That is funny. It is possible for this to happen in reality - although extremely unlikely. I’ve seen all sorts of weird games from beginning young scholastic players. Anything other than that though would be clearly contrived.
I spent 10 minutes looking around in Google and couldn’t find anything confirming tournaments that didn’t allow any draws at all under a given number of moves; all I could find about Linares was the generic “Sofia rules”, for example. If you have a reference at hand, I’d appreciate it. (I don’t doubt you, I’d just like to read about it.)
Luis Rentero, the former organizer of the Linares events, has always hated short draws. He had long offered incentives (or threats of penalties) to players to not draw quickly, dating back to Boris Spassky’s participation in early Linares events. For a short while, he even put in the player contracts that they could not agree to draws before move 30.
This bit of history was something Paco Vallejo (who has participated in a number of those events) told me at the 2011 North American Open, while we were talking between rounds. Here are a couple of links with information that independently confirm what GM Vallejo told me.
http://www.thechessdrum.net/65thSquare/DrawOffer/DrawOffer3.html - From a 2003 article by Maurice Ashley about the “draw problem”.
http://chessvibes.com/?q=reports/luis-rentero-i-love-the-game - A 2010 interview with Mr. Rentero that confirms he did penalize some players for what he felt were non-competitive draws - including Kasparov, once.
http://www.endgame.nl/linares.htm - The only article I could find with a specific reference to Rentero’s arrangement with Spassky re: short draws.
Thanks. The first link does indeed say (although verbally and twice removed) that early draws were not allowed, period. I wonder what would have happened if both players got into a perpetual check on move 20. It makes a bit more sense if the penalty was financial rather than scoring the game 0-0 or something.
Terry, while I do agree with your thoughts on the last part about the playing TD, I am also reminded that USCF rules discourage such a practice. I recall a game that I lost to a very
fast improving youngster in which I was serving as the pairings
TD. Well, as quite often happens, a need for a “house” player
arose, so the chief td asked me to fill it for a round. Against my better judgement, I complied. The chief td then started to
‘fiddle’ with the computer and all sorts of issues requiring my attention quickly came about. I think in total, i had about 5 minutes to spend in the game I played, as keeping the tournament running smoothly was a far greater priority. Bad
excuse I realize, but I did lose to an up and coming youngster.
I would have, I think, agreed to a draw simply to get out of the game to attend other needed duties. For the first time in about
a decade i was a playing TD in a small G/10 event. But, I am resolved that this dual idea is not for me.
Rob Jones
This is not what occurred. This 30-minute solution came up in discussion; the director posited that it was the rule he might implement in long time-control games. Since the club in question has a G/40 or G/30 control in almost every event (the maximum has been G/60 d/10 in one event), this “rule” has never been in place at the club.
I’ve created a new topic, Perpetual check (was Short draws …) for responses to this reply by Alex Relyea:
Emotionless Senior TD Angle
I’ve always read “serious contest” to mean a rated game. There are so many arguments of game score quality, Sofia move limits, and other rather arbitrary measures. I understand all of those positions, but the first ply of a USCF rated game is a concrete minimum that starts a serious contest. So unless the organizer dictates any tournament rules otherwise, any discussion of draws ahead of that first ply is against the rules. After the first ply…any discussion other than a proper draw offer is also against the rules.
Opinion Angle
I don’t have a problem with short draws, even when watching professionals. That is because for the most part, no game can truly be separated from the tournament context in which it is played. (Yes, match games are an exception. Serious matches where game score and momentum count are included in “context.”).
Good and ethical players…and we’ve seen in this thread…sometimes make draw decisions to make or break their tournament. I’ve done the same. Players make short draws because it makes sense to them in the context of their tournament.
Story Time
I once had a fairly serious “perception” discussion with a junior player who was top seed of a state scholastic…with white…and offered a draw to someone 400 points lower than him about 5 moves into the game. The draw was correctly offered and accepted, but the perception of hanky panky came up among the many adults and coaches around the tournament. Of course black was more than happy to take the draw rather than take a beating. The top seed locked in clear first place before the final round and saved his energy for a tougher opponent. Turns out that the two opponents are friends as well–a third and shared motivation for a draw.
Is there a set “legal” amount of moves for a draw? If there is, surely this set number of moves would be given in the rulebook in force at the time that is always supposed to be available for review at the tournament site. If I did not know the answer off hand, I would have asked the player to consult the book. What is read has more force than what is said.
Also, the player may have participated in events at this venue directed under the club set number of moves for a draw and wanted to know if these club rules applied in this instance. I imagine though that USCF rules supercede club rules for USCF rated tournaments, so either I would have answered with the club number of moves or taken the action suggested above (preferred).
The USCF rules book (6th edition, and all previous editions) does not state a fixed number of moves. Thus the ambiguity - it just says a draw cannot be agreed to before a “serious contest” has begun. This debate is about if a director must give a personal number of moves or if he can deny early-drawn games under subjective criteria as long as he does not abuse this power.
[EDIT] And I should clarify, the specific incident named above was a standard weekly tournament with the usual “subjective” rule in place, as the player himself knew.
First, I should make a few introductory remarks.
I have come to believe that applying the reasonable person test to various situations I encounter in tournament play is a major help in making decisions about applying rules and penalties under loosely constructed rules such as USCF Rule 14B6.
Also, I’ve played as a house player while directing, in time controls ranging from G/7 up to 40/120, SD/60. However, I generally oppose the practice, precisely because it is hard to pay proper attention to the event and its administration if you have to focus on a game you’re playing. If I do play, I make it explicitly clear to everyone prior to the round that they are to come get me immediately for any problems, even if I’m deep in thought or low on time. I then make it clear to my opponent before we start that if I am summoned while my clock is running, my clock is to continue running until I can make it back to make a move. My goal with these two announcements is to make it clear that the event’s conduct and integrity comes before my own game or result. In local tournaments, I’ve also decided whether or not to play based entirely on whether I can spare the TD the question of whether to be a playing director.
Now, the following is based on my understanding of the facts of this situation as related in this thread. I apologize if any of the following reflects any misunderstanding on my part.
The trouble with highly subjective standards is that they still have to be applied uniformly. Uniform application means, among other things, application without consideration of station or responsibility. A violation of tournament rules committed by the USCF President, a TD, a GM, or an anonymous C-player are all the same, and should be treated the same.
In the case related in this thread, I require more proof than has been offered to this point to justify the director (who, incidentally, is NOT obligated to play in his own event) committing an apparently arbitrary violation of his traditional use of Rule 14B6. The playing director, if anything, should go out of his way (within reason) to be fair to his opponent and to the field, even if it means shorting himself in the process. If he truly believes he needs to end his game quickly, then he shouldn’t play. Once he plays, though, he has to be held to the same standard as everyone else.
If I were the director in question, I’d be very concerned about making any sort of ruling with such a subjective standard, especially if it involved my own game. IMHO, it’s too easy to commit reversible error in that situation (which may come with its own penalty, depending on various factors).
The intent of Rule 14B6 is that players should not prearrange results. If the rulebook or the TD were to specify exactly what criteria would be used to determine when players are doing this, it would effectively invite violations of the rule’s intent, since players who intended to cheat could simply make sure their cheating was done in a way that didn’t violate the announced criteria. It would be like the IRS announcing in advance what criteria it was going to use to determine which tax returns to audit.
Bob
Sometimes “prearranged” doesn’t need to be prearranged.
If two grandmasters are paired against each other on board 1 in the final round, and it is to their obvious advantage to draw, neither needs to have any pre-conversation at all with the other. They will just follow the “grandmaster code of silence” and agree to a quick draw.
Any attempt by the arbiter to intervene is doomed. “Did you guys have any conversation before the game started?” “No, we didn’t say a word to each other.” And that would, technically, be the truth.
Bill Smythe
The specific round that a draw is desirable can vary. I’ve seen tournaments where there were a lot of GM draws in the penultimate round with the real GM fighting happening in the final round.
My point is, I’d bet that, most of the time with quick GM draws, no pre-arrangement is necessary. These guys aren’t stupid. They can figure out when their opponents are in the same boat as they are, not wanting to take down a fellow GM who needs the money as badly as they do. They try to maximize the prize money won by GMs in general, not just by themselves individually.
In a GM-GM pairing, if a draw will give each of them $1000, but a win-loss will mean $1200 for one and $200 for the other with the $600 net difference going to a low expert, it’s not too hard to figure out what will probably happen.
And don’t blame the GMs. They’re a community. They stick together. They have to fend off the effects of large class prizes, which tend to reward anything but excellence.
The answer is not to have Sofia-type rules designed to punish. The answer is a prize fund designed to reward win-loss over draw-draw. Two words: Plus Score.
Example:
$1200 for a score of 5-0
$600 for a score of 4.5-0.5
$300 for a score of 4-1
Now see what happens when two GMs at 4-0 are paired with each other in round 5.
Bill Smythe
I have a GM and an IM about to play the fourth (final) round. Both have three points. Problem is an expert also has three points. He’s playing an FM. It will be interesting to see what happens on board one.
Alex Relyea
According to what I read in this post, this points based scenario will result in a draw with both at 4-0. The “fight” will occur with one having a 4-0. Now this is most likely to produce a 5-0.
On the contrary, in both scenarios (two players at 4-0, or one at 4-0 and one at 3.5) there is incentive in the final round for a win-loss over a draw-draw. In the former, the players share $1500 vs $1200. In the latter, they share $1350 rather than $900.
Bill Smythe
RE: Plus-score prizes with regard to discouraging short draws in the last round…there may be an unintended consequence of a different sort of result-fixing. It’s well known that some GMs agree before an event to pool their prizes, regardless of result. If two such players play in the last round, and there is more combined money available for a decisive result than a drawn result, then financially, it’s better to arrange for a decisive result.
(The counter-argument that GMs won’t care about the extra cash in that case doesn’t hold water, in my experience. More than once, a GM has asked me to recalculate prizes for a perceived shortfall under $100. And, thanks to reduced K, the “loser” in this scenario won’t drop a lot of rating points, so that disincentive is, IMO, insufficient.)
I do not have any pro or contra position on plus-score prizes. This post is solely intended to illustrate the aforementioned unintended consequence, which does often come up in smaller-bore weekend events where there are only a couple of “big fish” in the pond.
All very true. But at least, in a plus-score format, any final-round result-fixing (one way or the other) does not affect anybody else’s prizes (other than the two players doing the fixing).
Bill Smythe