Offer a draw through a "king ring"?

Running Chess Tournaments
1

.
Some have suggested that newer chess clocks could someday have features that enable a player to offer a draw though the chess clock, so he would not have to verbally communicate the draw offer to the opponent. Verbal offers are fraught with the potential for miscommunication.

Regardless, no chess clock that offers this draw-offer feature.
And, we must all remember that the clock would have no automatic way to know when the draw offer has expired. People forget that clocks do not really have a “move counter”, and instead they have a mere “counter of Black’s button presses” (which sometimes differs from the current move-pair number).

So instead of using the clock for draw offers, use a low tech “king ring”…

:bulb: Perhaps a draw offer could be made non-verbally another way:
Maybe the player could temporarily hang a red “king ring” as a necklace on his own king to visually communicate that a draw offer has been made.

Timing: The best time to hang the king ring would be immediately before you press your chess clock button.
A moment later you would notate the draw offer on your own score sheet. When the opponent sees your king ring, he also notates the draw offer on his score sheet.

The player can remove the king ring (from his own king) anytime after the opponent finishes a subsequent reply move on the board. In fact, if the player does not remove the king ring, he has thereby made another draw offer. This is one way that a player can issue multiple draw offers without disturbing his opponent.
In any event, a player can add or remove the king ring from his king only while his own clock is ticking (and never from the opponent’s king).

Both FIDE and the USCF require that both players notate draw offers on their score sheets. (Among USCF players this might be one of the most disobeyed rules?)
So it is odd that neither FIDE nor the USCF have a rule about HOW draw offers should be notated on the score sheet.

Which ever symbol is used to notate a draw offer, it should be typeable on a standard English world computer keyboard. Specialized symbols such as those used by Informant should not be chosen.
If you speak English, then “D.O.” is one reasonable way; although initialisms obviously suffer from the language barrier.
An internationally recognizable notation for draw offer could be “1/2”, but that already means draw as the result.

I think any pair of equal signs, stacked or more often side-by-side, might be a good choice; as in “==”. :bulb:
The rulebook should at least suggest a gently recommended a preference for one universal standard symbol.

:question: Is communicating a draw offer NON-verbally a desirable option?
.

2

I thought that FIDE has said that the way to denote a draw offer is to write an = on the scoresheet. Am I mistaken?

Alex Relyea

3

.

You are correct; I was mistaken about this notation.
FIDE apparently does say that the players should use a single equal sign (=) to notate a Draw Offer on their score sheets:

FIDE
Appendix C.13 to the Laws of Chess: “The offer of a draw shall be marked as (=).”

. . . .

Unfortunately I cannot get Bing.com nor Google.com to find me some of those webpages that talked about the desirability of someday having a mechanism to NON-verbally issue a Draw Offer.
.

4

How long does the player have – 3 seconds? 5 seconds? 30 seconds? – after his opponent has moved, before his failure to remove the king ring is interpreted as another draw offer?

To avoid the need to answer such disturbing and impossible questions, the rule would have to be (I think) that the player has as long as he wants, and the draw offer remains on the table only if the player presses his clock with the ring still on his king.

This solution, however, creates another disturbing possibility. What if white offers a draw in this manner, presses his clock, then black moves, presses his clock, then white goes into a long think without removing the king ring, during which time black decides he wants the draw after all? Must he sit, wait, and agonize, hoping that white will make his move without removing the king ring?

Also, the rule may have to be different depending on the move sequence. For example, during the move when the player’s ring is first placed on his king, the player should not be allowed to remove the ring (analogous to touch-move), but during subsequent moves (when the ring is still on the king from a previous move), the player is allowed to remove the ring at any time, and the draw offer is off the table unless and until the player presses his clock with the ring still on.

And that brings up still more disturbing possibilities ----

Are there any good answers?

Bill Smythe

5

Of course not. This is about as a patently ridiculous suggestion as I have ever seen posted on these forums. It is a players responsibility t
make all offers very clear. Verbally, or by standard actions such as tipping over their king, then reaching their hand across the board.
Draw is very clear–ask for one. No one should shake the hand of their opponent unless it is clear what they are shaking about. Basic chess
101.

Rob Jones

6

.

I agree with everything you wrote Bill.

At the core, non-verbal communication and visible indicators of a draw offer physically LINGER in a way that the spoken phrase “I offer a draw” obviously does not linger as sound waves. So scenarios that highlight the effects of this lingering raise more questions and maybe some issues. And the scenarios would require new rules to clarify behavior and meaning, such as your mention of the touch rule for the visible ring.
I do see the rulebook aspect of a king ring as plausible to manage.

One motivation I had for starting this thread is that — the webpages where I first read a desire for chess clocks to support the communication of draw offers did not delve into any of these issues. (I wish I could re-find some of those webpages now.)

I understand why some people want to get away from talking to the opponent at all during the game. The material fact is that verbal and other directly interpersonal draw offers have led to troubled anecdotes published to chess forums and columns.
And there is the unsolved problem that currently you have no plausible verbal way of offering a draw, just before you press your clock, to your opponent who is away from the chessboard.

Anyway, to the extent that a non-verbal mode of communicating a draw offer is desired by some people, I suspect that the no-cost low-tech king ring technique is a better approach than hoping that someday all chess clocks will have new easy-to-understand buttons for offering a draw. The king ring certainly seems like a more realistic approach than new clock features.

Thanks.
.

7

Actually the best way to have a non-verbal draw offer would be somehow used with the clock.

When a person offers a draw he does so right before pressing his clock button.

The opponent then decides on his own time whether he accepts the draw offer or not.

If he accepts the draw offer, the clock is considered stopped as the game is over.

If he declines the draw offer, the player makes his move and completes it by hitting his clock button, starting his opponent’s clock.

Once he has made and completed his move, the draw offer is off the board.

Sure, at this time the person can decline the draw offer verbally, but even then it is actuated by him making and completing his move, involving the clock.

Having a separate item that can be put on a chess clock might also work. For instance the draw offer token could be placed on or over the clock button of the person deciding whether to accept the draw or not. By removing the draw offer token off his button and pressing his button, the person would be declining the draw offer.

Having a non-verbal draw offer part of the clock and integrated in its operation makes all kind of sense.

8

This is a big change from the current rule which takes the draw offer off the table as soon as a piece is “touched”.

Alex Relyea

9

See the Forums do have value. This is like the Highest Ranked vs Highest Rated question. Mentally I always thought that a player making a move rejected the Draw offer. But in actuality it is just the touching of the piece that invokes it. Which when you think about it makes sense, otherwise you have those determining of the completion of the move issues.

Learned something. :slight_smile:

10

True, but it’s the best that can be done when the draw offer is made (and accepted or declined) through the clock. The clock doesn’t know when a piece has been touched.

The idea of an impersonalized draw offer might work best on a sensory board, like the DGT. Since I have never used one, maybe some of you in the know could tell me a little about it:

  • Does the DGT board (including pieces) know when the piece has been touched (after all, the Chronos clock touch-sensitive model knows when the button has been touched, so the technology exists), or only when the piece has been moved?
  • Does the DGT board press the clock automatically when a legal move has been made, or must the player still press the clock?

Depending on the answers, a revised DGT board could work along the following lines:

  • Each player has a “draw offer” button, which is functional only when it is the player’s move. When pressed (preferably after the move is made but before the clock is pressed), a light comes on, visible to both players, that says something like “white has offered a draw”.
  • If black wants to accept the draw (once it is his move), he simply presses his own “draw offer” button and the monster board/computer declares the game drawn.

If you want to get fancy, you could also:

  • have an additional button for each player, “standing draw offer”. That way a player wouldn’t have to press the “draw offer” button each time.
  • If, on a later move, the player wanted to withdraw the standing draw offer, he would press the regular “draw offer” button to toggle off the standing draw offer. The draw offer would, however, remain on the table for the duration of that move, and could be accepted by the opponent any time on the opponent’s next move.

What do you think of that idea, Baba Looey? (Yeh, I know, Baba Looey replies “I thin’ we should forget thee whol’ thin’.”)

Bill Smythe

11

Certainly one problem with using some type of “token” to indicate the draw offer is that someone other than the player could put it there, or at least the player could claim that they didn’t do it themselves. Some type of signed card would probably be necessary if you want to be able to offer a draw if the opponent isn’t present when you are making your move.

12

One problem with putting something on the opponent’s clock button to offer a draw is that it allows for some gamesmanship versus an opponent with a better position and less time. You can make the opponent spend some time removing the draw-offer paraphenalia and thus make his time pressure even more severe, with the result that he is more likely to accept the draw than to lose on time.

Having a DGT “hit” the clock after you place a piece on another square has two problems.

  1. If you haven’t actually released the piece then your move is not yet over even though the piece is sitting on another square. This would require some sort of touch-sensitive indicator (which might also be available for negating a draw offer by touching a piece - though it wouldn’t be able to tell if such a piece was being touched or merely being adjusted after a proper pre-touch j’adoube announcement).

  2. If a piece is released on an illegal square it is not considered an illegal move until the clock is hit. So either the clock notifies people that an illegal move has been “determined but not completed” or the clock pre-empts a person correcting an illegal move by automatically completing it.

13

I have owned and used one of these boards (I recently sold it to Sevan for use at his Chess Center).

The chess board is sensory and each piece has a chip inside that identifies it to the board and program. When a piece is placed on the board, the computer knows which piece and which color has been placed on which square. The pieces are also made of wood and not metal.

So no, the sensory setup does not know if a finger has touched a piece.

The clock is connected to the board and does transmit times to the computer. I know that doesn’t answer your question, yet.

When connected to an interface on the internet and playing on ICC or FICS, there is no need to press the clock button. In this case the movement of the piece to a square makes the move and changes the internet clock’s running from one player to the other.

In an actual game, the clock button must be pushed and the clock times are saved to the game score.

So no, the sensory board setup will not make a virtual button push when the piece is placed on a square.

Thanks a lot, Bill. This is what got me in trouble earlier in this thread with Alex. This standing draw offer thing is really far away from the existing rules compared to having a button pushed on the clock.

Making a clock modification for draw offers and acceptances or declinations would be a complete retooling and make all current clocks obsolete.

If you want to do something to a clock, I have an idea. Envision a white plastic “cover” for one side of the chess clock’s button. This cover would cover the button and prevent anyone from pressing the button with it on while still allowing the clock display to be seen. This cover would have a flat surface covering the button and on the top of this flat, white surface would be printed “Draw?” in black. The player offering the draw would place this cover on his opponent’s button side when offering the draw and right before depressing his button.

The player receiving the draw offer would be forced to remove the cover on his clock before depressing his button, making it so if he accepts the offer, the clock is simply stopped or the game is otherwise ended. If he removes the cover either before or after making his move on the board, and then depresses the button, he has declined the draw offer.

These Draw Offer Covers would be made of a rigid plastic and sized and shaped for the specific model clock. The Chronos version would have the cover come up from behind the clock so the display could still be seen. The Excalibur version would have the cover come up from the front so its display could also be seen. Perhaps the cover could be made to be customizable to fit any clock by the consumer. Heck, the cost would probably be under $10 retail and maybe even under $5.

Now, don’t think I want this, but I am simply pointing out how it can be accomplished to make sense in the play of the game, have minimal change in how the game is currently played (with draw offers), and would be a quite inexpensive option that could be implemented immediately.

And yes, the problems that Jeff and Tom point out are real problems. In time control problems, having a physical draw offer device of any kind could be used in a gamesmanship manner. And time problems can happen in all time control games.

The same would hold true if there were some kind of signature required for the offer.

It’s all just too much to do to offer a draw.

I think that leaving it as a verbal offer is still the best.

14

Ron,

Thanks for the info explaining some operational details of the DGT sensory board.

Minor quibble: When you quoted me at the top of your post, something went wrong. The sentence in the middle (“I have owned …”) is attributed to me, although it is yours. (Can you fix that?)

No insult intended! Baba Looey was actually an intelligent character (much smarter than his boss, Queeksdraw McGraw). I like to quote Baba Looey every now and then.

Absolutely, but what’s wrong with thinking outside the box and embracing new technology? When delay and increment came on the scene about 18-20 years ago, they too were far removed from existing rules. But proponents of these new concepts kept on pushing, and current rules and practice now embrace the innovations.

Bill Smythe

15

My post is fixed.

No, you got me in trouble with Alex, kind of. Alex commented on how much of a change in the rules I was suggesting by making the draw offer with the clock. And you, Bill, talk about a standing draw offer which is a much bigger stretch and change than what I suggested.

If the draw offer would be clock involved, specifically where the button cannot be pushed until a decision about the draw offer is made, would make it so there could be no standing draw offer.

I do see and agree with the gamesmanship problems that Jeff mentioned and to authenticity problem of the offer that Tom discussed.

I don’t think there is a simple way for such a physical draw offer without it becoming a problem when a player is in time trouble or away from the board when the offer is made.

I guess we could come up with a little green flag or something to offer the draw. A white flag might make someone think the guy is giving up/resigning. You know, put the flag just behind the opponent’s clock button. But then there is the problem of it being placed in a hard to reach way during time problems.

The verbal offer seems the simplest and least complicated. A quick draw offer can be made even when in time trouble without having to find the token or worry about the physical setting of the offer.

16

Does size matter with this “king ring?” All kings are not of equal girth. We have already standardized the color as being red. What shade of red? I have seen red chess pieces being played with in tournaments, would the red ring be visible on this king? Does each player have his own ring? What if the ring is dirty and stains the opponent’s fine set? I would imagine that this player might become purple with rage. Could this be used as a way to annoy and distract the opponent, like numerous draw offers in lost positions? This could be a fun innovation…

17

Yes, that would indeed be a fairly sizeable stretch. But it’s valuable to think outside the box every now and then.

The OP wanted to improve the communication between offerer and offeree, especially in the case of language barriers or under-the-breath grunts. This lit up, in my warped brain, a new possibility for the DGT sensory board.

Then the OP also wanted a way to offer a draw on each move without being obnoxious about it. So my still-warped brain came up with yet another idea, the standing draw offer.

When new technology makes new ideas possible, it doesn’t hurt to look at possible rule changes to go along with the new technology.

So, in this spirit, I hereby propose yet another possibility. (“Oh, no”, I hear you groan.) The “draw offer” button can also act as a “draw claim” button. If a player offers a draw when he has a valid draw claim, the board monster will immediately declare the draw, without the opponent having to accept.

An example would be triple occurrence of position. Classically, there are two ways to make such a claim. The claim can be based either on the current position, without a move by the claimant, or on the position immediately after the claimant’s intended and announced move.

If a player presses the “draw offer” button, and the current board position is the third occurrence of the same position, the board monster will immediately declare the draw, without requiring a move by the claimant nor an agreement by the opponent. If, on the other hand, a player presses the “draw offer” button, and there exists a move which will create the third occurrence of a position, then the board monster will wait for the claimant to move, then declare the game drawn if the player indeed played the “magic” move.

Note that the “claimant” may not even realize he has a valid claim. If he offers a draw when there is a valid claim, that should be good enough. (More thinking outside the box.)

The same would be true of a 50-move claim, and also possibly of other “drawing” situations as well. If a player offers a draw when his opponent has only a lone king, of course the board should declare the draw immediately. (Well, wait a minute. If a player offers a draw when his only legal move checkmates his opponent, should the board declare the draw? Maybe this is a little too far outside the box.)

To go still a bit further, in the case of a dead position (such as K vs K, or K+N vs K, or K+B vs K), of course, the board could just declare the game drawn without an offer by either player.

What do you think of those ideas, Baba Looey?

Bill Smythe

18

Adding another prop to the game seems like a silly idea to me. If we need a nonverbal standard (akin to laying down the king in order to signify a resignation), better that we choose one that involves no interaction with the equipment. How about the American Sign Language sign for “equal” (as in, an equal result):

To accept the draw, one could make the sign back. To decline it, one only has to move a piece.

19

Actually, you know how in a lot of international games there are little flags on small pedestals to signify the country of the player?

Well, we get a peace flag and a pedestal and place it directly behind the center of the clock.

This would be the peace flag

You see, this is the universal sign of peace and there would be no language barrier.

The player deciding on whether the accept the draw offer or not would decline by taking the flag down from its pedestal.

20

I’ve read many international anecdotes where a draw was offered by pointing both forefingers upward and crossed in an X.