1
2
Hello all,
After WBCCC 2011 concluded, Jimmy Huggins and myself discussed the idea of some sort of short draw rule. Eventually those discussions came to nothing because of circumstances that we are already aware of. I did not pursue these discussions with the main forum due to uncertainty over WBCCC 2012.
I am now going to bring this topic up for discussion for the 2013 event. Clearly nothing can be changed for 2012 as one game has already been drawn in 11 moves and pairings have been made on the 1/0.5/0 scoring system, but for 2013 I want it made very clear that games are meant to be played out and certainly not being drawn in 11 moves.
In my opinion games being drawn in 11 moves add nothing to the tournament and are a waste of my time and effort and they feel like a slap in the face.
So we have a few options, but I believe the status quo needs to be changed for 2013.
1) No draw agreements before move x, be it move 20, 30 or 40.- This has a few positives, but as we can not over-rule the laws of chess, it still allows move repetitions. Also having a strict number means that players who want to offer a draw on move 29 can not, but the same position occurring on move 31 is ok. Seems very artificial
2) Games can not be agreed drawn- Very clear rule, still allows move repetition claims and these need to be made through the arbiter as normal for claims. It would mean the draw offer function in xfccplay would need to be disabled to stop draws being offered. It can lead to silly situations where the players just move the pieces when everyone knows the only result of the game is a draw
3) 3/1/0 scoring system- The same scoring system that is used in soccer (football) which is meant to promote attacking play as it rewards wins. For us, it does have a major flaw in that forfeits and time outs distort the results and pairings even more. 11 move draws are less likely to happen because the players know they are going to tumble down the standings even further compared to someone who has won a couple of games. Short draws are not prevented under this system, which could be good or bad as the result of that individual game is not artificial
4) Ties decided by most moves in drawn games- To break a place tie, the first criteria would be that the amount of moves made in each of the tied players drawn games would be added up. Highest number wins. As we do not have financial prizes, splitting ties is not such a concern.
Thoughts everyone. I do want to see short draws stopped and am definitely looking to add some kind of draw rule for 2013. Which direction to go is the question?
Garvin Gray
WBCCC 2012 Arbiter
After WBCCC 2011 concluded, Jimmy Huggins and myself discussed the idea of some sort of short draw rule. Eventually those discussions came to nothing because of circumstances that we are already aware of. I did not pursue these discussions with the main forum due to uncertainty over WBCCC 2012.
I am now going to bring this topic up for discussion for the 2013 event. Clearly nothing can be changed for 2012 as one game has already been drawn in 11 moves and pairings have been made on the 1/0.5/0 scoring system, but for 2013 I want it made very clear that games are meant to be played out and certainly not being drawn in 11 moves.
In my opinion games being drawn in 11 moves add nothing to the tournament and are a waste of my time and effort and they feel like a slap in the face.
So we have a few options, but I believe the status quo needs to be changed for 2013.
1) No draw agreements before move x, be it move 20, 30 or 40.- This has a few positives, but as we can not over-rule the laws of chess, it still allows move repetitions. Also having a strict number means that players who want to offer a draw on move 29 can not, but the same position occurring on move 31 is ok. Seems very artificial
2) Games can not be agreed drawn- Very clear rule, still allows move repetition claims and these need to be made through the arbiter as normal for claims. It would mean the draw offer function in xfccplay would need to be disabled to stop draws being offered. It can lead to silly situations where the players just move the pieces when everyone knows the only result of the game is a draw
3) 3/1/0 scoring system- The same scoring system that is used in soccer (football) which is meant to promote attacking play as it rewards wins. For us, it does have a major flaw in that forfeits and time outs distort the results and pairings even more. 11 move draws are less likely to happen because the players know they are going to tumble down the standings even further compared to someone who has won a couple of games. Short draws are not prevented under this system, which could be good or bad as the result of that individual game is not artificial
4) Ties decided by most moves in drawn games- To break a place tie, the first criteria would be that the amount of moves made in each of the tied players drawn games would be added up. Highest number wins. As we do not have financial prizes, splitting ties is not such a concern.
Thoughts everyone. I do want to see short draws stopped and am definitely looking to add some kind of draw rule for 2013. Which direction to go is the question?
Garvin Gray
WBCCC 2012 Arbiter
![[us]](/mwf/v12/flags/us.png "United States")
Like
1) no agree draw in 30 [despite having just agreed to a draw on 28 in a 'dead position' for computer chess, symmetrical R and N apiece ] ; exception of course repetition or perpetual.
+ highest number of wins tb,
i think highest number of moves tb discriminates against players who want to play a wide open attacking game. plus it is possible to artificially increase move length by playing into closed positions. 3/1/0 i think is too weighted, a win already changes place standing very significantly.
1) no agree draw in 30 [despite having just agreed to a draw on 28 in a 'dead position' for computer chess, symmetrical R and N apiece
] ; exception of course repetition or perpetual.+ highest number of wins tb,
i think highest number of moves tb discriminates against players who want to play a wide open attacking game. plus it is possible to artificially increase move length by playing into closed positions. 3/1/0 i think is too weighted, a win already changes place standing very significantly.
> + highest number of wins tb: i think highest number of moves tb discriminates against players who want to play a wide open attacking game. plus it is possible to artificially increase move length by playing into closed positions. 3/1/0 i think is too weighted, a win already changes place standing very significantly.
The highest number of moves tie breaker only counts in drawn games, so players who agree draws in 11 moves are heavily punished. Games that are won or lost would not contribute to the tie break criteria and so the style of game that was won/lost is irrelevant.
![[ar]](/mwf/v12/flags/ar.png "Argentina")
A question:
The WBCCC use FIDE rules?
The WBCCC use FIDE rules?
> A question: The WBCCC use FIDE rules?
In almost all occasions, except where there is a clear conflict, as in in otb tournaments, engine play is not allowed
I Understand. Engine is not allowed.
Other different rule?
Other different rule?
![[mx]](/mwf/v12/flags/mx.png "Mexico")
Players can claim a result when reaching 6men endgame. This does not happen in OTB chess.
It has been shown that no-draw-agreements effect the draw rate very little.
If you do wish to add a little more fight it must be left off of the table.
A 1.5/0.5/0 scoring system would be nice.
If you do wish to add a little more fight it must be left off of the table.
A 1.5/0.5/0 scoring system would be nice.
> It has been shown that no-draw-agreements effect the draw rate very little. If you do wish to add a little more fight it must be left off of the table.
This is one of the issues I hate with these discussions, people not understanding the difference between short draws and draws in general and they lump all short draw discussions in with draws in general. There is nothing wrong with a 60 move game that ends in a draw. The players tried their best, played a full game and the result was a draw.
Short draws are the main issue where players finish the game before they have even left main theory, which is even more relevant here in WBCCC.
So while the draw rate may not have changed much with no draw rules, the short draw rate certainly has.
> A 1.5/0.5/0 scoring system would be nice.
That is exactly the same as 3/1/0. So you are in favour of 3/1/0.
The main question is- do you want games finishing in 11 moves or not? The more I do think about it, the more I think that getting rid of the draw agreement provision is easiest one to implement.
I think that whether there has been an unreasonable game (draw), which could be shown as bad chess tourney etiquette, should be left to the arbiter's decision.
I would not say this for chess in general, but I am in favor for an all-around decent game.
I would not say this for chess in general, but I am in favor for an all-around decent game.
While I'm not in the tournament, another idea that I don't yet see here (unless I scanned too quickly) is that players can agree to a draw anytime they want, but that draws of any sort before move 30 must have the players play a new game (at faster time control--perhaps half per side) from scratch with the same colors. The result of the second game counts as long as it is either not a draw or it lasts longer than 20 moves. This will make the players carefully consider not only before playing agreed early draws, but before playing lines that they know force a draw.
I like this, but only in the case of agreed draws under 30 moves. A draw is a normal result... 10 move games are not.
![[es]](/mwf/v12/flags/es.png "Spain")
Agree.
Drawing a game cannot be punished at all, especially since it is he normal result with perfect play. Many many times one game is better when it is draw rather than it is won due to blunders.
Just punish the fact of drawing the game under 25 moves. This is logical
Drawing a game cannot be punished at all, especially since it is he normal result with perfect play. Many many times one game is better when it is draw rather than it is won due to blunders.
Just punish the fact of drawing the game under 25 moves. This is logical
![[gb]](/mwf/v12/flags/gb.png "United Kingdom")
Fully agree with you. I don't believe my game with Matt was a bad draw we could have played on for another 20 odd moves, unless someone blunders game is drawn.
Yes, not only that, but also drawing is only one possible result out of three. I see nothing wrong aiming for a draw when you play black pieces. We all want to win, but first you must secure the draw, then go for more. Black is always playing!
Checks and check mates are not similar to goals in football.
Checks and check mates are not similar to goals in football.
This is very true.
> Just punish the fact of drawing the game under 25 moves. This is logical
Yes, that seems simple, and to the point. Agreed, for 2013 going forward.
just add the client the possibilitie to check if the draw offer is sent before the,lets say,move 30,and if the actual move is the move 19,dont allow the user to send the draw offer
in the practice,that is forcing players to play until at least 30 moves
of course,if a player claims a 3 repetition,the arbiter can adjudicate the game
in the practice,that is forcing players to play until at least 30 moves
of course,if a player claims a 3 repetition,the arbiter can adjudicate the game
![[de]](/mwf/v12/flags/de.png "Germany")
Hello Garvin,
I like option 3) with the 3/1/0 scoring system very much, it will force players to take more risk, if they don't want to end up in the middle or bottom
of the scoretable.
If option 2 happens to be taken into serious consideration then I see this not as a very positive rule, because it indicates players are not reasonable enough, to know
when a game is a draw.
Of course I do agree....friendly draws or so called GM-draws at move 11 or 12 should be somehow punished....that's why the 3/1/0....
only issue being that those players that really played a 50 move draw with fair means of play, will also be punished, though I still think the 3/1/0 will add some
spice to this kind of format.
Cheers,
Sebi
I like option 3) with the 3/1/0 scoring system very much, it will force players to take more risk, if they don't want to end up in the middle or bottom
of the scoretable.
If option 2 happens to be taken into serious consideration then I see this not as a very positive rule, because it indicates players are not reasonable enough, to know
when a game is a draw.
Of course I do agree....friendly draws or so called GM-draws at move 11 or 12 should be somehow punished....that's why the 3/1/0....
only issue being that those players that really played a 50 move draw with fair means of play, will also be punished, though I still think the 3/1/0 will add some
spice to this kind of format.
Cheers,
Sebi
I am strongly against any other score system different of official Chess rules.
Scoring victorys 2x++ more draws, does not match real advanced Chess where most openings are heavily analyzed. It also would decrease openings variations. Also, being paired with weak opponents would decide the tournament, as it would already happened in this tour in such a case.
There are 90% openings are Ok for corr play, but with such score system situation would dramatically change
Scoring victorys 2x++ more draws, does not match real advanced Chess where most openings are heavily analyzed. It also would decrease openings variations. Also, being paired with weak opponents would decide the tournament, as it would already happened in this tour in such a case.
There are 90% openings are Ok for corr play, but with such score system situation would dramatically change
![[fi]](/mwf/v12/flags/fi.png "Finland")
> I am strongly against any other score system different of official Chess rules.
I'd be okay with it as long as the game is not called "chess". WBCFC: World Blitz Correspondence Football Championship.
> I'd be okay with it as long as the game is not called "chess".
And would you join for next season if this was the case?
So if I understand the feedback so far, removing the draw offer option is favoured, is that correct?
I am not sure, it is part of the game. Probably the best would be to enable the option after X moves.
In any case one cannot avoid that, just an example, players have agreed draw by repetition before X limit, so they can focus on other games. To be honest, of course it is against chess etiquette, but chess is about strategy, not only in the game but also in the whole tournament...
In any case one cannot avoid that, just an example, players have agreed draw by repetition before X limit, so they can focus on other games. To be honest, of course it is against chess etiquette, but chess is about strategy, not only in the game but also in the whole tournament...
How do conditionals work? Can you make a long conditional and can your opponent accept part of it? Would the following be allowed:
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 conditional (2... Nc6 3. Ng1 Nb8 4. Nf3 Nc6 5. Ng1 Nb8 6. Nf3 Nc6 7.
Ng1 Nb8 8. Nf3 Nc6 9. Ng1 Nb8 10. Nf3 Nc6 11. Ng1 Nb8 12. Nf3 Nc6 13. Ng1 Nb8
14. Nf3 Nc6 15. Ng1 Nb8 16. Nf3 Nc6 17. Ng1 Nb8 18. Nf3 Nc6 19. Ng1 Nb8 20.
Nf3 Nc6 21. Ng1 Nb8 22. Nf3 Nc6 23. Ng1 Nb8 24. Nf3 Nc6 25. Ng1 Nb8 26. Nf3 d6)
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 conditional (2... Nc6 3. Ng1 Nb8 4. Nf3 Nc6 5. Ng1 Nb8 6. Nf3 Nc6 7.
Ng1 Nb8 8. Nf3 Nc6 9. Ng1 Nb8 10. Nf3 Nc6 11. Ng1 Nb8 12. Nf3 Nc6 13. Ng1 Nb8
14. Nf3 Nc6 15. Ng1 Nb8 16. Nf3 Nc6 17. Ng1 Nb8 18. Nf3 Nc6 19. Ng1 Nb8 20.
Nf3 Nc6 21. Ng1 Nb8 22. Nf3 Nc6 23. Ng1 Nb8 24. Nf3 Nc6 25. Ng1 Nb8 26. Nf3 d6)
![[sa]](/mwf/v12/flags/sa.png "Saudi Arabia")
I propose the following scoring system:
1 - Win
0 - Loss
0.6 - Draw(Moves beyond 30)
0.4 - Draw (Moves less30)
This will give a compensation for people fighting it out.
1 - Win
0 - Loss
0.6 - Draw(Moves beyond 30)
0.4 - Draw (Moves less30)
This will give a compensation for people fighting it out.
> I propose the following scoring system:
>
> 1 - Win
> 0 - Loss
> 0.6 - Draw(Moves beyond 30)
> 0.4 - Draw (Moves less30)
I like this. I also like Scott's proposal below:
>white win=0.9, black win=1.1, white draw=0.4, black draw=0.6
We could also go with that if the game is decided before 40 moves, but if the game is decided on draw at move 41 or later, white gets the "full" 0.50 on a draw (and black decreased to 0.50). This would force white to play until late game for the extra 0.1 (and 0.1 subtracted from opponent's score). This is an organic solution instead of artificial "you can't send draw offer before move X, why? because the server disables the option."
I don't have any problem with games decided on draw in 11 moves, as if that's what both players want, that's the expected result, so they shouldn't be banned, they should be discouraged and punished, but only for the white side, whatever we decide, it shouldn't be something that punished Black, drawing as black is a perfectly acceptable strategy and it's great if black achieves it under 20 moves. If white commits a blunder and the players reach a double edged position with black in a slight advantage, black should be allowed to be happy with a draw, black shouldn't be forced to continue a game it played better (from disadvantage to equality and advantage) if he's happy with a draw (suppose draw is enough to win tournament, why is the player forced to risk the victory he already has?)
Also, a reason I don't like artificial solutions is that they allow artificial workarounds. Suppose that for WBCCC 2012, to avoid draws before move 40, you just add a rule that forbids three-fold-repetition before move 40 and draw requests, then, this could have been the natmaku-keoki010 game:
1. c4 e6 2. Nc3 d5 3. d4 Nf6 4. Bg5 Be7 5. cxd5 exd5 6. Qc2 O-O 7. e3 h6 8. Bh4 Be6 9. Bd3 c5 10. Nge2 Nc6 11. a3 Qb8 12. Rb1 Qc8 13. Rc1 Qd8 14. Rd1 Qe8 15. Ra1 Bh3 16. Rb1 Bg4 17. Rc1 Bf5 18. Rd1 Be6 19. Ra1 Bd7 20. Rb1 Bc8 21. Rc1 Nb4 22. Nb5 Nc6 23. Nc7 Nb4 24. Ne6 Nc6 25. N6f4 Nb4 26. Nh3 Nc6 27. Nhg1 Nb4 28. Nf3 Nc6 29. Ne5 Nb4 30. Nc4 Nc6 31. Na5 Nb4 32. Nb3 Nc6 33. Ba6 Nb4 34. Qg6 Nc6 35. Qf5 Nb4 36. Qe4 Nc6 37. Qd3 Nb4 38. Qc2 Nc6 39. Qb1 Nb4 40. Qc2 Qd8 41. Qd1 {Draw agreed.}
So, players decide at move 11 that the game is drawn, and just shuffle their pieces (avoiding captures and 3-fold-repetition) until they are into the allowed draw zone.
I don't see how that's an improvement and you can't force white to play for a win. You can't also put rules against shuffling pieces or punishing opponent's blunders, at some point it's no longer chess.
I also like turbojuice's solution but in that too, the players could complete the game with artificial moves.
We can also award black more points due to white is expected to win having the advantage of first move. This will give opportunity for even more exciting chess.
This is an idea to explore.
EDIT: It seems the idea is same with Scott's
> 1 - Win
> 0 - Loss
> 0.6 - Draw as Black
> 0.4 - Draw as White
This is an idea to explore.
EDIT: It seems the idea is same with Scott's
> We can also award black more points due to white is expected to win having the advantage of first move.
The advantage may fade away depending on how the game continues, at some point white has lost its advantage and from that point it's not expected to win (not that it IS expected to win if the game is drawn with perfect play), that's why I suggest going back to 0.5-0.5 later in the game (say, move 40, black is only awarded if it reaches draw before that point.)
Also, the 0.4-0.6 suggestion may decrease draws in general but may not decrease early draw occurrences, the idea of going 0.5-0.5 later in the game is to organically force white to lengthen the game to get the extra 0.1, while black can't collude to lengthen the game because for black it's convenient to reach a draw ASAP.
> So if I understand the feedback so far, removing the draw offer option is favored, is that correct?
Definitely not! Keep the scoring system as 1.0/0.5/0.0 and only allow draw offer after x moves.
I'll say this only this time. My agreeing to a draw was never meant to be a slap in the face to anyone. It was simply strategy. I carried out my analysis to where I could see that the game would be over 50% chances to be a draw and only a small chance for a win. I choose to agree to the draw. Well within the current rules. No discussions went on between me and my opponent. He offered I accepted. End of Story!
If the players would like to make a rule that says no draw offers until; let's say 30 moves; I would agree. I will not agree to changing the point system or anything else!
> If the players would like to make a rule that says no draw offers until; let's say 30 moves; I would agree. I will not agree to changing the point system or anything else!
+1
+2
+3
First, not meaning any of the WBCCC's. I would like to play someday a tournament where draws are discouraged by the point system. Something like white win=0.9, black win=1.1, white draw=0.4, black draw=0.6. When Jimmy was first talking about these tours last year he said something about this which perked my interest. But nothing was ever brought up about it. I think the final crosstables would be very interesting!
Maybe, but! If you had a; "say 30 moves before you could offer a draw"; nothing else changed, wouldn't that do exactly what you are suggesting? Draw's due to 3x rep's, etc., would still be honored.
> First, not meaning any of the WBCCC's. I would like to play someday a tournament where draws are discouraged by the point system. Something like white win=0.9, black win=1.1, white draw=0.4, black draw=0.6.
This doesn't discourage draws, it discourages losing with black and encourages losing with white (if such a thing is possible
). The difference between a win and a draw is still 0.5 points.
I will not be entertaining any scoring systems that are not either 1/0.5/0 or 3/1/0. They just do not work and do create a different scoring system for white and black.
The issue with no draw before move x is where to set that number, and as I said in my original post, it creates an artificial barrier, same position, two moves apart, one move offering a draw is illegal, two moves later it is perfectly legal. That seems silly to me and is more about satisfying a number quota than a position situation.
Regarding fide rules on this issue:
So as you can see, having a no draw offers at all rule is perfectly acceptable from the laws of chess. Some high profile tournaments have this rule in place. Having a rule where it requires the consent of the arbiter places the arbiter is an awful position. A not uncommon experience with this rule is that arbiters will want to avoid arguments and so will agree to any draw offer request, or the more high profile the player, the more likely the arbiter is to agree to a draw offer request to avoid an argument that could see them removed from contention for other high profile events.
Draw offer rules where it requires my permission with not be used here. So it is either no draws before move x, or no draws at all.
Feel free to keep discussing, we do have six months
The issue with no draw before move x is where to set that number, and as I said in my original post, it creates an artificial barrier, same position, two moves apart, one move offering a draw is illegal, two moves later it is perfectly legal. That seems silly to me and is more about satisfying a number quota than a position situation.
Regarding fide rules on this issue:
9.1 a. The rules of a competition may specify that players cannot agree to a draw, whether in less than a specified number of moves or at all, without the consent of the arbiter.
b. If the rules of a competition allow a draw agreement the following apply:
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.
The offer of a draw shall be noted by each player on his scoresheet with a symbol. (See Appendix C.13)
A claim of a draw under Article 9.2, 9.3 or 10.2 shall be considered to be an offer of a draw.So as you can see, having a no draw offers at all rule is perfectly acceptable from the laws of chess. Some high profile tournaments have this rule in place. Having a rule where it requires the consent of the arbiter places the arbiter is an awful position. A not uncommon experience with this rule is that arbiters will want to avoid arguments and so will agree to any draw offer request, or the more high profile the player, the more likely the arbiter is to agree to a draw offer request to avoid an argument that could see them removed from contention for other high profile events.
Draw offer rules where it requires my permission with not be used here. So it is either no draws before move x, or no draws at all.
Feel free to keep discussing, we do have six months
> Having a rule where it requires the consent of the arbiter places the arbiter is an awful position. A not uncommon experience with this rule is that arbiters will want to avoid arguments and so will agree to any draw offer request, or the more high profile the player, the more likely the arbiter is to agree to a draw offer request to avoid an argument that could see them removed from contention for other high profile events.
Agree. The arbiter should not be put into the position in which he may influence the result or course of a game or of the tournament.
> Draw offer rules where it requires my permission with not be used here. So it is either no draws before move x, or no draws at all.
No draw offers before move 20 or 25 to me would be reasonable.
> No draw offers before move 20 or 25 to me would be reasonable.
Again, please explain how is this version of natmaku-keoki game better than what we had:
1. c4 e6 2. Nc3 d5 3. d4 Nf6 4. Bg5 Be7 5. cxd5 exd5 6. Qc2 O-O 7. e3 h6 8. Bh4 Be6 9. Bd3 c5 10. Nge2 Nc6 11. a3 Qb8 12. Rb1 Qc8 13. Rc1 Qd8 14. Rd1 Qe8 15. Ra1 Bh3 16. Rb1 Bg4 17. Rc1 Bf5 18. Rd1 Be6 19. Ra1 Bd7 20. Rb1 Bc8 21. Rc1 Nb4 22. Nb5 Nc6 23. Nc7 Nb4 24. Ne6 Nc6 25. N6f4 Nb4 {Draw agreed.}
If you don't allow explicit draw agreements players can just go into three-fold repetition or play shuffle moves until the condition is fulfilled. You are not solving anything.
I guess I'll support the 3-1-0 system, but then, I'll hate when a player disappears early in the game losing on time, and the other player is awarded 3 points randomly. Or when a weak player just throws away a game and the other is awarded the same as another that had to fight hard for 3 draws. It doesn't seem fair, not all wins are equal. And again, we're punishing black for drawing for no reason...
In one case you have a full game of chess, the other is incomplete. If players fix draws, well, then it will be obvious to everybody and the games will not add to the general quality of chess to the tournament. I think it is very little to ask of players to expect to play at least 20 moves and do not understand how playing chess would inconvenience a chess player if to play chess is the idea of the game. I do not think I will pursue this matter further.
I don't like anything about that rule. I want to offer or accept a draw anytime during the game. I think that rule was made for the spectators who felt cheated after coming a long way and paying money to see the GM's play, and then they agree to a short draw. I could understand it under those circumstances.
We don't have spectators, well in a way we do, but that is a different ballgame. Also, we are not FIDE sanctioned, and we are not pro's. This is supposed to be a fun event.
We don't have spectators, well in a way we do, but that is a different ballgame. Also, we are not FIDE sanctioned, and we are not pro's. This is supposed to be a fun event.
I'm with you Scott!
Nice one Scott. Very true.
>This is supposed to be a fun event.
if is supossed to be a fun even.why we must have games that end in 11 moves without any fighting?
if we play for fun,why so boring games,and the waste of time of the arbiter and the deception for the other players?
>We don't have spectators
we ALL are spectators and judges
I don't like the three point rule at all, since draws in themselves are not a problem - it is rather unfought draws.
In my view, a rule which forbids draw offers before move x is better than no rule. These strange kinds of games Uly talks about below will rarely happen, because it takes a lot more for two players to arrange such a nonsense game than just for one to offer a draw which the other accepts.
Even better, I think, is to have Sofia rules in place. It is of course up to you and the players to decide whether you want to adopt such a rule, but if you do, I would be willing to adjudicate the positions when a player (or both) claim(s) a draw.
In my view, a rule which forbids draw offers before move x is better than no rule. These strange kinds of games Uly talks about below will rarely happen, because it takes a lot more for two players to arrange such a nonsense game than just for one to offer a draw which the other accepts.
Even better, I think, is to have Sofia rules in place. It is of course up to you and the players to decide whether you want to adopt such a rule, but if you do, I would be willing to adjudicate the positions when a player (or both) claim(s) a draw.
Yes, I was just posting worst case scenarios.
But really, some imposed restrictions can be passed over by following the rules of chess, and even made fun of. If you can't enforce a rule (like no early draw offers) because players can just act as if the rule didn't exist (by shuffling their pieces around), the rule is doing nothing useful.
A thing I dislike is that a single player "abuses" the draw offer feature and ALL the others have to suffer by some restriction. What about only applying the rule to previous offenders instead of everyone? Like, if you had a short 11 moves draw (as white) then you can't offer draw for the rest of the tournament?
But really, some imposed restrictions can be passed over by following the rules of chess, and even made fun of. If you can't enforce a rule (like no early draw offers) because players can just act as if the rule didn't exist (by shuffling their pieces around), the rule is doing nothing useful.
A thing I dislike is that a single player "abuses" the draw offer feature and ALL the others have to suffer by some restriction. What about only applying the rule to previous offenders instead of everyone? Like, if you had a short 11 moves draw (as white) then you can't offer draw for the rest of the tournament?
Of course it is possible that players will start 'shuffling around pieces', but this is much more difficult to do than just to offer a draw and thus will not happen that often. Take the game which caused this discussion: If one player would have started doing 'nothing', he would very soon have been worse. For both players to do this, it would have taken some kind of collusion, which is not trivial to achieve. It is very simple to offer a draw, but quite risky to send a PM to the opponent stating 'let's just shuffle around pieces' (to my understanding, this would be a rule violation).
So the idea of Sofia rules is not to make unfought draws impossible - there is most likely no way to do this - but to make them more difficult and thus rarer.
I don't understand what you mean by suffering. If playing chess means suffering to someone, I guess (s)he shouldn't play. If the position is clearly drawn and playing on would thus be pointless, then you can call the arbiter.
I don't know any other game where you can just agree to a draw in the middle of the fight. At least in cases where you have arbiters around, I see absolutely no reason why one should be allowed to offer a draw.
So the idea of Sofia rules is not to make unfought draws impossible - there is most likely no way to do this - but to make them more difficult and thus rarer.
I don't understand what you mean by suffering. If playing chess means suffering to someone, I guess (s)he shouldn't play. If the position is clearly drawn and playing on would thus be pointless, then you can call the arbiter.
I don't know any other game where you can just agree to a draw in the middle of the fight. At least in cases where you have arbiters around, I see absolutely no reason why one should be allowed to offer a draw.
I guess this is a problem of freedom. If both players want a draw, and are happy with a draw, they should be allowed to have it. And having it in move 11 or move 40 doesn't make much of a difference, if we get 29 more moves of players that are being forced to play on.
If chess is a draw with perfect play, and some player has achieved perfection and is happy to draw all his games in the tournament, why would we punish him? After all, playing solid moves and reaching draw in 11 moves seems better to me than "taking unnecessary risks" and giving away the games. We aren't taking any actions about the latter, we just assume losing players did their best and lost anyway.
Anyway, I just googled about it and found this message by Ch3ck2Ch3ck:
'I think the Sofia Rules is not an effective way to encourage players to play more decisive, exciting chess nor do I think this is good for the pureness of the game as a whole. If the game is to progress and evolve than all aspects of the game have to be nurtured, not just one aspect of it. It it futile to try and pressure players to adhere into a one dimensional mode of playing just for the sake of "excitement". The players that want to draw will do so anyway and those that don't won't, with or without the rules in place.
The only thing the rules do succeed in preventing are short GM draws. However human beings are not tireless machines and fatigue plays a big part in a players performance. Deciding which games to draw and which ones to play more decisively are part of both tournament and match strategy. Taking this out of the players hands so to speak deprives them of an important aspect of planning and strategizing on this scale. This in turn also has the effect of wearing players out by the end of the tournament or match thus degrading the quality of the games. I much rather see players performing at their optimal or near optimal peak than at some degraded lacklustre level at the end of an event when winning or losing may have a profound impact on the standings.
And let's not kid ourselves, the real purpose of preventing short draws under the guise of "creating more exciting chess" is greed. To be able to market chess more effectively and thus make more money for the promoters and organizers is the underlying intent. That is the real purpose of the Sofia Rules, not for improvement the game.'
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/the-sofia-rules
Some parts don't apply but I agree in principle with him, what do you think about it?
If chess is a draw with perfect play, and some player has achieved perfection and is happy to draw all his games in the tournament, why would we punish him? After all, playing solid moves and reaching draw in 11 moves seems better to me than "taking unnecessary risks" and giving away the games. We aren't taking any actions about the latter, we just assume losing players did their best and lost anyway.
Anyway, I just googled about it and found this message by Ch3ck2Ch3ck:
'I think the Sofia Rules is not an effective way to encourage players to play more decisive, exciting chess nor do I think this is good for the pureness of the game as a whole. If the game is to progress and evolve than all aspects of the game have to be nurtured, not just one aspect of it. It it futile to try and pressure players to adhere into a one dimensional mode of playing just for the sake of "excitement". The players that want to draw will do so anyway and those that don't won't, with or without the rules in place.
The only thing the rules do succeed in preventing are short GM draws. However human beings are not tireless machines and fatigue plays a big part in a players performance. Deciding which games to draw and which ones to play more decisively are part of both tournament and match strategy. Taking this out of the players hands so to speak deprives them of an important aspect of planning and strategizing on this scale. This in turn also has the effect of wearing players out by the end of the tournament or match thus degrading the quality of the games. I much rather see players performing at their optimal or near optimal peak than at some degraded lacklustre level at the end of an event when winning or losing may have a profound impact on the standings.
And let's not kid ourselves, the real purpose of preventing short draws under the guise of "creating more exciting chess" is greed. To be able to market chess more effectively and thus make more money for the promoters and organizers is the underlying intent. That is the real purpose of the Sofia Rules, not for improvement the game.'
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/the-sofia-rules
Some parts don't apply but I agree in principle with him, what do you think about it?
What about football? If two teams have played for 20 minutes and the score is 0-0, shouldn't they also have the freedom to declare the game a draw?
Human football players are not tireless machines and fatigue plays a big part in a team's performance. Deciding which games to draw and which ones to play more decisively are part of both tournament and campaign strategy. Taking this out of the players hands so to speak deprives them of an important aspect of planning and strategizing on this scale. This in turn also has the effect of wearing players out by the end of the tournament or campaign thus degrading the quality of the games. I much rather see players performing at their optimal or near optimal peak than at some degraded lacklustre level at the end of an event when winning or losing may have a profound impact on the standings.
Just to add the following: The players may often perform at their peak level towards the end of a tournament, but I am sure you are aware that short draws are even more frequent in the last few rounds.
And greed? Well, if you want to put it that way. Have you ever been a spectator at a chess match? It is not so funny to pay entry fee and look forward to an exciting game, just to see the players make a draw after 20 moves in a position which is full of life. No wonder this deters potential sponsors.
By the way, I think the Sofia rules also have a number of advantages for the players themselves.
Human football players are not tireless machines and fatigue plays a big part in a team's performance. Deciding which games to draw and which ones to play more decisively are part of both tournament and campaign strategy. Taking this out of the players hands so to speak deprives them of an important aspect of planning and strategizing on this scale. This in turn also has the effect of wearing players out by the end of the tournament or campaign thus degrading the quality of the games. I much rather see players performing at their optimal or near optimal peak than at some degraded lacklustre level at the end of an event when winning or losing may have a profound impact on the standings.
Just to add the following: The players may often perform at their peak level towards the end of a tournament, but I am sure you are aware that short draws are even more frequent in the last few rounds.
And greed? Well, if you want to put it that way. Have you ever been a spectator at a chess match? It is not so funny to pay entry fee and look forward to an exciting game, just to see the players make a draw after 20 moves in a position which is full of life. No wonder this deters potential sponsors.
By the way, I think the Sofia rules also have a number of advantages for the players themselves.
> What about football?
What about the WBCCC? Because, unless you are claiming soccer players play two matches simultaneously, your analogy doesn't work.
And yes, if in the soccer world cup, two teams have secured that they have advanced to Playoffs unless they lose, they're probably going to waste time playing a dull game for 90 minutes, in where both sides make sure that they don't lose the game and don't take risks. Allowing them to only have to play 20 minutes would be an improvement.
Heck, in 2006 Italy won the soccer world cup, by playing some really dull and defensive football, having to play aggressively isn't in the rules of any game, otherwise we could just make a Crazyhouse variant tournament in where the excitement of the good games wouldn't allow us to even notice these 11 move draws.
I also think it may be a storm in a teacup case, 1 game ends in draw in 11 moves, and people panic and think a change is needed. Maybe it isn't and more can be broken than fixed.
>It is not so funny to pay entry fee and look forward to an exciting game, just to see the players make a draw after 20 moves in a position which is full of life
But again, WBCCC doesn't charge an entry fee neither to players or spectators. Please, let's keep it related to WBCCC or we're going to end talking about how baseball would be better if the ball was tied...
I think the WBCCC should remain a tournament for the players and I think it has worked so far, let's not ruin it for going into something experimental.
>By the way, I think the Sofia rules also have a number of advantages for the players themselves.
In this scenario:
Both players know the game will end in draw. They don't see how to force three-fold repetition. They think they'll have to play up to 50move rule. Arbiter doesn't think it's a "theoretical draw".
I don't see what you're improving, it's just forcing the players to do something they don't want to do, while they could use that time and effort in the other simultaneous game. Strictness decreases the fun, and in the WBCCC players get together to have a good time, including players wanting their 11 moves draws.
Players should be able to agree to a draw and call it a day. Specially if both of them played a drawish opening to achieve that result. I support deterrents and punishments, but not outright banning [of draw offers].
1
2
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill