What Constitutes a “Serious Game?”

Running Chess Tournaments
1

Because this issue is so important to the game I have loved for over forty years I decided to post my latest blog entry on the forum. You can also read it there at: What Constitutes a “Serious Game?” (xpertchesslessons.wordpress.com/ … ious-game/)

In response to my previous post, “Screw you Rex” (xpertchesslessons.wordpress.com/ … w-you-rex/), the esteemed former President of the Georgia Chess Association, Scott Parker sent this email:
Michael,

My view is that while short “quick handshake” draws may not be what you want to see as a spectator, unless you are paying a significant appearance fee to a player you have no right to tell him/her how to conduct his/her game. If you are paying a significant appearance fee, then setting a ground rule like “no draws before move 30″, or “no draws in the first time control” is fair. If a player doesn’t like the ground rules, he/she has the option not to come and take the appearance fee. Absent that, you have no right to tell a professional player how to conduct his/her business, which is what a rule against a quick draw does. Apparently there was no such rule in the tournament you reference (I haven’t checked). That being the case, a player has the right to conduct his/her game as he/she sees fit.

Best Regards, Scott

The part that bothered me was, “…you have no right to tell a professional player how to conduct his/her business, which is what a rule against a quick draw does.”
I took it to mean I would have no right to, for example, tell a professional Major League Baseball player to not use steroids, which is basically what fans told MLB. Because of the outcry from the fans of MLB, steroids are now banned from the game. If the fans, collectively, had not told MLB to clean its act, some monster ragin’ on ‘roids would have blasted 100 home runs in a season by now. Fans told professional MLB players how to act because CHILDREN EMULATE MLB PLAYERS!
I also suggested that Mr. Parker, “…read the US Constitution, and pay particular attention to the First Amendment of what is called the Bill of Rights, which states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Then you should go here: (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech) where you will find it written : “Freedom of speech is the political right to communicate one’s opinions and ideas using one’s body and property to anyone who is willing to receive them. The term freedom of expression is sometimes used synonymously, but includes any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used.”
You will also find: “The right to freedom of expression is recognized as a human right under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and recognized in international human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 19 of the ICCPR states that “[e]veryone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference” and “everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice”.
Being able to express oneself is what separates our country from others where the citizens cannot speak freely.
I also wrote in reply, “If you go to the USCF Official Rules of Chess (I have the 5th edition) you will find on page 42 rule 14B6. Premature or prearranged draws. There it is written, “It is unethical and unsporting to agree to a draw before a serious contest has begun. The same is true of all arrangements to prearrange game results. In case of clear violations of the moral principles of the game, penalties should be imposed at the director’s discretion.”
“For you to be right in this matter, and for me to be wrong, you MUST believe the six move draw made by GM Finegold and GM Josh Friedel was a “serious contest.” What is worse is that you must also defend the draw Ben Finegold passed out to his son after playing only ONE MOVE as also a “serious contest.”
I also included, “Just today at the chess camp two older boys who have been involved with chess for a few years, got up from their board. I asked the result only to be informed they had agreed to a draw. I was STUNNED! I told them to sit back down and finish the game. Later I asked why they had agreed a drawn game, one said, “That’s what the adults do.” Out of the mouths of babes…What kind of example is being, and has been set by we “adults?”
Indeed, what kind of example is being set at the leading light of chess in America, the St. Louis Chess Club & SCHOLASTIC CENTER! The so-called “professionals” at the StLCCSC repeatedly violate rule 14B6 and they do so with impunity.
I see this as a problem for chess, one of the many facing the Royal game. Mr. Parker sees no problem. One of us is right, and the other wrong. In the end there can be only one. If Scott is right then what is the purpose of rule 14B6? If a professional is allowed to make a draw after only six moves, or in the case of the serial drawer, GM Ben Finegold, only ONE MOVE, the only justification is that a “game” of only one move constitutes a “serious game.” And if that is, in fact, the case, then why force the “professional” to come to the board at all? Why not let them phone it in the night before so as to be able to sleep in the next day. After all, they are “professionals” and who am I to “tell them what to do?”

Michael Bacon

2

The rulebook doesn’t try to define what constitutes a “serious contest” and I think this is for good reason: It is impossible to prevent two players who are mutually determined to draw from doing so.

If, for example, you state that players may not agree to a draw before move 30, then players who are determined to draw will simply make 30 moves (probably fairly quickly) and then agree to a draw, and what did you gain by that?

Even if you were to ban draws by agreement altogether, then players who were determined to draw could simply create a deliberate 3-fold repetition of position.

Bob

3

In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is—Yogi Berra

4

[quote=“nocab”]
Because this issue is so important to the game I have loved for over forty years I decided to post my latest blog entry on the forum. You can also read it there at: What Constitutes a “Serious Game?” (xpertchesslessons.wordpress.com/ … ious-game/)

In response to my previous post, “#### you Rex” (xpertchesslessons.wordpress.com/2014/06/01/####-you-rex/), the esteemed former President of the Georgia Chess Association, Scott Parker sent this email:
Michael,

My view is that while short “quick handshake” draws may not be what you want to see as a spectator, unless you are paying a significant appearance fee to a player you have no right to tell him/her how to conduct his/her game. If you are paying a significant appearance fee, then setting a ground rule like “no draws before move 30″, or “no draws in the first time control” is fair. If a player doesn’t like the ground rules, he/she has the option not to come and take the appearance fee. Absent that, you have no right to tell a professional player how to conduct his/her business, which is what a rule against a quick draw does. Apparently there was no such rule in the tournament you reference (I haven’t checked). That being the case, a player has the right to conduct his/her game as he/she sees fit.

Best Regards, Scott

The part that bothered me was, “…you have no right to tell a professional player how to conduct his/her business, which is what a rule against a quick draw does.”
I took it to mean I would have no right to, for example, tell a professional Major League Baseball player to not use steroids, which is basically what fans told MLB. Because of the outcry from the fans of MLB, steroids are now banned from the game. If the fans, collectively, had not told MLB to clean its act, some monster ragin’ on ‘roids would have blasted 100 home runs in a season by now. Fans told professional MLB players how to act because CHILDREN EMULATE MLB PLAYERS!
I also suggested that Mr. Parker, “…read the US Constitution, and pay particular attention to the First Amendment of what is called the Bill of Rights, which states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Then you should go here: (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech) where you will find it written : “Freedom of speech is the political right to communicate one’s opinions and ideas using one’s body and property to anyone who is willing to receive them. The term freedom of expression is sometimes used synonymously, but includes any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used.”
You will also find: “The right to freedom of expression is recognized as a human right under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and recognized in international human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 19 of the ICCPR states that “[e]veryone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference” and “everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice”.
Being able to express oneself is what separates our country from others where the citizens cannot speak freely.
I also wrote in reply, “If you go to the USCF Official Rules of Chess (I have the 5th edition) you will find on page 42 rule 14B6. Premature or prearranged draws. There it is written, “It is unethical and unsporting to agree to a draw before a serious contest has begun. The same is true of all arrangements to prearrange game results. In case of clear violations of the moral principles of the game, penalties should be imposed at the director’s discretion.”
“For you to be right in this matter, and for me to be wrong, you MUST believe the six move draw made by GM Finegold and GM Josh Friedel was a “serious contest.” What is worse is that you must also defend the draw Ben Finegold passed out to his son after playing only ONE MOVE as also a “serious contest.”
I also included, “Just today at the chess camp two older boys who have been involved with chess for a few years, got up from their board. I asked the result only to be informed they had agreed to a draw. I was STUNNED! I told them to sit back down and finish the game. Later I asked why they had agreed a drawn game, one said, “That’s what the adults do.” Out of the mouths of babes…What kind of example is being, and has been set by we “adults?”
Indeed, what kind of example is being set at the leading light of chess in America, the St. Louis Chess Club & SCHOLASTIC CENTER! The so-called “professionals” at the StLCCSC repeatedly violate rule 14B6 and they do so with impunity.
I see this as a problem for chess, one of the many facing the Royal game. Mr. Parker sees no problem. One of us is right, and the other wrong. In the end there can be only one. If Scott is right then what is the purpose of rule 14B6? If a professional is allowed to make a draw after only six moves, or in the case of the serial drawer, GM Ben Finegold, only ONE MOVE, the only justification is that a “game” of only one move constitutes a “serious game.” And if that is, in fact, the case, then why force the “professional” to come to the board at all? Why not let them phone it in the night before so as to be able to sleep in the next day. After all, they are “professionals” and who am I to “tell them what to do?”

Michael Bacon[/quote

On the “light” side, a very good friend of mine runs annual tournaments that are “for the serious player” only. After years of trying to pin him down as to the meaning of his definition, he finally
came out with it. He would greatly prefer (although, certainly not as a requirement), adults 18+
that he can hoist a beer afterward to play with. In his austere opinion, kids are next to incapable
of serious play, regardless of rating. And, I have met more than a few “old salts” who share such
opinions. One venerable female senior citizen, quite a decent in her day, recently asked me to
find for her “kid[free” clubs and/or tournaments to play. This was last December, and I am still
keeping the watch out.

On the serious side, I am opposed to x minimum move draws only. Unless I hear players yukking it
up about intentions before or immediately after, I do try not to play the wizard of id with the power
to read their intentions. A few, (that is a very few) consider me absolutely brilliant, and I am afraid
that such pretensions as to mindreading capability would change even their viewpoint.

Ok lets say a tournament says 5 move min-ok, they get 6. say a tournament says 10 moves min, ok
they get 10-11, etc. One cannot legislate ethics. Most players have them, a tiny percentage are
challenged in this department. And for this very, very small percentage, life catches up to them generally in one area or another anyhow.

Have a great day, and may continuous sunshine light your way.

Rob Jones

5

To me, a serious game means that the players set up the pieces and make at least a few moves, 10 moves each for example, but I don’t enforce that as a hard and fast rule. As long as money isn’t changing hands I don’t see an ethical problem with short draws. Chess is a game of strategy, and sometimes the best strategy is to play for a draw. If both sides are playing for a draw the logical result of the game is a draw.

6

I guess I consider playing a quick draw in the sense of the tournament position. After all, the goal, for at least most of these players, is not to win any individual game, but to win the tournament/place in the money. It is frequently the case that a quick draw gives the best chance for that to happen.

I do draw the line at losing on purpose, although I have never had enough evidence of someone doing that to accuse, much less penalize, in one of my tournaments. I did do a tournament once where a GM originally from (redacted) played another GM from (redacted). The foreign GM needed a win for first place, and the American GM was far enough behind the pack that his result didn’t matter. Another strong player told me (before the game) that the American would probably “blunder” a piece in time trouble. I don’t remember how many moves the game lasted, but the American duly lost. I said nothing because I had no evidence other than what the third party expected to happen of any wrongdoing.

An IM has mentioned to me before that the structure of many CCA tournaments, and especially the Millionaire Open, encourages situations where the player with the lower score should offer to throw a late round game for part of the prize money.

Alex Relyea

7

And the structure of many open tournaments with class prizes may encourage the higher-rated player with the lower or equal score to either draw or lose for a share of the prize money. For that matter, two players with the same score and rating class have an incentive for a final-round decisive game instead of a draw (at least, they do if they plan on splitting the money - all of second split two ways is generally worth more than 1/2 of the four-way split of 2nd and 3rd).

Whenever there is prize money involved there is such an incentive. Seeing as tournaments without class prize money generally don’t do that well among adults, I am not about to advocate removal of class prizes.

8

.

Wrong; because…
Every Tournament Organizer and Tournament Director has a duty to protect the USCF rating system from misleading or bogus data. A one move draw or other blatantly agreed draw would pollute the rating system. The TD has a fundamental right to base his tournament outcomes only on ratable games.

The concerned TD should include in his announcement that no draw offers can be issued or accepted during the first segment of the overall time control.

As Geurt Gijssen is so fond of saying, the written rules of chess cannot possibly cover all scenarios, and the TD has latitude to judge odd cases as he deems appropriate with the spirit of proper play. Therefore the TD can disallow draws by 3rd occurrence of a position in obviously bogus cases such as within the first 9 move-pairs of the game.

SOLUTION

The TD must keep alive the threat that he will adjudicate the outcome of the game as 0-0 (no points for either player). This would be for the purposes of the tournament standings.
However, such an outcome probably should not be submitted into the USCF rating system.
.

9

I’m confused. I assume that Mr. Milener means a double forfeit above. That would cause no problems for the rating system. I would think that a double ratable loss (s-s) would be unusual, and would almost certainly be appealed, but I think the rating system could handle it.

Alex Relyea

10

Right. NBA teams with older rosters (i.e Spurs last season and also Pacers this season) have been known to sit all of their starters late in the season so they would be fresher for the playoffs, which is the real objective. NFL teams with no potential improvement in playoff seeding also might bench players in week 17. Of course those who do play do still give maximum effort so it’s not a perfect analogy.

11

Somewhere in these forums, I remember an organizer being asked why he submitted one of the games as a forfeit instead of a rated result. His elegant reply: Because the result of this game provided no useful information to the rating system.

Bill Smythe

12

Everyone in chess is to some degree selfish. So-called “professional” players have often sacrificed relationships, family, alternate careers for the sake of being able to play a challenging game on a high level. They have to be selfish to achieve the fleeting success and poor rewards that they have received in return. It is hard to be successful when you have difficulty making ends meet, living on meager tournament income, a couple of paying students, or an article or two for a magazine. Like all people, they focus on their own immediate needs.

Spectators are really selfish. They demand free entertainment. They want free lessons. They do not buy books, software, or DVDs. They want self-improvement for free and as fast as possible without any work or suffering. They are appalled that two players would draw in a last round to split the tiny prizes. The cheap spectators are in a huff that the players cut off their entertainment. They want blood. They want the rules changed so that the players have to immolate themselves for the benefit of the spectators. These spectator vultures whine and complain on the internet because someone has not sacrificed themselves on the altar for the spectators.

Do the spectators pay the players’ taxes? No. Do they pay their tournament expenses? No, the players do that. Do the spectators pay the players’ rent, for their food, for any of the means for the player get by and practice the art and sport of chess? No, not a jot. The players have to manage their games and their tournaments. This requires not only understanding chess, but also the economics of risk. Players are not going to give away 3 to 5 days of excruciating work to risk everything on one game or a speculative idea. A short draw puts food on the table. Playing for the crowd puts you into debt.

If you want the players to be gladiators at all times, selfish spectators, pony up the cash to sponsor the event. Buy tickets. Then you can demand that the players play for blood. Otherwise, just shut up and watch. There are enough deluded professionals out there who will sacrifice health, sanity, and their economic well being to provide you with free games to watch.

13

Well, this certainly wouldn’t solve all such problems.

Imagine, for example, that in the first two rounds of a quad, players 1 and 2 have both beaten players 3 and 4, and in the final round, where they are playing each other, they decide to intentionally draw so that they can share the quad win. Assuming that when players 3 and 4 play in the final round, one of them wins, then their win/loss records will be 1/2 and 0/3, respectively. So regardless of whether the TD gives players 1 and 2 a half point each or zero points each for their intentional draw, they will still share the quad win.

Bob

14

Five-star post! If conditions are such to create these type of results change the conditions rather than decry the results.