Suppose you regularly pay titled players appearance fees to participate in a series of events. At one of these events, a top-rated titled player who has been paid an appearance fee draws eight games out of nine rounds by agreement, right around move 20, in several cases with a clearly winning position. (The ninth player refuses a draw and plays the game to a decisive result.) What conclusion would you draw about his behavior? Would you pay him appearance fees to participate in the series in the future?
A slightly different scenario: All of the above occurs, but you’re also aware that the player is dealing with a family emergency. Does your interpretation of his behavior change? How about your willingness to pay him to play in the future?
I would be inclined to invite a different player next time. Depending on the situation it might be worth explaining why you can’t pay appearance fees for quick draws, and if he understands then invite him back. You could pay for decisive games but that gets tricky, trying to allow for legitimate exceptions. Probably isn’t worth the trouble if he doesn’t understand or care enough to give you a good value for the appearance fee.
In the event of a family emergency, of course let him return the appearance fee and go deal with the emergency; that should not be held against him.
Or just let him keep the fee, withdraw him from the tournament, and invite him back. The fee was a planned cost anyways so it’s not like you are out any additional cash and unless there is a new emergency ever other month, it does build up some goodwill.
The answer to this question depends on why you are paying the master appearance fees. If it is for his name, then you are getting that even with the agreed draws. You will be reinforcing the fact that masters are often cheaters and crooks when it comes to agreed draws, but everybody is already pretty cynical and jaded about this.
If you are paying the master with the expectation that he actually plays in the tournament and plays real games, then you might consider employing someone else.
You could always just send him the money, excuse him from showing up, and post his picture near the pairing sheets with a sign that says that all his games have been agreed draws in advance by the Tournament Director. This would save on travel costs. You could advertise it as a “Draw Against the Master Tournament”. Maybe he will deign to give you a discount.
I largely agree with Mr. Mottershead on this. Since you mention nine rounds, it seems that you are running a norm tournament, and therefore the principal value in such a player is his title and/or rating. As he is providing those, you are getting what you needed. If you’re looking for good games, get another master.
I do not agree that agreeing to draws is cheating or theft.
I’d like to clarify that when I wrote “draw by agreement,” I meant simply that a draw offer was extended and accepted, not that it was prearranged . . . in case that makes a difference to anyone.
It is, however, possible to have a prearranged draw without any communication between the players. How? The much higher rated player has no desire or incentive to play while the lower rated player is eager to take almost any draw offer because of the large difference in skill or tournament standings. Usually the higher rated player is struggling but not allowed to withdraw.
If I was paying a master to play, I would specifically invite him or her because of a prior reputation to play fighting chess in most games. If the invitee takes it easy in my event (without reasonable explanation), I would pay him and hire someone else next time. I probably would excuse one or two short draws in a nine game tournament, if the remaining games are competitive.
Hard cases make bad law, as the late John Hillery constantly reminded us.
The original poster states “At one of these events…”, not at all of them.
The case that triggered this thread is one of a player who (a) was an integral component of the tournament, (b) has acted in good faith as a competitor in many, many events, and (c) had a family crisis develop during an event which certainly caused his heart and mind to be focused on matters external to the event.
Withdrawal would have left the event in crisis. It is highly doubtful that he could have been replaced under the circumstances.
There are certainly players who habitually make short draws, and don’t expend much effort, despite great skill and knowledge that would allow them to produce better results and provide more challenge to opponents.
Perhaps there are some organizers who seek out this latter class of player. Certainly, there are organizers who avoid knowingly inviting such players, too.
I recall a story relayed to me that one time many years ago Calvin Blocker (now IM) was playing the last round of an international tournament and needed a draw to clinch the IM norm. I don’t remember the exact opponent, but I believe it was a strong Master. In an unclear position Blocker’s opponent offered a draw. Blocker declined, and then went on to win the game.
I agree with @hmb. The unnamed IM that the first post refers to is an active and well-known player who routinely fights to the end. I believe he won the US Open a few years ago. Without knowing about his grandmother, the short draws that he played were out of character.
@Steve_Immitt Calvin Blocker would have to be on my “A” list of invitees, assuming I was an organizer of norm tournaments. I know a couple of other noble masters who take a similar attitude. Personally, I rarely except draws (even in endgames), but I did accept a draw after 50+ moves in a crazy, yet favorable, position against the Fed, just to qualify for the US Championship. I would do it again today. Apparently, I still have a lot to learn at age 37.
This may be true, but the orginial post did not specify whether this player was a regular, or give his history. In responding I assumed a relatively new invitee, as the regulars would have been less likely to be an issue. A history of good-faith appearances changes the scenario considerably.
This was asked and answered separately. I believe that the responses that suggested not using the player again were directed at the first scenario (no family emergency).
I don’t know the nature of the real situation, but generaly speaking a family emergency trumps a chess tournament. It would be a nice gesture to help the TD find a replacement titled player, but were I the TD I would encourage the player to be with his family.
In fact, I strongly suspect there is an unwritten convention among many GMs that, if two of them are paired against another in the final round, there will be an early draw agreement unless there is good (from the GMs’ point of view) reason for not drawing.
No pre-communication is necessary – just a quick look at the wall charts before the game begins.
I suspect the same. Makes you want to run tournaments where there is only an indivisible first prize, awarded to one player if necessary on tie-breaks, and no other cash prizes. Another option would be to have multiple prizes but not to pool them and share them out. The USCF rules actually require pooling/sharing of prizes. This fosters the obnoxious behavior of some top players, and is counter-productive in my opinion. I imagine you can not pool prizes, if you announce it. Without pooled prizes, I suspect a lot of top players wouldn’t bother to show up because they would have to place first in order to have a pay day. No last-round tribute just for showing up and being “near” the top at the end.
Brian,
Another alternative is to use score-based prizes. In my tournaments the total payout is always higher when the game is decisive rather than a draw. In many situations place-based prizes make the last round draw the best choice from a game theory perspective.
If you take the situation of two players who are 4-0 and no one has 3.5. Let the prize fund be $1000-$500-$300-$200. There are six players at 3-1 (thus there will be 3 other 4-1 players). The possible payouts for the 4-0 players are $1000 for a win, $750 for a draw, and $250 for a loss. So, their average payout if they play for a win (assuming a 50% change to win or lose) is (1000+250)/2.0 = $625.00. But they can earn $750 for an agreed upon draw. Any game theory economist would say take the draw.
Now look at the same situation with the prize fund from the Chesapeake Open. 5-0=$1500, 4.5=$700, and 4.0= $350. Playing for the win gives an average return of (1500+350)/2.0 = $925. The draw will pay only $700. So, there is no economic reason to agree to the draw.
Of course, there are other factors involved but we should not create situations where the players have to play against their own financial interest to do what we think is the correct action (play a real game in the last round).
Mike Regan
Harold,
I assumed 3 4-1’s from the six 3-1 players and one from the 4-0 player who lost. I left out the 2nd place prize though. The correct value is $250 for a loss. I’ve edited the original post.
Mike