept the offer is a perfectly dead drawn position with no play for either side. The intent is that this is the only time that draw offers would be made.
In all other situations, as you explain using much the same logic as has been already posted by others, it becomes irrational to accept the draw, and hence it becomes irrational to make the offer in the first place.
But, as I also pointed out, this would have only a limited affect on the games of professionals (which are the only ones in which premature draws are a problem), while pointlessly lengthening games among (vastly more numerous) weak players who wouldn’t know an even position if it bit them. It would work, sort of, but I don’t think it would be cost-effective.
Yup
Article 8: The recording of the moves
8.1
In the course of play each player is required to record his own moves and those of his opponent in the correct manner, move after move, as clearly and legibly as possible, in the algebraic notation (Appendix E), on the ‘scoresheet’ prescribed for the competition. It is forbidden to write the moves in advance, unless the player is claiming a draw according to Article 9.2 or 9.3.
A player may reply to his opponent`s move before recording it, if he so wishes. He must record his previous move before making another. Both players must record the offer of a draw on the scoresheet. (Appendix E.13) If a player is unable to keep score, an assistant, who is acceptable to the arbiter, may be provided by the player to write the moves. His clock shall be adjusted by the arbiter in an equitable way.
E13.
The offer of a draw shall be marked as (=).
Not really. It is very common right down to the equivalent of Class A players in Europe. Notably, it is also most common during the later rounds. (Gee, I wonder why that could be.) I’ve found many games even down to Class C player equivalents. It’s not only in Europe, but here in the U.S. as well.
The other thing I noted was that the majority of these “GM Draws” would occur in the large round robins. When there are 15 or more rounds to be played, it also becomes common.
When you see one occur during a match between 2 players, it’s obvious that both players felt like taking a break and therefore … draw early and go relax. (I think that was what happened during that Karpov-Kasparov game that I found.)
It was worse when the USSR Chess Machine was running the chess world. In many cases during the 50’s right through the 70’s and early 80’s, a Russian chess player may not have had a choice in the matter.
As I mentioned earlier, there wasn’t many of the 14 and under move games that were a win/loss. But they were obviously prearranged. An example would be a Ruy Lopez that resulted in a win for someone at move 8. And there was no blunders, the opening was played according to theory. Yeah right?!
And why would anyone care? It is most unlikely that such players are going to produce games worthy of publication. If, after paying an entry fee, they don’t want to play chess – well, that’s their problem.