Linares 2007 r7

Are Svidler and Leko even trying?

Can someone explain proper etiquette for offering draws. Please include an explanation of why Magnus should have offered the draw or how this is suppose to take place.

I think many people were finding the ending kind of strange today.

I say they should change it from the Linares 'Chess' tournament to the Linares 'Tennis' tournament. At least that way the players could not draw!

It sucks that the games ended inconclusively, however the two I watched went pretty far out of theory and produced a lot of exciting ideas.

The problem is not to ban draw offer: it would be useless: ban all the draw possibilities like in go games and the problem would be solved :)

If it 's not possible to ban draw from chess then: you must do with, even if you are angry sometimes

Who would even have imagine that the players would burn their forces in games a few days before a trip to linares from mexico???

It is a total nonsense! They wouldn't have the time needed to recover efficiently from time lag for the rest of the tournament!

Ban the rest day! That is something useless!

Wow, I was amazed to see how much fighting chess emerged after the rest day !

I believe its long over due that the draw offer be banned from chess. What other spot or competition can you think where the participants can just decide not to play ? I think the players should be ashamed of themselves for this display and I think no one should ask themselves why tournaments are drying up either. The players only have themselves to blame.

I do not know why Linares does not have any anti-draw rules whatsoever. Are they stuck in a time warp ?

Re: Peter Leko

He is going to try and set a record and draw all his games ? Why does this guy keep getting tournament invites ? Is it because he is clean cut and always wears a suit or maybe it is his hot wife ?

Whatever the reason is, it is certainly nothing to do with his chess.

Hm, maybe it is because Leko is rated 2750 and is one of the 6 highest rated players in the world? Or maybe it is because he is only rated 34 points behind the #1 rated player in the world? Or maybe it is the fact that he won more tournaments than anyone else his age, and those tournaments include category 20 tournaments? Or maybe it is the fact he was able to draw Kramnik in a match, which is more than can be said about Kasparov and Topalov?

What Russianbear said.

Also, why was Anand-Ivanchuk less interesting just because it ended up 1/2-1/2 rather than with Ivanchuk blundering in time trouble and losing? It was an interesting game and you can hardly blame them for the draw - it was a dead draw.

I may be alone, but I like the draw offer. I don't think that two highest-level participants who think the position will be drawn should have to risk ELO points on random blunders and play it out until the fools like us know it's a draw.

Maybe I'd feel differently if I was a sponsor, but I'm not.

And neither are you guys.

I agree that organizers should reduce the number of "rest days". It is silly to give the players a rest day after every 2-3 games. It seems that once the players are rested up, their extra energy I'd channeled into a fear of losing. This leads to cautious, softly fought, games. It would be interesting to analyze the statistical evidence, and determine if there is any correlation between rest days, and the number of decisive games in the subsequent rounds. Maybe players ought to be allowed to make quick draws, but only if they put on an ad hoc simultaneous exhibitions to fill out the balance of the 7 hours allotted for a playing session!

I agree with dcax. It is not hard to change the rules very very slightly to get rid of a lot of draws.

The easy way is to simply allow the king to move into check and lose. Thus all the stalemates disappear and become decisive games.

I see nothing wrong with that simple change.

But everyone seems to feel it will be the death end of chess if that tiny simple change were made.

For no draw by repetition. The arbitor comes along and flips a coin. One player is told to deviate. He can play back and forth to decide when he wants to deviate but he has to deviate.

The game approaches K vs K then the last one to have any material becomes winner.

other ideas can be discussed to take the game completely to no draws. It all depends on how serious one wants to be.

Draws are the death of the game. The game can not survive in this fast paced world with draws. If you want the game to be real popular so there is lots of money for professionals then you must get rid of all the draws. And it does not matter how you do it. Both players play under the same rules so they will be fair.

Do Not blame the players for draws. The blame belongs with the RULES. It makes no sense to set up a game with rules and then ask the players to not play by the rules. You have draws then the players will use draws. It is really very simple.

Imagine this scenario. You have paid big bucks to go watch the heavyweight championship of the world in boxing. Lets say you have ringside seats. After 2 rounds the fight is about even when each boxer decides they have had enough and don't need to go the 15 because they are so evenly matched. Sorry folks we aren't going to be fighting today, we apologize for all those who bought tickets but we are just not in the mood for 15 rounds.

Maybe they cover the tennis matches ? Certainly they are more exciting then what we say today.

GMC is incorrect. There was still play in the position Anand - Ivanchuk. Certainly Anand would risk nothing by playing on in Chucky's time trouble.

If he really cared about winning the tournament then he would have kept playing. But he's getting older and his play is getting ever more cautious to the point of dullness. Certainly he doesn't need the money so where is the incentive. I think that is always been Anand's problem. No killer instinct. That's why he stood no chance against kasparov and he will never be WC which is a shame because I think he has more "Natural Talent" Then any of them.

While banning the premature draw offers (using Sofia rules or something similar) is a good way to make games more interesting, altering the rules of the game as suggested by dcax and Frank will simply eliminate chess as we know it. It will be a completely different game, and not necessarily a very interesting one at that.

Also, as mentioned before in other threads, those who think that eliminating draws will result in a big money influx into chess are either misinformed or are fooling themselves.

Leko neutralized against Carlsen in about 20 moves and some people wonder why he is invited?

But sure, nice attitude the peasants have, here. We are the audience, we like chess, but if you don't play the kind of games we want to see, there's gonna be hell to pay.

Botvinnik was absolutely right when he condemned blitz chess and popularization of the game...he knew what was going to happen. The more popular anything becomes, the more base it also turns.

i enjoyed the games, for what it's worth. And i think Carlsen should be more than a bit shaken for what happened with Leko...Leko was in total charge.

Cyric, it's quite an interesting observation that you make. Could you please tell me how much you paid for a ticket to see only these 4 chess games and nothing else? If it is a serious amount of money, I fully agree that the players owe you an apology.

I understand that everybody is disappointed; I myself would have prefered to see longer games as well. But to be honest, I have my bad days at work as well, just like most humans. That is no problem for my boss, because he only looks at the big picture. Shouldn't we do that with the tournament as well? All the rounds together have been pretty interesting until now. I remember somebody said "Zowie, what a wild tournament this is turning out to be." only yesterday. Did everything change in a single day?

Kehaar:

Carlsen-Topalov was the same game with Carlsen-Leko, so it was theory. Topalov on the 16th move instead of repeating, he continued...

If holding Carlsen this way is sufficient to get an invitation to top tournaments, then any player being able to remember 16 moves of theory (that appeared the previous day!!) should be invited...

Ofcourse, I understand why Leko is invited (Russianbear covered the issue:)) But if organisers do care, they should encorage agressiveness by inviting easier (within some limits) a player if his playing style is more agressive.

Anand, like Leko, isn't terribly interested at this point in playing drawn positions on in case his opponent suddenly does an impression of an American chess player.

At one point this might have been thought of as sportsmanship, but now the peanut gallery wants binary results regardless of what the game looks like - witness the hoopla over Carlsen's amateurish loss to Anand, but the silence about the very interesting game between Morozevich and Aronian the same round - I'm no more a fan of 16 move draws than the next man, but I'd rather that than Anand and Ivanchuk playing out their game and Ivanchuk losing to a time trouble blunder in a dead drawn position.

Not sure if these complaints about three short draws and one correct, balanced game are appropriate here. Both the players and journos agree that we've seen high-level games so far, with almost no exception, which is remarkable. Can you really blame a player taking it easy in this phase of the tournament? Not sure. Which doesn't mean I'm against investigating a change of the draw offer rule, by the way.

P.S. Don't want to be spammer but this time I'm too proud not to mention it. For all the bored people: check Manuel Weeks's big (photo) report on Aeroflot. Lots of good fighting games ;-)
http://www.chessvibes.com/?p=601&lp_lang_view=en

Could anyone explain the Grand Slam concept
to me? This seemed like such a promising
concept but it's never mentioned in the
news anymore and how does it work anyway?

Draws are fine, they happen, just don't count them in the scoring. A drawn game must be made up. Very simple.

They tried that 120 years ago (replaying drawn games) and it led to very prolonged tournaments with exhausted players. Not the solution, sorry.

The solution is so simple, just use the Sofia rules. No draw offers during the game. How simple is that? Highly effective, too.

Just a thing to say:

I am not for the ban of draws like we have in chess rules!

I have just said that it is useless to ban only draw offers! it is always possible to make draw by 3 times: there are a lot of opening that offer this possibility, so: ban only draw offer like sofia's rule is stupid!
the players can always bypass this ban by playing a known drawing line ...

Ban 3 times draws, is stupid also... for the same reason...

Ban short draws: there are a lot of longer lines that end in a draw... what do you want? player that act franckly to a draw, or hypocrits?

Players are what they are... even the super great fighter topalov made a lot of boring draws, continuing drawn positions to an end with leko, resigning a drawn position against carlsen etc... LOL

So: if you just want to see players playing more moves hypocritically just to draw after the limit fixed, then ban draw offer...

But the problem would still remain!

I am for the actuals rules! let's draw offers, 3 fold draw and so and so!

Players said they are tired in the middle of a tournament, so they make short draws... but... give them more rest days..; they find another to have more rest days...

In lasker's days, in Fisher's day: tournaments were longer and rest days were very rare guests...

You can't force someone to do something he doesn't really want to do (except with a gun in his head... ) ;oX

In the past the top level chess was different. Today you must play much more precise moves and calculate thoroughly every move, not mentioning you must remember exact variations from computer assisted analysis, and amount of theory (both openings and endgame rise dramatically anually).
25 years ago you could play driven by general positional understanding, and calculate mostly for tactics in wild positions or in endgame.
If you do a computer-assisted analysis of games from, say, Bronstein's excellent book 1953, you will find numerous mistakes and missing opportunities in moves made and in David's analysis as well, which would lead to a lose this days, and most of which would be found OTB by any top gun today for sure, but weren't discovered at that time. Compare this book to the computer-assisted analysis, and you will see the difference between chess of the past and the modern one.

Also, remember that the time control was shortened, and now players are under more time pressure than before.
IMHO.

One problem with this tournament is the split format to use tyhe in word in this thread it sucks I know that it has been debated before but it is basically two tournaments more rest more travel momentum is lost everything can and does change. I gues we will get the usual Top resurgence and Magnus will fade a bit

Also the Anand-Ivantchuk game was a joke making a draw in this position. I was dissapointed by all players.

Chess is a sport for pro's and for amateurs. If we would change the rules for pro's, then that would also count for amateurs. Those amateurs play for fun first of all. And a beautiful draw is as much fun as a win and for some people even more then that!
Why is it so important to make chess more attractive for spectators, why is there a need to commercialize chess? Isn't just playing the game and having fun, regardless the outcome, more important?
The possibility of a draw also gives a lot of character to the game of chess, in which it can distinct itself from other sports.

Plenty of sports have different rules for professionals and amateurs. Basketball and golf come to mind quickly. Tennis even has different rules for professionals, depending on the sex of the participants.

I might be an acceptable rule not allowing draw offers before the 30th move. Means, Anand vs. Chuko would have been draw, but not the other three games. A visitor who paid for a ticket would have seen 120 moves and maybe more exciting games than just one.

Note that of the 7 non-drawn games so far in Morelia, Carlsen has been involved in 4 of them!

2cents' proposal targeting premature draws:

Dont change rules of the chess game, adjust _rules of the tournaments_ instead as follows:

If a game ends before 50 moves in any kind of a draw, or before say 5 hrs of cumulative time play between the players in a given round/day, then start a new game right away between those two players with the same colors and the same time control as before. The result of the final game is counts whether it is a win or draw.

What that means is that players can agree on a draw as quickly in a game or frequently as they like all according to the chess rules. Regardless, they will be forced to play at least 5 hrs, or at least 50 moves in any single game to be able to take a "day off".

Repeating the same game multiple times etc would endanger future invites.

Note, 50 moves and 5 hrs above are arbitrary and could be adjusted to make this work for everybody (players, sponsors, fans).

Obviously changing the rules of chess or the scoring systems merely to reduce premature draws is nonsense. Half points are part of the game: if you want to force well-paid professionals to earn their money, applying Sofia rules is the most extreme measure I can think of if you want to stay within the boundaries of reason. No such constraints in amateur events, however, please: we pay an entry fee and (usually) a hotel, so let us do as we wish with our mediocre chess.

Speaking of amateurs, however, on the rare occasions where I manage to get a few days' leave in order to play chess, I play 1 if not 2 games every day, without any rest days (luckily, otherwise it would be even tougher to get away from work), and I feel the level of play is not that much lower than it would be anyway with a more relaxed schedule. Even the top guns can cope perfectly well with 9 games in 9 days if they ever happen to enter an Open (e.g. Aeroflot). So, why all these rest days in closed tournaments?! Not much use for the players, wasted days for the fans, extra costs for the sponsors...

From 'mayadi' at February 25, 2007 10:14
{
"Why is it so important to make chess more attractive for spectators, why is there a need to commercialize chess?"
}

Why? Because most Americans who like chess do not participate in organized chess. That means local chess clubs struggle to exist, even in large cities. It means that when we play in local tournaments, we play the same opponents over-and-over. It means organized chess lacks the ecomonies of scale that should enable chess clubs to maintain a rented space. It generally means several social potentials of chess are unreached.

Attracting spectators, or more interest in general, would signal an increase in enthusiam for chess, in the hearts of that majority of chess players who are absent from organized chess. That increased enthusiam would bring some of them out of their cacoons and into the local chess clubs.

Wake up, people! "Banning draws" is not a new idea; all sorts of more or less stupid ways to do this have already been tried and abandoned. A game of chess seems to be a by default drawn thing; the ability to draw a game without going through ridiculous rituals is only fair.

Yes, lets not ban the draw option. A draw is a reasonable result in chess, but there is a BIG difference between a fighting draw and pre-arranged draw.

It seems like Carlsen was "drawed" by Leko in the opening. Quote from Carlsen senior's blog:

"Magnus thought for a while but felt he would be worse if he avoided the repetition although (as the spectators could see from his body language)
he did not really want a draw (...)

We have been asked if the recent success and taking the lead in the tournament made Magnus more inclined to accept a draw to secure his position. It is definitely not the case. With his new confidence he says he is generally more willing then ever to play on."

It seems that if Leko decides not to loose against a player, it takes some skill to score the whole point. However, blood-hungry spectators should not shoot the wrong piano player.

2cent's rule does not change rules of chess at all. if does not change how the games are played/scored either. All games even initially drawn are valid chess games and would/should count towards fide ratings/ranking. It gives a tool to the organizers how to make the rounds more attractive to the fans. There are no obvious disadvantages of that system except for forcing players work harder in every round which should be good for chess and fans one would think.

The Sofia Rule affects the rules of the chess game since it prevents draw offers which are part of the game. The players still can easily circumvent that rule by early repetitions and go to play tennis instead (not a jab at Carlsen).

2cent's rule is streight forward and more attractive than the Sofia Rule.

Banning the Draw: "It is a tale told by idiots, full of sound and fury...signifying nothing." =:-(

"Why is it so important to make chess more attractive for spectators, why is there a need to commercialize chess?"

Because money is good and greed is awesome!

Nothing to do with 'Banning the Draw'.

2cent's rule allows draws as per current chess rules. The players can agree on a draw anytime in any game. They will just not always be able to leave the playing hall early for more attractive activities :) while others play. The only way will be to either win a game quickly or reach 50 moves in a game... otherwise, one is stuck in there for 5 hrs at least should the final result be a DRAW.

To encourage fighting chess and discourage tame draws, organisers could adopt a scoring system of 3 points for a win and 1 point for a draw. Then there would be no need to change the fundamental rules of our game. I wonder if the more tepid styles of Kramnik, Leko etc wouldn't rapidly adjust to the inevitable reduction in prizes.
BTW a well-fought draw can be more entertaining and instructive than a decisive result full of blunders. Chess is a game of skill and intelligence and not a bloodsport so the slam-bang-wallop style might not be to everyone's taste.

Hardy, your proposal reminds changes in soccer to make games more attractive. However, unfortunatelly, it would affect the chess game rules (and deep tradition). Scoring is part of the chess rules.

2cent's proposal is about adjusting the tournament format for round-robin, drb, swiss etc. A similar adjustment (for a different, obvious reason) is used in the KO system when you have 2 games per round and then blitz to find the winer etc. Again this is about the _format of the tournamnet_ or _tournament rules_ and nothing about the chess game rules themselves which are not affected by the 2cent's proposal.

As stated, the Sofia Rule has the same disadvantage of affecting the chess rules.

A drawn 50 move game is a valid draw. Modified penny pincher's proposal: make it 20 moves (before repetitions) and white must be punished (and/or motivated...) for example by swapping colors or by a time penalty or more draconianly white gets a zero and black the whole point if black manages to draw the second game. I really think with the advantage of the first move it is white's responsibility to achieve something.

Didn't have you in mind.

Topalov - Morozevich should be fun... even though Moro seems to have given up on openings like the Albin counter gambit or the Chigorin

No need to change rules or scoring. Make it a 10 percent purse loss for every draw that fails to meet a chosen requirement set.

For example, draw under 30 moves. Or draw proposal must be submitted to arbiter panel for approval--if they don't consider the position drawn, the GMs can either take the pay cut or continue playing. GMs chose draw because of a safe non-aggressive nothing to lose mentality (see Leko, Svidler, Kramnik) and this will make the idea less safe and give them something to lose. At the same time it won't punish them over the board for what is a perfectly valid chess decision to make. That is, a person will not lose points be ranked lower in ratings for not wanting to continue to play a given position.

The second proposal which I have gotten some odd eyebrows over is listing every draw proposal made during the game in the game log. It puts the name of the GM proposing the draw on the record, and makes it clear if he was particularly anxious to draw. Right now we kind of have a no-fault draw proposal where you can offer the draw ten times in the game and nobody will be the wiser, plus the final arrangement looks mutual, whereas clearly some GMs offer draw more often than they accept.

"Swapping colors"??? Right, perhaps he should also have to do some sort of jig to the amusement of others while leaving the tournament hall.

No need to change rules or scoring. Make it a 10 percent purse loss for every draw that fails to meet a chosen requirement set.

For example, draw under 30 moves. Or draw proposal must be submitted to arbiter panel for approval--if they don't consider the position drawn, the GMs can either take the pay cut or continue playing. GMs chose draw because of a safe non-aggressive nothing to lose mentality (see Leko, Svidler, Kramnik) and this will make the idea less safe and give them something to lose. At the same time it won't punish them over the board for what is a perfectly valid chess decision to make. That is, a person will not lose points be ranked lower in ratings for not wanting to continue to play a given position.

The second proposal which I have gotten some odd eyebrows over is listing every draw proposal made during the game in the game log. It puts the name of the GM proposing the draw on the record, and makes it clear if he was particularly anxious to draw. Right now we kind of have a no-fault draw proposal where you can offer the draw ten times in the game and nobody will be the wiser, plus the final arrangement looks mutual, whereas clearly some GMs offer draw more often than they accept.

Yuriy, for goodness' sake. We've already had this discussion. The laws already require draw offers to be entered on the scoresheet. It's true they don't usually go on websites or in databases, but that's basically because it just isn't as interesting a piece of information as you think. What does it matter who offers the draw, if it's accepted (and, as I have already explained, you can in fact deduce this anyway)? And your fantasy about some players pestering opponents constantly with draw offers just doesn't happen; even two draw offers by the same player is a rare event.

It's not that your proposal would do any harm; it's just that it would make no contribution whatever towards the end it seeks to achieve. You're getting odd eyebrows not because your idea is boldly iconoclastic but because it is ineffectual and suggests you have no idea of the relevant rules and etiquette (despite having been told them repeatedly).

rdh,

Scoresheet smoresheet. We don't know what it says so of course it has no relevance or impact. Change what I said from "game log" to "round reports". Even if you guess that my rule has no impact, it would be no loss either. Danailov recently wrote an article in which he claimed Morozevich offered Topa a draw on move 13 or so of their San Luis game. Don't you think that has impact on our perception of Moro as a player? When we found out that Kramnik repeatedly offered Topalov a draw in a sharp position in Game 4 (I think it was Game 4 or maybe 3) that also said a lot about both players.

My fantasy is not that somebody makes five offers a game. My fantasy is that somebody offers an early draw in many and many games, or that he makes them more than once per game, that is, after his opponent rejects the offer. I understand that the latter may be against etiquette. But every time I ask what the rules are, everybody who responds throws in a caveat of "well, this is how it usually happens, but there are exceptions and it's not a big deal to do it this way blah blah". Nobody has decisively told me previously that the only time you can offer a draw is after making your move (if I understand correctly).

Even if it wouldn't radically change the rate of draws (and I don't think it would), such a rule would help us understand what is going on in the players' heads. It matters who offered the draw and it matters if somebody rejects an offer of a draw because it lets the public know how drawish a given player's mentality is. You say repeated offers are rare, but most games end in a draw and I doubt that the first offer is always accepted.

derida: Ah, i didn't know they followed a previous game.
But you suggest invite aggressive players. Yes, that's good, but i like Leko's style (when he plays his own games, in this case, as much blame falls on Carlsen, and on any opponent of Leko's who goes down the same short draw path with him) and i don't see how anything would be improved by not having him in a tournament. Even Morozevich makes short draws, i was very disappointed by him playing a line by which white has never won.

i think all styles of play should be allowed, and not activelly discouraged by not inviting players of certain style. And when someone like Leko wins, it is always a brilliant game (much the same with Kramnik, though i don't like Kramnik but that's not the point). He is a brilliant player after all.

i don't know, btw, why tournaments don't have brilliancy prizes these days. That should encourage seeking new lines of play.

Also there could be something to new way of dividing the prize money. A certain sum for a win, a much smaller sum for a draw and a loser gets no pay. This way i think the winner of the tournament would still get the biggest sum and the one at the bottom the lowest sum.
This would encourage them to win by more than +2 or +3.

That's just of the top off my head and maybe it's a silly suggestion but if it is someone can explain why.

At any rate, i'm against the idea that players are there just to play games which the spectators want to see.

My solution is one I heard many years ago - make a draw offer binding throughout the game; ie, if you offer a draw, your opponent can say "thanks, I'll take it when I feel like it" and continue playing. If the position is *really* drawn, there's no point in playing on and you'd accept immediately. If the position is just "equal", you'd see the offer-ee continue on in the most speculative fashion possible and maybe win (or at worst...get in a dead lost position and play his get out of jail free card and accept the still pending draw offer).

Under such a rule, you'd be insane to offer a draw in anything but the most obviously dead drawn position, but perfectly free and correct to do it when the position is really drawn.

LOL, David O. I can see you've never played Gufeld!

Let's just say that the formalities surrounding any draw offer would have to be ramped up substantially. Otherwise the likes of the late Eddie would be accepting that draw offer you made back on move fourteen every time they obtained a lost position.

It's true that we would know if players repeatedly offered early draws and were turned down, although to be honest I think in these supertournaments there's enough press conferences and reporter interest that we normally find out anyway about rejected draw offers. You might get a new insight into the likes of Bogdan Lalic if you needed one, I agree.
You did say that the drawback of the present system was that people could offer a draw ten times in a game and no-one would be the wiser, Yuriy.

As to Topalov-Kramnik game four, it was not a sharp position, and personally I assume the multiple offers were the usual Danailov lies. I think Kramnik was asked about this somewhere and said as much, though I can't be arsed to look for it now.

Kehaar,

For what it's worth, considering our history, I agree with your last post. In regards to the brillancy prizes, the last one I remember being awarded was Radjabov's win with Black over Kasparov; and we all know what the outcome of that was. Anyway, it would be good to see that more often in big time chess again. I'm sure at this tournament Aronian wouldn't object.

I like David Ottosen's solution even though it changes the chess rules. It also does not address directly the "day off" cases when both players do not feel like playing. Although it would be pretty dangerous for a player offering a draw while still in the book to assume the opponent has the same desire to end the game quickly unless the situation was totally pre-arranged which seams rare...

David Ottosen, I think that is a great idea. I haven't heard it before. You would have to make sure the draw offers are noted by the arbiter but I am sure that could be arranged in the top tournaments, at least.

Topalov - Morozevich looks like a wild one...

D.

Anyway - back to the chess - today's games have the potential to be more interesting than yesterday (well that is a low bar).

Topalov - Morozevic is one of those fascinating French defences where both sides seem to stand badly.

Carlsen appears to be playing like a child again. He has the two bishops but seems to have made some horrible concessions to get them and keep them.

I fancy White's chances in Leko - Anand and it is certainly unbalanced - Black has two extra pawns on the queenside, and White two extra pawns on the kingside (admittedly a few doubled pawns in this lot). Many are being a bit rude about the two Peters being unable to win - the video of their post mortem (round 5) suggested that it wasn't a matter of not trying! So I think they might both win today.

Meanwhile Ivanchuk appears to have an edge he can nurse for hours against Aronian.

If the games go as I predict it could be a massive tie for first place at +1 as we end the first part of the tournament. A revival from one of the so called "bottom feeders" is therefore not ruled out.

Nice idea David Ottosen, but I don't think it is fair. Example: One player has a very good position but is in time trouble. He offers a draw. The other player of course plays on for a win since he cannot lose anymore. No risk.

David, the more your proposal is considered the worse it looks. Argh.

First, it is hard to see a situation any player would actually make such a draw offer. Since if the draw offer was made, the opponent considering it would simply play at the bullet speed from that point on hoping for mistakes from the other side ie after the draw offer the game's quality would instantly degenerate, and the player who made the offer would be potentially in a lot of trouble. That would most likely eliminate in practice any draw offers and lead to the Sofia Rule in effect.

Pehpahs an improvement to that idea could be to have a fix limit for how many moves (like 5 or 10) the offer is valid. It could not be too few moves since it would then be pretty much the same as now.

Overall 2cent's approach seams much better since it does not impact the quality of games in anyway (the same current rules would apply to the game itself). It is only about what happens AFTER any given game ie it is about the format for playing a tournament round and how to score it (not even how the games are scored). All chess rules intact.

freitag exactly.

I was thinking about Vishy - Chucky game and concluded neither would be able to offer 'Dave's draw' at any time. If Vishy offered a draw, Chucky would go for Rxd5 and played at full speed to see if he could mate Vishy or reach the time control. If Chucky made the offer, Vishy would play bullet as well to force Chucky out of time if possible. So the draw offer would not be possible from either side.

One more confirmation that Moro does not belong there. His fanciful style is very effective vs. 2600, but top players too frequently manage to understand position better than him and realize on weaknesses he creates.

And Topalov - also! He can't play without his manager doing passes in front of him!!! Oh, Moro, please, no more losing jokes!

I am sory, folks, but do you need any more proof that Topa can't win even with help from an opponent?

This is why I hate French. My nerves are not strong enough, I need to take a medicine to continue watching this game!!!

Pathetic: Svidler-Carlsen draw on move 27th and in ~1hr of play time.

If the 2cent's rule was in effect, then they would be starting another game right now and continue to play... It is possible they would just continue to play this game and not go for a draw. There are 4 hrs left to utilize here.

Vlad, see how difficult it is to be a Topalov fan -- there is an expectation on him to win regularly, while there are times when ti simply doesn't work. But I will have my fun in Mexico when your favorite player is on the spot...

D.

This is chess. Magnus managed to survive and to equalize finally. The game was interesting enough, we can't blame them for a draw.

Chuky a pawn up...

Arriba Ivanchuk!

Dimi, see you there ;-)
By the way, are you from east coast? I am from NYC area.

Chuky a pawn up...

Arriba Ivanchuk!

Leko is making up for all of his previous draws today.

If Moro played so wild vs. my favorite player, he would resign before the first time control!

Leko lost track and can even lose having big time troubles!

Moro is an idiot!!!
36...Kc7??

Hey, may be I miss the point, and they play a give-away?

Hey, is it sponsored by grug lords?
Topa-Moro and Leko-Anand are definitely being played under some influence...

@Vlad: Yes, Anand's 3-1 queenside majority could easily become a pair of connected passed pawns and then Leko is doomed.

Leko had only 1 second left for his 40th move!!!
No guys, I am right to never play blits... This is not about chess, this is all about nerves...

Oem. Anand gave a rook for a bishop. Is it good? Don't think so.

Viva Chuky! Beating the Levon Monster!!

Urra!!

Chuky 1-0

Correct myself. Anand will win.

Moro is gone.

I'm sorry for Leko. He tries once, and gets into trouble.

How did Leko lose? The position after 41 ... Bc6 has lots of fight left in it. If White can somehow split up the Black connected passed pawns, he might have drawing chances.

I just love how Topalov's exposed White h1-king is shielded on the h-file by the White h6-rook, on the a8-h1 diagonal by the White e4-bishop, and along the first rank by the White b1-rook. Every single line of attack that Black could use to threaten the exposed White h1-king (h-file, a8-h1 diagonal, first rank) is BLOCKED by a White piece.

A WEAKNESS IS A WEAKNESS -ONLY- IF IT CAN BE EXPLOITED.

Will Topalov pull out one of his amazing second round comebacks in Linares?

Topalov needs to finish off Morozevich first. Moro's pieces seem to be taking control of the game!

Topalov x Morozevich:

Where is Fritz when you need him?

"Where is Fritz when you need him?"

Suppose we gave each player three lifelines....

So much for the draw whining. Leko-Anand and Ivanchuk-Aronian fought out past theory and Anand, in particular, had a great game. Aronian lost the plot so thoroughly it's hard to be too amazed by Chuky's play, but I'm glad he got a full point.

Svidler-Carlsen's final position was pretty drawn, although I suppose Svidler could have carried on. It looked like Svidler miscalculated though, thinking he was winning; otherwise the whole line with b4-b5 just seems wrongheaded. Perhaps after missing that he just decided to split the point rather than making Carlsen prove anything. By then, Svidler had traded all the wrong pieces anyway...

It is over. Moro's king got caught in the crossfire.

Woohoo! Topalov wins! His -1 is much better than his -2 from last year at Morelia.

Poor Moro. He skips Corus to concentrate on Linares. Result? A winless -3 and sole possession of last place at the halfway point.

Meanwhile Magnus and Anand played at Corus and lead the field with a +2 score.

No whining..

Had 2cent's rule was in effect, we would be watching 4 games most of the time today, not 3 or fewer on other occasions like yesterday.

Svidler would be force to play full time as well. If he wants draw, that's fine.. after 5hrs of play a draw is OK.

No whining..

Had 2cent's rule was in effect, we would be watching 4 games most of the time today, not 3 or fewer on other occasions like yesterday.

Svidler would be forced to play full time as well. If he wants draw, that's fine.. after 5hrs of play a draw is OK.

I know there are a lot of people that are against my BAP system, but in practice it has eliminated the grandmaster draw. The GM vs. GM games played with BAP seem like chess to me.

With BAP, EVERY game, EVERY round will be hard fought. Isn't that worth exploring, at least a little bit?

Clint

Finally, Topalov wins... It has been all suffering and pain since this terrible loss against Svidler at Corus...

I admire Morozevich -- see, not everyone has the desire to play the Kramnik/Karpov style of chess. Nothing wrong with it, that's the style to win matches, but it can be very dull with N(->infinity) draws until all stars align just right to push some pawn through... And I have no illusions that this wild game between Topalov and Moro wasn't exactly the route to win a WCC match against the best defenders in the game…

Topalov has not shown his traditional home preparation in this tournament and relied more on fireworks. It shows. They have to get back to the kitchen and cook some moves in the little time they have until Linares.

It's difficult at times to be a Topalov fan -- enduring all this abuse, and the expectations that he should win all the time in order to prove something to some fool, unworthy of it. But at the end it can be very sweet if things work out right. The same can be said about Carlsen who proved everybody wrong and played some extremely aggressive and mature chess.

BTW, Fritz 10 didn't like many of the moves, so here it is for the cheating theoreticians...

It's been a tough week – I lost my office foosball title (after having been undefeated in 3 championships), felt like paralyzed, can't pin the ball with my goddamn left hand… Lost against a guy I used to maltreat regularly. Topalov got stuck in minus territory, even all my other sport teams lost…

Anyway, now I feel a little bit better. I will not get that worked out over chess anymore. That's why I quit many years ago…

D.

P.S. V. Kosulin, I live on the West Coast, San Francisco Bay Area…

@Dimi: Yes, all of the idiotic Topalov bashers who claim Topalov cheats always vanish when he loses games.

Just wait until Topalov wins a few games at Linares and these imbeciles will come out of the woodwork again.

Is it true that Anand is worse out of the opening nearly every game these days? It appears that way after reading the commentary of his games with Svidler, Morozevich, Aronian, Ivanchuk and Leko. (The last one being mentioned on Carlsen's blog.) If so, is there any explanation for this?

What is BAP system?

GM Marin's sarcastic comments on the lack of fighting spirit in R6 are hilarious!

http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3694

Dimi wrote:
BTW, Fritz 10 didn't like many of the moves, so here it is for the cheating theoreticians...
---

Topailov fans are probably the dumbest people around.

People believe in anything... they make a books full of fabrications and lies like Chariots of Gods into a best seller and swear by 'The Bermuda Triangle'... What can you do?

Wait and watch Topalov's rating slide now that there is no signalling? Or wait for them to come up with more sophisticated cheating techniques? Believe in fairy tales?

Winning a single game without D* is hardly proof of Topalov's innocence as some abusive people seem to believe - He was a 2700+ player even without D and will of course win some games...

Proof of innocence would be something like repeating a San Luisian performance without D*lov around and without getting to sit in the same seat for the entire tournament...

Too many mistakes in this round...

Topa-Moro leaving stuff hanging for the hell of it, Svidler's b5 push and Leko failure to see Rd8, both ruining carefully built advantages...

What would we do without Chuky and his breathtaking accuracy?

Indeed I will (for once) agree with the String Theorist. People believe whatever they want (even believe string theory:)). One bad or one good game (or tournament) cannot prove inocence or guilt.

As a matter of fact, guilt cannot be proven even if he drops back to 2750 for good. (the psycological effect of loosing the title and all this controversy is a sufficient reason for a 50 rating points drop)

He can prove to be inocent if he reaches 2800 and stays there for long (and without Danailov around), but failing to do so, hardly proves anything.

But then people will keep on saying and believe random things..

i don't really think it's about Topalov proving his innocence, he should simply ignore all nonsense.

I guess that players are tired from playing at attitude of over 2000m above the sea... They simply want to come to Linares :)

I bet that Topalov will win second part of the tournament! As far as I know, there will be no problems to keep visual contact with audience from the playing scene.

Moro did all fireworks himself. The only time Topa had shown his aggression was when he avoided queen exchange. At that time Moro was in big time trouble and lost the track.

Why does Svidler get invited???

Based on chessgames.com, here are the stats for percentage of draws in all played games by some top players:

DRAW Masters

Leko: 49% <--- we knew that one
Svidler: 47% <--- !!!! (who wants to see this?)

Regulars:

Kramnik: 43% <--- one would think it was worse
Pono: 42%
Chucky: 42%
Anand: 41%
Aronian: 41%

Fighters:

Topa: 38% <--- sharp & solid
Shirov: 38% <--- sharp, somewhat unsound
Moro: 28% <--- ultra sharp, unsound frequently

Magnus: 34% <--- good but against weaker players

I say replace Svidler with Chucky until Svidler shows some fighting spirit. Leko is a special case...useful for testing unsound players :)

The usual suspects...minus Kramnik.

Mig, what do you think FIDE will do to limit these GM draws we are seeing? Will they sit on their hands? What would G.K. do? Will the ACP do something - anything - to voice their feelings?

The solution seems simple to everyone except Kirsan and his cronies and most of the GM population.

Make them play through the first time control. You cannot accept a 'tie' in Football or Hockey before the end of regulation, so let's get with the program and make that the standard. If it's a 40/2, then you HAVE to make 40 moves.

The solution is in the simplicity of the thought that good chess sometimes takes a few moves to be created. How many 'unbalanced but equal' positions do we see in a year at top level events that end in draws under 20 moves? TOO MANY. Patzers like myself scratch our heads and say "WHY???".

We fans want to see the top players discuss these positions, at least until the first time control. Once they get this fixed into their minds, the entire chess world will be better. Sponsors will KNOW they will get 40 moves or so each game. Of course, a solution on threeefold repetion has to be constructed, but the basic idea is there.

The chess will be more exciting, you'll actually have to work the full time on ICC, and the sponsors might actually think they are getting their money's worth for once.

It's disheartening to see our heroes show a lack of interest in some of these games.

Go anyone?

confused:

Those 'stats' are just that. They are meaningless in the context of big events and until the GOVERNING BODY OF CHESS - F.I.D.E. - gets off it's hands and FORCES the top players in these events to play to the first time control, it will never change.

confused: According to the same statistics Kramnik has lost 11% of his games while Topa has lost 21%. Now would it make Kramnik a fighter if he had lost more?

(ps. Leko & Svidler 16%)

If he had lost more, but not win more, then he would be more of a fighter, BUT worse player.

On the other hand if he had same overall percentage (performance) with more losses, he would also have more wins and that would make him more of a fighter.

If he had lost more, but not win more, then he would be more of a fighter, BUT worse player.

On the other hand if he had same overall percentage (performance) but with more losses, he would also have more wins and that would make him more of a fighter.

Can somebody on-site confirm there was no handshake (and no spoken or visual greeting, of course) before and after the game Topa-Moro?
Only one source mentioned this briefly.

If Topa would have managed to hold a draw in the games he lost, he would be less of a fighter indeed?

>> Finally, Topalov wins... It has been all suffering and pain since this terrible loss against Svidler at Corus...
BTW, Fritz 10 didn't like many of the moves, so here it is for the cheating theoreticians...
D.
Posted by: Dimi at February 25, 2007 22:27 >>

I agree with Dimi. Topalov has shown us what he can do without cheating. 2691 tournament performance rating. Exactly where everyone says he belongs.

Certainly better than the last year when he could not cheat. Morelia 2006 TPR 2620. We all hope he is better than that.

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=2949

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=2974

Even Susan Polgar was shocked by all the poor move choices Topalov made in his game yesterday. But then Topalov wanted to show what he can do when not cheating. And after all Susan is still in denial.

Now we all wait to see if he has the opportunity to cheat in Linares. That will be interesting. He did a great job last year. Or I should say, Danailov did a great job in Linares 2006 as Topalov won his first 3 games with perfect computer moves. I can only guess that his tpr was almost 2924 in Spain since his overall Linares TPR was about back to 2772. I would guess that the 2620 + 2924 = ave of 2772. Therefore last year he did 304 elo better in Linares than in Morelia. That sounds about right. Topalov must keep Danailov around if he helps add 304 elo to his performance. would you agree with me?

Anyway Dimi I am glad to see you think a tpr of 2680 is right where you think a non cheating Topalov should be.

So over twenty games it would seem that heroic fighter Topalov will have one draw less than miserable gutless draw machine Kramnik. Can it be that this nonsense is largely a matter of presentation?

I don't see that making them play forty moves is going to help. You reckon Carlsen and Leko couldn't have gone on playing Rf1 Bd6; Rfe1 Bb4 another few dozen times each, if that's what you'd like?

John Nunn analysed the draw rate in a famous article and showed that it's no different now from what it's more or less always been. The game is what it is. Deal with it and love it with all its imperfections, or else push off and watch wrestling.

And what in the world is all this whinging about rest days? What is it to you? Maybe the organisers simply want their tournament to go on longer and keep their sponsors in the eyes of the world for longer. Of course the players don't *need* a rest day. They're playing for money. They can play fourteen in a row if you like and if you pay. They just won't be able to play so well, that's all. Some of you people should maybe try playing one of these tournaments. Four hours' preparation, an emotional six-hour game, press conferences and whatnot, you probably can't sleep properly before or after the game, get up tired, repeat, get up exhausted and then sit down to play Anand. It's not as easy as you think - remember that picture of Adams about to play Kasimzhanov in the final in Libya? He looked white as a sheet, except for the luminous grey areas under his eyes.

I don't understand why anyone would have a problem with rest days. I can assure you they make it easier for the players to play their best. You want that or you wanna see blunders? That's what it comes down to.

Topalov fans ought to be glad he's taken a quick draw or two. The one thing which is absolutely fatal for any player in any sport is doing things not because they give you a better chance of achieving the sporting goal, but because your public expects it. Topalov's been in grave danger of falling into that trap, with all his silly rhetoric about pleasing the public unlike wicked Russian draw merchant Kramnik. If he doesn't mind halving out trivially with Leko, you should be pleased he's aiming at the goal and not worrying about you.

Cracks me up when people point to Topolovs loses as proof he isnt cheating. Of course he isnt cheating, it seems pretty obvious that every eye is on him and getting signals would be so risky that they dare not try. He will never get caught with hard evidence on him, such as a device. Signaling is the only real deniable option. He is definatly on his own here and his score reflects it.

As announced, Aronian lost again to Ivanchuk... Something must be happening (like watching Shirov against Kasparov, or Polgar against Kramnik), but there must be a beggining of psychological advantage from Ivanchuk against Levon. That is the reason I regret Aronian didn't try to win against Topalov on Saturday ... by judging his form, he could get a full point and still be at +1.

On Topalov, well, I am glad he defeated Morozevich, even in the bizarre way it happened ... no more comments in this issue.

I think it's understandable that Topalov feels uncomfortable because he is by himself in Morelia.
That's what coaches and managers are for, to provide support. Forget about the allegations of Silvio signalling him.

rdh: if you remove fighters from stats, it gets worse since the percentage of draws gets much higher. Let's look at the games between players:

DRAW masters & some regulars: Anand, Kramnik

Svidler vs Leko: 67%
Leko vs Kramnik: 76% :)
Svidler vs Kramnik: 50%

Anand vs Leko: 72%
Anand vs Svidler: 71%

I am not against DRAWs. Only against taking a "day off" with short, say below 30 moves draws. The above stats do not show anything about that aspect btw.

Anand vs Kramnik: 73% (in case you were wondering)

rdh: "I don't see that making them play forty moves is going to help. You reckon Carlsen and Leko couldn't have gone on playing Rf1 Bd6; Rfe1 Bb4 another few dozen times each, if that's what you'd like?"

No, there is a better solution out there. 2cents rule: a game ends in a (quick) draw, players start another game until playing at least 5hrs or if any game reached 50 moves.. pretty simple. 3 move repeatition draw and any other draw during any game for that matter are still in effect obviously.

"I think it's understandable that Topalov feels uncomfortable because he is by himself in Morelia. That's what coaches and managers are for, to provide support. Forget about the allegations of Silvio signalling him."

Why? Wouldn't you call that support?

The whole idea that the draw offer, result of a draw, or a player who has a high propensity to draw is bad... is patently absurd.

Many posters in this thread rag on Leko because of his higher draw percentage, some going so far as to question why he get tournament invites. Will the same people go ahead and pipe up on the topic of Morozevich, and why he gets tournament invites?

Didnt think so.

But let's really get to the bottom of the issue. As a chess fan you set aside some hours to watch the games on ICC, and they ruined your plans by playing a short game. Tough cookies. Find another hobby if you're so upset.

No problem, confused - they can go on repeating for 50 moves easily. Or for five hours, for that matter.

Can somebody on-site confirm there was no handshake (and no spoken or visual greeting, of course) before and after the game Topa-Moro?
Only one source mentioned this briefly.
Posted by: Vlad Kosulin at February 26, 2007 10:18

Yes, I was speculating this may happen and I want to know this, too.

"2cents rule: a game ends in a (quick) draw, players start another game until playing at least 5hrs or if any game reached 50 moves.. pretty simple. 3 move repeatition draw and any other draw during any game for that matter are still in effect obviously."

I can easily see a player like Morozevich resigning after five minutes of play just to show how ridiculous this idea is.

Moro would be least affected by that rule. Plus it is a tournament rule and can be adopted by one, some, or all major tournaments. Say Corus tries it first and to see how it goes. If a player does not like it, probably s/he can reject the invite to boot.

In practice, once players used to it, it should be a very few additional games per rounds. One would expect players get smart and play longer games. It is hard to see a case when 2 players would have to play more then 2 games anyway.

I think if it were me I would find it more aesthetic to agree a draw after two minutes' play, then another after four minutes, and so on. That should give the databases and confused's stats a bit of a boost.

But of course Moro might have different aesthetic values to me.

@confused

you can prove anything you want with statistics, just dig up the right ones. Here is an interesting one:

Kasparov-Karpov: 72% draws

Of course we all know what gutless drawmasters both of those guys were.... :-)

Well the truth is that in their match they did several not hardly fought draws. But then matches should go to different statisitcs. Especially when the mathc ends to number of wins (as their first match) rather than number of games.

I think Short or Nunn gave a suggestion about draws. Just don't invite drawish players for tournaments again. For example bane Svlider from any grand slam tournament and give Leko a warning.
That would do it.

Charles,
my point is that since Silvio is not there to support Topalov (in any way), Topalov feels uncomfortable.

That is exactly my point derida.
Statistics like that doesn't necessarily prove anything, and you can always make them fit into exactly what you want to prove (just ask any politician, lol).
We all know who the major culprits regarding the short draws are (we really don't need any statistics to prove that) and as long as it benefits them they are going to keep doing it - and why not?

aasj: "I think Short or Nunn gave a suggestion about draws. Just don't invite drawish players for tournaments again..."

aasj, I do not like that since each player has its own style and that would impact the games they play. After all, draws are perfectly valid outcome and often are results of exciting games. Leko clearly is a good player. (I would not invite Svidler however since he brings little to the picture).

>> But let's really get to the bottom of the issue. As a chess fan you set aside some hours to watch the games on ICC, and they ruined your plans by playing a short game. Tough cookies. Find another hobby if you're so upset.

Posted by: Parsnips at February 26, 2007 12:18 >>

Well Parsnips you have hit the perfect answer. That is exactly what millions of chess players have done. They have left chess. We need to attract them back. If chess is to become a good financial big time sport then it needs millions of fans.

Do you really want more people to abandon chess. Those remaining are hard core fans. I hope you do not propose having them abandon chess also.

We have seen tennis tournament finals where one or more players were clearly whizzed out of breath.

We have seen soccer games where neither team tried too hard to score a game-winning goal.

Boxing matches where neither side came close to a knockout and the decision of who seemed a matter of arbitrarily awarded points than anythinig else.

And yet we don't ask for rules to alter these games. We accept that once in a while those games will be boring.

It seems to me that in chess forcing players to play on is even worse idea as you can't just go through routine motions in chess--it's mental work and there is a finite number of moves you can make. In a situation where neither player feels he has a move to make that will make his position better, forcing them to play on will only lead to inferior chess that day and the next, when the less tired players might have played better.

Draws do not cause people to abandon chess. Draws cause people to b**** for a day about how drawish chess has gotten.
Then the next day we will get 3 decisive games out of 4.

I have seen no evidence that

a) Draws between Super-GMs cause chess players to abandon players.
b) Chess is sustainable as a fan-supported financial big-time sport. Unless by "fan" you mean "occasionally found millionaire".

Amen Yuri.

Personally I think the best idea is to award points only for wins. Loss = 0, Draw = 0, Win = 1. If you look at the current crosstable this would put Leko Svidler and Morozevich tied for last and bump Topalov up to be tied with Aronian for third, Ivanchuk would remain in second. Anand and Carlsen would remain tied for first. I would like to see a tournament experiment with this formula.

Can someone tell me what is BAP system? Please...

Yuriy,

Exactly! Also rdh had some points too in his 10:44 post. This whole draw thing is much ado about nothing.

Any "solution" to the "problem" of draws entails distorting the game of chess. You can force or coerce players to play a minimum of 40-50 moves, but you can't force them to be earnest about it. Players intent on drawing will simply find a way to liquidate down to bare Kings on move 51, or shuffle their pieces around for the last 20 or so moves. Spectators will have the appearance of a long, hard fought game, but the draw will have been tacitly agreed way back on move 20-something. If you demand that players play for "appearance sake", that's just what the players will do. Only it will just be an exhibition, and not a real game. Banning the Draw Offer makes sense, since then the players would need to resort to other rules for obtaining a draw. Thus the game is liable to be extended somewhat.

Something about draws:

http://members.lycos.nl/pjwlscht/Advice.gif

it is interesting that both Leko and Svidler are similar draw masters. If you analyse past tournament results carefully, everybody could long ago have seen, that also Svidler is very often drawish.

But Svidler does not stand for dull draw, Leko does. Why that? If we can answer this, we would understand the problem of draws better.

Svidler has a lot of fans, I think due to his visibly deep chess understanding. Leko seems to move like: you go here, I go there. Is that the reason for the different image?

stringMan: People believe in anything... [...] Winning a single game without D* is hardly proof of Topalov's innocence

You're right, actually. I thought that after Corus when Danailov was out of the picture and Topalov did quite well, inquisitive and reasonable people will put the issue to rest.

Apparently, this is just a fan talk -- it's not supposed to be logical, or even informed. Even the highly acclaimed English gent, rdh, I think, was going off on "Morozevich said this, Moriozevich said that" afer g.9 in Elista. When Topalov loses it will be low-class taunting, when he wins, cheating talk. Therefore it is not unjustified from time to time to tell off in straight language some of the more obnoxious flies.

stringMan: Proof of innocence would be something like repeating a San Luisian performance without D*lov around and without getting to sit in the same seat for the entire tournament...

That's not enough stringMan -- one time only could be a fluke. He needs to repeat San Luis type performance 3 times at least! With Danailov/Cheparinov out of town, preferrably deceased...

Now speaking if uninformed...

Frank H: Anyway Dimi I am glad to see you think a tpr of 2680 is right where you think a non cheating Topalov should be.

Frank H, by now your droppings are a regular site here. You can take a snapshot of any tournament and see these huge +/- performance trend numbers. You can see extremely gratifying/alarming numbers for any player!! They mean ~nothing. Now, I know it is hard for you, but still try to control your instincts from time to time for your own good.

D.

Didi,
I guess, during Corus Danailov brought us some hot pictures where he was in focus, and not quite out of the picture as you say ;-)

It's Feb 26... and the latest main post on this blog was Feb 24? Hell-o?

I sort of remember this being raised before, but football changed from win 2, draw 1, loss 0 to win 3, draw 1, loss 0.

Will this be applicable to improve win rate in chess as well?

Although come to think of it, chess has "theoretically drawn" position, whereas football doesn't have such thing, e.g. compare having two kings on a chessboard vs two goalies on the pitch. One can still win a game in the latter.

Svidler has a lot of fans, I think due to his visibly deep chess understanding. Leko seems to move like: you go here, I go there. Is that the reason for the different image?

My guess is that Leko gets tagged simply because he's more prominent, thanks to the world championship match with Kramnik and the short draws from it.

"
Why does Svidler get invited???

Based on chessgames.com, here are the stats for percentage of draws in all played games by some top players:

DRAW Masters

Leko: 49% <--- we knew that one
Svidler: 47% <--- !!!! (who wants to see this?)

Regulars:

Kramnik: 43% <--- one would think it was worse
Pono: 42%
Chucky: 42%
Anand: 41%
Aronian: 41%

Fighters:

Topa: 38% <--- sharp & solid
Shirov: 38% <--- sharp, somewhat unsound
Moro: 28% <--- ultra sharp, unsound frequently

Magnus: 34% <--- good but against weaker players

I say replace Svidler with Chucky until Svidler shows some fighting spirit. Leko is a special case...useful for testing unsound players :)
"

Good analysis!!

Well, again, let's try a real thought exercise. I call it "In praise of Draws."

A pair of grandmasters who want to draw their game can do so easily. My favorite example is a Gelfand-somebody game from Corus a couple of years back, where all the spectators were amazed and wanted to give the game a brilliancy prize... when in fact the players had simply followed one of their own previous games exactly all the way to the -exact point it had been agreed drawn the last time-

So if I'm Anand, and I can draw out and win the tournament, and Leko is playing me and I think he'd love to split the point, I just play a known drawing line. Leko knows the line as well as I do, there's no need to coordinate in advance. Peter trots down and I shake my head sadly and offer the draw, which he accepts, also sadly, feigning annoyance that I showed so little fighting spirit.

This is basically what happened in Carlsen-Leko. Leko even refused to claim the draw when he could, because lord forbid he wanted a half point!

Draws are part of chess. The situation has gotten better, not worse, in the past 20 years or so. You guys do remember Portisch right? So quit whining. Leko plays chess because he enjoys it, and because people pay him. Not to make you happy.

And then there was Ulf Andersson, who played more than four hundred short draws (which I arbitrarily define as being 20 moves or fewer) out of about two thousand games in Chessgames's database. Neither Kramnik nor Leko come anywhere close to that ratio.

"It's Feb 26... and the latest main post on this blog was Feb 24? Hell-o?

Posted by: ComputoJon at February 26, 2007 19:51 "

The guy has got a wife now. You should be thankful she allows him to run the blog.

Yuriy, as tsn said: football (soccer) has actively been changing the rules to avoid draws.

In addition to modifiying the number of points awarded, they also introduced a rule disallowing the goalkeeper to pick up the ball if it was passed from a teammate (in order to discourage passive play). This rule was actually a huge improvement to the game of football.

I don't know if similar change is achievable in chess. But at least it shows that there has been a willingness in other arenas to make games more exciting. I like the Sofia rule (as a start).

I see no evidence for the fact that

A) Yuriy Kleyner sees any evidence, and that
B) Anybody would deny this, and that
C) Some fans might disagree and abandon chess.

But Leko had the image of a dull draw master long before his WC match. There must be something boring in his play, unlike svidler who often plays more interesting, which surprisingly leads to the same draw rate.

Hi guys!

Did anybody calculate the chicken factors for the games of round 6?

regards
Axel

A) if you are gonna say that millions of chess players have left chess because of super-GM draws, you might want to have some evidence to back that up. Should be fairly easy for that kind of mass exodus.
B) if you are gonna say that casual fans have left chess because of draws, and all that's left is hardcore fans, you also might want to have some (or any) evidence to back that up. A story about your buddy from the park who threw away his pocket set after watching Svidler-Leko will do.

So far the only effect of draws seems to be anti-draw discussions. For a day. The good thing about chess is you don't have to commit yourself to two hours to see a boring game happen. You don't like round 6, go analyze Aeroflot Open, or wait a day till round 7.

simsan,

I agree that there can be improvements made (purse penalty for early draws would be my favorite). None of the soccer rules you mention however drastically alter the game and most would be a good idea even if there was no passive play problem. In spite of the new rules, lots of soccer games still suffer from lack of activity. When you acknowledge that no reform is going to be a panacea, you can rationally consider the pluses and minuses of each proposal. For example, Mtel rules generally have an effect of dropping the players chess level by about 100 by the time the late rounds and most endgames come about. If you really want to see chess on that level, might as well watch one of the many lesser tournaments that are out there.

"A story about your buddy from the park who threw away his pocket set after watching Svidler-Leko will do."

I have a buddy in the green lilac park that recently did exactly that same thing. What now?

Yuriy,

Your objection to the MTel scheme seems legitimate. But wouldn't additional rest days be sufficient to make sure that the players didn't get exhausted?

If the tight tournament schedule is the reason why short non-repeticious draws are necessary, then maybe the tournament schedule should be adressed.

Even though rumor has it that Topalov and Fritz have been experimenting with the idea, I don't think that the football rule which was adopted in 1965 - to allow substitutes - will ever get much support amongs chess fans. :-)

"For example, Mtel rules generally have an effect of dropping the players chess level by about 100 by the time the late rounds and most endgames come about. If you really want to see chess on that level, might as well watch one of the many lesser tournaments that are out there."

Yeah. Besides Sofia rules, let's also abandon the chess clock, as players' chess level drops by about 200 points in time trouble.

Fatigue is a much more natural part of the game then artificially added time limits. If a player can't draw a supposedly "drawn" game then maybe, this game was worth playing till the very end. After all, chess is a sport and not a tool to accurately measure pure chess-playing ability.

Just one point I haven't read here. The short draws have become a problem because you can watch the games live in the web. Yesterday you only read about it weeks later in a chess magazine and it didn't concern you.
The WC match Karpov vs. Kasparov 1985/86 was the most boring event I remember.

simsan,

I don't know--it may be that they are tired (that's the impression I get from the games) it may be simply that when you are asked to play out a position you don't want to play out, you don't play well. Kind of like Kasparov playing worse with the queens off the board--maybe he would rather just draw than play on, and if both players don't like the kind of game that's developing, why force them to play on?

But yeah, I do think more rest days would be beneficial for tournaments and matches. The very man I mention in the previous paragraph admitted that some of the shorter games in London 2000 were due to him needing more rest. So for big matches, more rest days would definitely be the way to go, but of course you run into cost issues that way.

"Besides Sofia rules, let's also abandon the chess clock, as players' chess level drops by about 200 points in time trouble."

Yeah, which is why blitz and rapids are not generally viewed as being as good. Time trouble and fatigue certainly matter in evaluation of one's skill as a competitive chess player. The problem is when the schedule and/or time control makes them a much bigger factor than chess playing ability. I think it would have sucked if Karpov lost his crown because his health was weaker than Korchnoi and Kasparov and he didn't perform well after 2 months of playing. In a match of reasonable length and schedule, one of course should ask that the champion be able to perform at expected level and any fatigue he feels is his problem.

But that is actually not the point I was making. I presume that the interest in seeing the short draws play out is the interest in seeing more top-level chess. If it is merely to see decisive chess played, then there are many other tournaments for you.

http://www.u2faqs.com/band/#11

Bono probably gave up chess because of the prevalence of grandmaster draws.

"I presume that the interest in seeing the short draws play out is the interest in seeing more top-level chess. If it is merely to see decisive chess played, then there are many other tournaments for you."

If the only reason is to see more top-level chess then, indeed, we should abandon the chess clock. The level of many games in supertournaments nose dives in the last 5-10 moves before the time control.

I'd argue that a player in good physical shape should be able to deal with the fatigue of playing for 4-6 hours a day with some rest days during the tournament. The fact that unfit players break down under the pressure of Sofia rules is not a good argument against them. Just as the fact that some players mismanage their time at the board is not the reason to abandon the chess clock.

The clock is very important. It helps to discipline yourself. I myself wouldn't have a problem to think about a position one hour or more, but (as in real life) you have to make a decision one time. And the clock helps you to do it.
Time management is part of the game.

d, the problem is not that unfit players break down under Sofia rules. The problem is that nearly all or all players seem to. Using your time control analogy, if nearly every game in a tournament ended in time trouble that would be a good indication that the tournament has too short a time control and while abandoning time control is too drastic, extending it would be the right move. (TM Bernard Kok)

"d, the problem is not that unfit players break down under Sofia rules. The problem is that nearly all or all players seem to. Using your time control analogy, if nearly every game in a tournament ended in time trouble that would be a good indication that the tournament has too short a time control and while abandoning time control is too drastic, extending it would be the right move."

I may not remember exactly how Sofia played out last year but my impression was not that "nearly all or all players" break down under Sofia rules.

Consider regular, non-Sofia rules supertournament. I guess, about 50-70% games end up in a win or a fighting long draw. Thus, Sofia rules wouldn't affect these games at all. In the remaining 30-50% of games some players break down, others can play on without missing a bit. My guess is that the percentage of games that suffer in quality due to Sofia rules is no larger than that affected by time trouble.

Considering that Sofia rules are natural; make chess a war/sport that chess is supposed to be; provide excitement, instruction and better understanding of the game for amateurs who currently have little idea why games are suddenly aborted midflight, -- these rules have a very positive affect on chess and its appeal.

I just got off the phone with Bobby from Iceland and he told me incredible news: all these years, Bobby was planning on a big comeback to return to the chess world. He was about to announce his comeback in the next weeks and made all preparations. But Bobby blew it all off last Thursday when he saw the Svidler-Leko game. Appalled by the drawish character of this game, Bobby threw his pocket set out of the window of his Reykjavik apartment.

This shows once again, grandmaster draws can have dramatic impact on the way the chess world is perceived by the outside world.

I haven't really thoguht this through but here is an idea to toy with regarding drawn games. After players accept a draw offer a computer analysis is done on the final posistion, if the computer finds winning opportunies the players are made to continue. Of course the players are not privvy to the moves found by the computer. It would also encourage them to try to find the winning moves.

Hi everyone,

I just returned from Reykjavik, Iceland and the strangest thing happened while I was over there. I was walking by an apartment building when out of nowhere, a pocket chess set hit me on the head? I heard some swearing coming from one of the upper apartments and then something about "draws make no difference anyway?" and the voice tailed off with "chess is dead"..."chess is dead." I would have returned the set but the person sounded so disgusted about it, I thought what does this idiot know about chess anyway?

I agree that Sofia rules are natural. If players play them for some time they'll get used to them - just as they got used to the new classic time controls for instance.

BAP system is 3 points for a black win, 2 points for a white win and 1 point for a black draw. 0 points for all other results.

Extensive data is on www.slugfest7.com in the BAP section

Clint

How about his approach, after a draw is offered and accepted a computer analysis of the position is done.

if the computer agrees position is drawn then both players get 1/2 point

If the computer finds winning opportunities both players get 0 points.

I think a simple solution to decrease the number of draws is to award wins monetarily. Split the money into two parts. Use the first part the usual way, i.e., to give prizes. Use the second part to award wins.

Yes, monetary awards will work nicely too. Why don't they give 80% of the prize money to desive games only?

I meant decisive games

Compared to other sports chess is not requiring so much energy.

If players are tired at 4th hour and make mistakes, even, if "pressure" is very high it can't be an argument against Sofia rules.

I wonder, how in old, good times chess tournaments could last for several months. Just to mention the famous ones like Hastings 1895 (21 rounds in less than a month). Or candidate tournaments in middle of past century...

If this is true that players nowadays make blunder s at 5th hour of a 3rd round game... How would they play at round 19?

omigawd, somebody else is posting under the acronym "d". I guess I should pick another handle. Hope Mig wont bar me for having multiple handles.

tal_d -- The artist formerly known as d

thx Clint!

d, or not d

My recollection of last year's Sofia is that it the games were very blunderful, much more so than the other tournaments of similar level players: Corus, Linares and Dortmund. Of course number of blunders is something that's hard to put in statistical objective terms, and I can't even prove that that it was the Sofia rules themselves that were causing it (and not say, scheduling or playing conditions) but that's what made me think Sofia rules is not such a good idea. That and I don't like the idea of forcing players to play out a position they don't want to play. If both players in a situation that they don't feel any move will make their position better, forcing them to play on seems to go against the idea of the game.

Alfil,

Chess does not require as much physical energy but as any player will tell you mentally it takes a lot out of you. And as people who work with their minds and/or play chess at high level will tell you that can be equally exhausting.

In the old candidates days you mention the scheduling of games was farther apart and you had things like adjournment and short games. 1895 is probably too far away to compare--chess was a completely different game back then. But 21 rounds in a month back then is still much better than 10 no-adjournment no draw by agreement games in 11 days.

Congratulations on the marriage Mig I hope it works out just be sure to DEFINE LIMITS that's my advice from a bitter divorce unfortunately I'm sulky because there is no more daily dirt blog poor me

"That and I don't like the idea of forcing players to play out a position they don't want to play. If both players in a situation that they don't feel any move will make their position better, forcing them to play on seems to go against the idea of the game."

Well suppose the players really don't feel playing at all. Maybe the game should just be declared a draw without making any moves at all ! I mean really why go through motions and the facade of "playing a game" if its the intentions of both players to draw.

The point of the matter is that if players are determined to draw each other they are going to do so no matter if Sofia rules are in place or not. The Sofia rules though do serve to get rid of the cheap stuff ie; 6 move draws etc and should be in place for all major tournaments.

Well, to be fair, Ulf Anderssen
has also played many LONG draws as well. When he is interested in an endgame, and has even a slight edge, he'll play on for 100 moves. Indeed, I wonder how many 100+ move games he has played inhis career?

Theoretically, players can still draw in 3 moves even with Sofia rules. Move knights back and forth and claim triple repetition.

I think it was Seirawan who a couple of years ago described the psychology behind draws in supertournaments. I don't remember all details but the point that I do remember is this. Players rarely agree to a draw before the game. Often times they play out the opening and then agree to a draw for reasons that don't have much to do with the position on the board. Lower rated player may not want to press his small advantage against higher rated player. Similarly, black tends to accept a draw offer just because he is black. Other factors, like fatigue from previous games, whether this is the last game of the tournament, current standings and player's mood may also contribute to the decision to offer a draw. From the player's perspective these are all fine and good reasons but they are not from the spectators' and fans' point of view.

The standard rules allow a draw way too easily. After all, there is no punishment for offering a draw, no risk at all. If the opponent doesn't want a draw, he'll just decline. It's not so easy with Sofia rules. Even if both players want a draw they can't be 100% sure that the opponent wants the same. You may give a hint by making two moves with one piece back and forth. However, the risk may be significant that even if the opponent didn't mind a draw two moves back, now he spots the opportunity to capitalize on the fact that you just wasted two tempi. The rules make players fight and make good moves instead of coping out with a draw offer whenever the mood strikes them.

Yuri, it would be more sensible if the rules of the game made players play on. Otherwise, as suggetsed above, they might as well draw before making any moves. Why should that not be allowed if draws are allowed? In fact, if accepting the analogy of some other people on this blog that chess is a war where a peace treaty is a reasonable outcome, then logic of war dictates that players should be able to simply avoid war by deciding to not play the game at all and draw beforehand.

Well, if you want to get extremist with examples, why then not make the players play over and over again till the fans are satisfied with the quality and length of the game?

I actually don't think players should be penalized chess rating-wise for not wanting to play. Pursewise, yes, since they are being paid to put on a game.

Lackluster pre-agreed draws are exactly what happens in late stages of the tournament when both players have nothing to play for. If players do decide to play it's because of their own desire to play (due to personal animosity or to redeem earlier results or try a novelty or anything else). If you don't like the idea, put the tournament in a format where there is more to play for in the final round.

ds,

Nobody will risk a setback like that in trying for a draw by repetition. The opponent would be a fool not to seize on it if he wanted a draw originally. Which is why if you are going to repeat moves, you are going to repeat moves that don't weaken your position and if, in an extreme scenario, opponent is not repeating his position but rather doing something active, you of course stop immediately and not wait for two moves later. I am not sure that in Sofia rules the draw offer would not be obvious, since you have to make it through an arbiter. Doesn't the arbiter have to talk to the other player prior to making the decision? Isn't it obvious that you are approaching the arbiter?

I thought this was the Daily Dirt. Haven't had dirt since 2/24

What's up with that senor G.

Mig is less dirty these days with the wife and all.

Of course there are going to be more blunders under Sofia rules as the players have more moves to make and therefore a greater scope for errors. When you draw in 22 moves, you're not going to get in time trouble and make some trivial oversight at move 39.

Who wants blunder-free chess anyway?

These days computer chess is virtually free of tactical blunders, but how many of us actually find it entertaining to watch engine-versus-engine matches. Most of us could pit Rybka and Fritz against each another on our own computers and watch them play blitz games with fewer serious errors than in Carlsen-Topalov at standard time control. But where's the fun in that?

On top of that, most chess fans wouldn't notice 95 percent of the blunders at super-GM level without computer assistance anyway.

I'll be back in action tonight. I was in Seattle with the wife's family and was subsequently felled by a brutal ear infection (?) or something that has invited a cross-country ski team wearing sleigh bells into my left ear. Really horrible. Lots of doctors and scans and drugs with more tomorrow.

"Nobody will risk a setback like that in trying for a draw by repetition. The opponent would be a fool not to seize on it if he wanted a draw originally. Which is why if you are going to repeat moves, you are going to repeat moves that don't weaken your position and if, in an extreme scenario, opponent is not repeating his position but rather doing something active, you of course stop immediately and not wait for two moves later. I am not sure that in Sofia rules the draw offer would not be obvious, since you have to make it through an arbiter. Doesn't the arbiter have to talk to the other player prior to making the decision? Isn't it obvious that you are approaching the arbiter?"

Well, if you have triple repetition, you can claim draw without any arbiters.

My understanding was that the primary function of the arbiter is to allow or ban draws, depending on the position. In Sofia arbiters only allow draws in very simple, almost endgame positions and players knows that, so, presumably, they don't bother arbiters if the only reason for a draw is that the position looks drawish after the opening.

Anyway, I guess one player may know that the other wants a draw because he went to talk to the arbiter. If the arbiter doesn't allow a draw then this player (if he wants a draw, too) may try to get a draw by hinting on triple repetition with his next two moves. There still is the risk that the player who talked to the arbiter may change his mind and capitalize on the other player's wasted tempi.

I guess as long as players are not allowed to openly talk and discuss draw offers and implement triple repetition to force the draw, Sofia rules will generally do just fine to keep players playing until the complete simplification of the position on the board.

However, if it were up to me, arbiters would play no role in draw decisions whatsoever. There is triple repetition, there is stalemate, there is 50 move rule. Even in trivial theoretical draws (say, king vs. king and pawn) you don't really need players to talk to each other. It takes exactly three seconds to make the triple repetition and be done with the game. Simple, really drawish positions with no chance for either side almost always allow players to go for triple repetition without any risk of losing the game.

Here is an idea how to make draws less likely - make players sit at the table till the time control. That is even if they agree to draw, say after 10 minutes of play, they would still have to sit at the board for the next 3 hours and 50 minutes.

The high percentage of draws inhibits the development of chess as a commercially viable sport, especially in the US. This issue can be addressed through enhancements to the rules that would not change any of the aspects of the game that we treasure.
- Disallow agreed-draws altogether.
- Remove the restriction on making a move that places or leaves your king in check. Players aren't protected from hanging their queen, so why should they be protected from hanging their king. And a player who has mauevered the opponent into a position that only leaves suicide moves, deserves to be declared the winner.
- Change draw by 3 time repetition of the position to win by 3 times repetition. Call it punishment for stalling. The only time in a tournament game that I was really "forced" into a repetition was when I won an exchange, but my opponent was able to force a perpetual attack on my queen. So neither of us could afford to break the repetition. Under my proposed rule change, I would have just had to calculate properly to see who would lose the repetition, before deciding whether or not to choose that variation.
- There would of course need to be automatic draws upon reaching certain material balances .. K + B vs. K, etc.
- And you still might want to cap the length of games. Say reaching 90 moves without having any pawns left on the board, would result in a draw.

These rule would be for professional tournaments, where all games are monitored by arbiters. There is no need to change the rules for amateur or semi-professional events, where the players are funding the prizes with their entry fees.

That ear infection sounds serious Mig. I guess it could be worse, as those can be truly dangerous. Get better soon!

As to draws:

Someone offered up a good idea a couple of months ago.

A draw can be offered at anytime during the game. However - the offer remains in effect for 5 moves (or 6 moves or 8 moves, whatever), and the opponent can accept the draw at anytime in the next 5 moves (or x moves).

This way the opponent can get a free look at a possible attack. He can play 4 moves into his attack, and if the attack is good he simply refuses the draw and plays on. If his attack was unsound he can take the draw before reaching the x number of moves.

Knowing your opponent has a certain number of free moves with which to mount a risk free attack might make players hesitant to offer draws.

As to draws:

Someone offered up a good idea a couple of months ago.

A draw can be offered at anytime during the game. However - the offer remains in effect for 5 moves (or 6 moves or 8 moves, whatever), and the opponent can accept the draw at anytime in the next 5 moves (or x moves).

This way the opponent can get a free look at a possible attack. He can play 4 moves into his attack, and if the attack is good he simply refuses the draw and plays on. If his attack was unsound he can take the draw before reaching the x number of moves.

Knowing your opponent has a certain number of free moves with which to mount a risk free attack might make players hesitant to offer draws.

As to draws:

Someone offered up a good idea a couple of months ago.

A draw can be offered at anytime during the game. However - the offer remains in effect for 5 moves (or 6 moves or 8 moves, whatever), and the opponent can accept the draw at anytime in the next 5 moves (or x moves).

This way the opponent can get a free look at a possible attack. He can play 4 moves into his attack, and if the attack is good he simply refuses the draw and plays on. If his attack was unsound he can take the draw before reaching the x number of moves.

Knowing your opponent has a certain number of free moves with which to mount a risk free attack might make players hesitant to offer draws.

Mig, I bet you're not going to like what follows. Feel free to delete this posting if it makes your ear infection worse.
Usually I know better than get myself involved with the anti-draw crowds, but the last posting by rp really has jerked my chain.
OK, I'll skip 1)Disallow agreed-draws altogether. A 30-move rule, a 50-move rule, Azmai as the draw Kommissar - no matter, we have seen it all.
The sense of dread begins to creep in when one goes down to read sections 2) and 3) of rp's proposal.
"Remove the restriction on making a move that places or leaves your king in check"
This really consists of two parts. "To place one's king in check" refers to stalemate. I wonder why rp didn't use this term, unless he's not familiar with it. Abolishing stalemate is the oldest anti-draw slogan, but it's yet to come from anybody rated over 1400 USCF who is not locked up in a mental institution. The entire endgame theory down the drain, big deal, I don't know it anyhow.
Think of the nerve it takes for rp and others to come to a chess blog with their rudimentary knowledge and zero appreciation for the game of chess and propose cardinal rule changes. Who are you Mr. rp? Not a scientist or engineer I bet, cause in that case you would have had gone through years of hard studying that would teach your respect for the people who know more about a particular subject than you do. Are you a rich investment banker who would lavish us starving chessplayers with gold if we only do as you say?

Let's go back to the second half of that wondrous "remove the restriction" statement.
rp talks about leaving the king in check. What the bloody hell is that supposed to mean? Remove the restriction on that and what will you have left? I check your king, but you ignore it and keep making pawn moves on the other side of the board? Who wins then? You, because it's your rule?

Section 3) of rp's proposal is rather confusing. Making the guy who's forced into the three-fold repetition a winner requires clarification. So, I play a move after which the position repeats itself for the third time (with usual restrictions, such as the same player's on the move), and I win the game? Suppose I keep giving checks with my queen from g6 to h6 and you keep going back and forth with your king g8-h8, who wins then? I assume White does because he gets to play Qg6+ for the third time and runs to the arbiter screaming "I won!". Perpetual checks now win the game? Great.
It it's the other way around, and the one who made the last move leading to a three-fold loses, then all perpetual checks are no longer possible in inferior positions. Imagine any queen ending with a passed pawn. All you have to do is just to abandon your king to endless checks and walk your pawn through with the help of your queen, and after 200 hundred moves or so your opponent will inevitably run out of checks that haven't happened two times already. Want to be the arbiter?

To Part 4). If I win by stalemating, why is K+B vs. K a draw? You might walk into stalemate or I chase your around the board 500 moves until the three-fold appears. K+N vs. K may just be a win without any chicanery. Anybody who studied the notorious 2N vs. p ending knows that one knight is enough to drive the opposing king to the corner while the other knight blocks the pawn. Why not apply the same strategy there?
5) is a crown jewel. 90 moves without any pawns left is a draw? From what point on do you count the moves? If it's from the beginning of the game then finishing off a resisting opponent, from a pawn ending to checkmating the bare king with a new queen becomes a race against the Move 90 cut-off. Is it from the point when the last pawn was captured? Then it's just a variety of the old 50-mover extended to 90 moves courtesy of Richard Pryor.
I also like the disclaimer at the end of rp's posting. For professionals only? Draw a line please? Where does the US Championship fall? No entry fees there, but no guaranteed prizes/appearance fees either.
I guess the bitterness of the disclaimer tells the whole story. Mr. rp is fed up with "funding" tournaments for lazy bum GM's and he wants them to sweat a little for his own amusement. Some sort of revenge, right?
Don't accuse me in eliticism, please. I work in a chess club, run tournaments and give lectures to a crowd of club players. I have no ill feeling toward weaker players, I just demand one thing - respect for the game of chess. Don't have it, then leave.

Mig: Hope your tinnitus goes away when the infection gets cured. I had an infection in one ear when I was 12, which strangely gave me tinnitus in both ears. I've had it ever since.

Btw for those who know Hindi, this is my funniest personal anecdote -- I stunned the room full of doctors and nurses when I declared that I get a splitting ear-ache whenever I yawn. The whole sentence, except the word "yawn", was spoken in Hindi.

Thanks Yuri for your comments. You are one of the more reasonable people here. Sometimes we have differences of opinion and that's fine. Nobody likes draws and if we have fewer players in the likes of Svidler and Leko we will be beter off.

By the way, did anybody consider that the popularity boost chess needs is an American world champion? Americans are the only ones who know how to truely promote athletes and sports. After all, who would care so much for some Russian or East European guy whose name they can't even pronounce? An American champion will bring the much needed publicity to the sport.

Its stress Mig, I get I when I meet the in laws - it goes when I leave.

Yermo,

"Think of the nerve it takes for....." applies to about 98% of the people posting their "solutions" to the issue of draws on this thread. Like I posted earlier: "It is a tale told by idiots, full of sound and fury...signifying nothing."

You should log on sometime and read what many have to say about analysing a position(s) and how world class players should have done this or that during the course of their game and how much better it would of been if the "idiot" etc. had done so. It's great, but YOU might want to have some Pepto Mismal handy.

Also, I most likely will take a hit or two for my response, but ask me if I care.

Bismal, but mismal sounds just as good.

To Miguel:

Popularity of chess is NOT popularity of chess in US... I (and most non-americans) would not be inclined to play more chess if there was an American champion. (how many people around the world play or follow american football? even if americans are the best...)

If the champion is from your country then chess develops in that counrty. Pretty obvious. So we should hope for a chineese champion, or , a bit more realistically, an Indian champion :)

>[...]people posting their "solutions" to the issue of draws on this thread.

If sucking-up-to-Yermo-chesstraveler scrolls to the start of this thread there are chances it might dawn on him that the discussion is actually about getting rid of _short_ draws...

Don't hold back, Yermo. Say what you mean.

Not that you're not right, of course. More research needs to be done on how ignorant it is possible to be about a topic and still feel that your opinion is worth expressing. It would seem that the bar is set lower in this regard than most people had thought possible before the internet was invented.

Poisoned pawn - some of the discussion was about getting rid of short draws. Not all of it. And even that didn't contain the respect for people who have studied to acquire the sort of knowledge of the game that Svidler and Leko have which many of us would consider desirable.

hehe.. I have said it before and I'll say it again, isnt it disappointing that Yermo is so reticent, and never speaks his mind?! All correct points btw..

d_tal - the artist formerly known as d, who saw somebody else posting with d and decided to make his handle slightly more descriptive, in the hope of avoiding accidental similarities, but not obviously deliberate attempts

The rules of chess itself (stalemate etc.) are of course sacrosanct - adjustments if any only to the format of the tournaments. As to respect I agree, but it so happens that I respect original and innovative players taking certain chances even more :-)

Amen to the post by ds above. When will people realise that chess does not need draw offers?

Hard to say, Spud. When you consider that they haven't taken for that view for the past two hundred years, you've got to think there's a chance they never will.

Gosh, just bothered to scroll up. ds was the fellow who thought you could claim a threefold repetition without going to the arbiters. I wasn't going to bother pointing out how wrong he was on the grounds that no-one could take such an observation seriously, but I see was wrong.

What was it no-one ever went broke doing?

Now now, the friendly draw offer hardly goes back to Philidor. Agreed draws in positions that were not trivially drawn (blockaded or simplified) are a 20th century invention. Of course there are a few exceptions, but just scrolling through all the draws at top turn of the century 20th tournament shows 99% of them are endgames. The rare sub-30-move draw is almost always a forced repetition. The average number of moves of the draws at top events got steadily shorter until reaching our state of embarrassment in the 50's. It hasn't changed much since then. It was 45 at Cambridge Springs; 42 at Bad Kissingen in 1928; 32 at Hastings in 55. Sochi in 76 may have the record with 23 moves.

Things are actually better now if you remember the 80's. Draws in the teens were quite common among the veteran set even at the top events. You'd have rounds like we got in Linares round six all the time. Heck, draws of 20 moves and under make up over a quarter of Zoltan Ribli's career game list. Things are more competitive now, which helps. But it doesn't change the fact that the draw offer is a courtesy gone horribly wrong and that has no place in anything attempting to become a serious sport.

While increased expertise leads to an increased number of positions that are considered dead drawn, that's clearly not the major issue. During the 30's, as players became more professional, and then another jump in when the USSR jumped in with both boots, it became acceptable to use the agreed draw as a device of convenience or tournament strategy. I'd feel a little more sympathy if they were all terribly strategic, but most are based on sloth or fear, something most players freely admit, if not proudly. I'm really only concerned with top-level events where sponsorship and promotion are factors. They'd get used to the Sofia rules with no trouble at all; it's already been done.

Changing the rules, the scoring system, the food, etc. is not necessary. Forcing the players to play differently is horrific. Forcing them to play is not. Don't try to remove the draw, just remove the draw offer.

"Sochi in 76 may have the record with 23 moves" -

Hehe, that must have been a summertime tourney. I guess Sochi was to USSR what Hawaii is to USA. I imagine a lot of those draws were "Now that we are past move 10, I offer you a draw. Where is my sunscreen?". Perhaps going to a chess tournament was a cheaper way to go on a summer vacation than buying a ticket and paying for the hotel.

"Gosh, just bothered to scroll up. ds was the fellow who thought you could claim a threefold repetition without going to the arbiters. I wasn't going to bother pointing out how wrong he was on the grounds that no-one could take such an observation seriously, but I see was wrong."

rdh, I guess technically I was wrong when I said that one doesn't have to go to the arbiter to claim a threefold repetition. What I really meant that in this case aribiter's involvement is just a technicality. In this case the role of the arbiter is not an important one. Here arbiter only resolves the dispute if there is any between the players. He doesn't evaluate whether the position is such that the game must continue or the draw is allowed. That was definitely not the main point of my posts.

"Popularity of chess is NOT popularity of chess in US... I (and most non-americans) would not be inclined to play more chess if there was an American champion. (how many people around the world play or follow american football? even if americans are the best...)

If the champion is from your country then chess develops in that counrty. Pretty obvious. So we should hope for a chineese champion, or , a bit more realistically, an Indian champion :)

Posted by: derida at March 1, 2007 03:04"

The point Derida is about how you can promte the game. I doubt the Chinese or Indians can promote their champions to a worldwide appeal. An American champion can do that. It will create stir in the U.S., more money from American sponsors, more super tournaments with top grandmasters, and consequently more rapid development of chess worldwide.
Further, an American champion could become something of a cross-over figure. Think about it - if the champion is an annonymous guy called Kramnik or Topalov or Radjabov - how can you make that a household name and attract sponsors? Kaspy was the only one having the appeal and capable of a cross-over but they drove him away. Now a champion hailing from America (and American borm that it) who is not deluded (Fischer) can repair a lot of the damage to chess.

rdh, you'll have to spell it out to me. Why does chess need draw offers?

Yermo -

I like you misplaced sense of indignation, but sorry if my post caused you indigestion. I do know enough about chess .. 98% of the people in the world are not masters, and I am one of them .. rated 1900. I stand by my ideas. Morelia/Linares part 1 just ended with 65% draws, which is silly for a sport that aspires to greater commercial success.
1. No agreed draws.
2. Remove restriction on leaving king in check: If after your move you have left or placed your king in check, your opponent takes it on his move, you lose! From a practical point of view this means no stalemate in the end game, the benefit being that many more winning possibilities are created. For example P supported by K vs. lone K always wins. Wouldn't this rule change your assessment of many middlegame positions, on whether or not there are winning (or losing) possibilities.
3. Win by 3-fold repetition ... in other words this would remove this rule from being used as a surrogate for agreed draws. Take a look at last year's Tal memorial, the classical time event, not the rapid. Many of the draws, and there were many, were agreed to after the players began shuffling the same pieces back and forth. So again, from a practical point of view, this rule seldom occurs as a result of a sincere competitive struggle. It's just a way for the two players to say "Hey, I'll accept a draw .. will you?" In your example Yermo: My idea is not much different than what can happen under the current rule, except that now there is a winning possibility - win by 3 fold repetition - in addition to draw by 50 move rule. And you must have forgotten when dreaming up your supposed bust of my ideas that a 200 move game would not happen .. I suggested a move cap.

Yermo, yes, I am a person of science (and of business), rated greater than 1400, and yes, Peyton Manning, Shaquille O'Neal, Lance Armstrong, Ernie Els, Misty May, all sweat for their money!! Chess is a wondrously intriguing game, and the skills of elite player are remarkable. But those skills only get seen when the players engage! Stay tuned!

Poisoned pawn doesn't like me!...he really doesn't like me! My apologies to Sally for the twist.

Just a thought about the "draw problem".

If short draws scare away sponsors, won't the players notice? Isn't this a wonderful example of a market that that can regulate itself?

I believe that no one here is sponsoring chess, so we have no say at all the matter. Read this sentence again, if necessary, foam at the mouth (optional), then read the second paragraph and think about it.

Looks like Yermo was wrong about rp. It turns out the latter does understand enough about the game to opine about it. 1900, which rp stated as his rating, makes him a fairly strong amateur.

And his opinion about chess comes through loud and clear: He doesn't like it, and would clearly prefer to give up chess in favor of the wholly different (but always decisive!) game that he described.

I've always blithely assumed that if non-chess-players bothered to learn enough about chess that they could get something out of following a game on the Internet or reading the chess column in a big-city daily newspaper (a level of understanding that I estimate corresponds with a rating somewhere in the 1500-1700 range), then the overwhelming majority who got that far would fall in love with the game and become lifelong devotees.

But that's way too naive. Just because we find something intellectually fascinating, is no guarantee that anyone else will -- even someone else who understands that activity as deeply, or even more so, than we ourselves do.

So, none of us should find it shocking that rp can understand chess as it is, yet nevertheless reject it in favor of his proposed, un-named fantasy game.

I for one would find a "whoever's got the most pieces when he dies, wins" type of board game played with chess pieces (i.e. what rp proposed) to be awesomely boring; and I suspect the majority of Dirt readers would feel likewise.

But every person is different. And, to each his own. rp's fantasy board-game is no threat to displace chess, which has proven its fascination over 1000 years of human history.

For anyone tempted to dismiss rp on the basis that in terms of chess understanding, a 1900 isn't much better than a 1400, I must point out that far stronger players have withdrawn from chess over the years -- and not always for economic reasons.

Didn't Paul Morphy himself abandon chess (way before losing his sanity) and explain that it seemed too inconsequential to bother with, at a time when the world was embroiled in revolutions, wars, civil wars, etc.? Unlike Kasparov, to my knowledge Morphy made a full and abrupt withdrawal from chess -- not only from active competition, but from discussing or contemplating the game in any way.

Surely it's not hard to come up with modern examples. Kenneth Rogoff comes to mind. I know, he abandoned chess during his career-formative years and soon attained super-GM level in a far more lucrative and prestigious profession (global economics). Yet I find it significant that like Morphy, Rogoff seemed to withdraw from the game 100%, rather than continuing to dangle his toes in it, so to speak, as do so many other promising players who choose other career paths yet maintain their interest in chess as an avocation.

I hope no one misconstrues what I'm saying as in any way sympathetic to rp's dislike for our game. It's just that, others can reject the very thing that we idolize, and it doesn't necessarily mean they are ignorant, or stupid.

Jon,

Don't forget about Tarjan, Byasis, Wilder, Wolf, and Shakade to name a some more. (I apologize for misspelled names). They just road off into the sunset, and you know there's more.

Sure there's plenty of highly promising people who left chess permanently -- and, I'm sure, more to come.

But since my comment revolved around whether someone can understand chess yet still reject it on aesthetic grounds, the most relevant examples would be people who gave up chess without financial considerations being a major factor. (So that excludes for instance Reuben Fine, and many of the more recent ones.)

what happened to Reuben Fine? And who was he to begin with?

Sorry don't know much about him but it is always intersting to learn what happened to young and upcoming chess players who gave up the game for some other pursuit.

Including Rogoff from what you said about a GM level in Global Economics. I was talking about GM's that gave up chess without "continuing to dangle his toes in it." Geeez!

Miguel,

Dr. Reuben Fine was among the top 2 or 3 players in the world in the 1940s. A serious contender for the World Championship, he was the strongest American between Marshall's time and Fischer's time. My impression is that his achievements during that period outshone Reshevsky's; some people even favored him to win that late-40s WCC tournament that was organized in the wake of Alekhine's death (which was won by Botvinnik).

Fine quit chess at the peak of his powers, in the early 1950s (??) I think, to devote his full time to his profession as a psychiatrist.

His several books include a psychological interpretation of Bobby Fischer's climb to the top (published in 1973 I think, after Fine had been out of chess for decades), and the once widely read "The Psychology of the Chess Player," published in the 1950s.

The latter was a source of much joking and snickering among my adolescent chess buddies back in the 'day. It's an almost comically Freudian interpretation of chess itself.

In a nutshell, "The Psychology of the Chess Player" argues that chess is a classic Oedipal drama: you team up with your mother (your Queen) to murder your father (the opposing King).

The book also argues that the King is a phallic symbol. Then it goes on to argue that ALL the pieces are phallic symbols! That's why you have to apologize -- say 'j'adoube' -- before you touch one!

Jon - I love the game! I play in rated tournaments frequently, although not as often as I like. Have even won some money over the years, but of course you know what that means, $40 here, $20 there. Did get in on a split prize that amounted to $hundreds a couple of times. Of course I've spent much, much more, travelling to tournaments, entry fees, hotels, etc. And I do it gladly, because playing competitive chess gives me a lot of pleasure. As does hooking up with my chess buddies. But I'm not a professional, and as I continue to hear those who are professionals, or want to be full-time professionals, or enjoy watching professionals play (like me) bemoan the lack of earnings opportunites for professional players, I have to point out that a path to that increased success we all desire, must include addressing the issue of a high incidence of draws in tournaments, contested or otherwise. (Like the 65% in Morelia) I don't blame professional players for legitimately using the rules as they exist in a specific tournament, to maximize their results. I'm just saying that the rules that alow such a high incidence of draws are pretty much arbitrary. The current rules are not sacrosant. And you know that what I proposed are no where near the radical changes that happened when the move scopes of the bishop, queen and pawns were significantly expanded. And in the case of stalemate, it has been scored all 3 ways (draw, win and loss) in certain places, at various times during history. Adjusting the current rules to create a higher probability of dramatic encounters, can only help foster the image of the sport of chess as something worth watching. Why fly in some of the most brilliant chess players in the world, put them up in outstanding accomodations, construct a high quality staging of the playing venue (roomy tables, gorgeous chess sets, great lighting, convenient refreshments, top notch display and projection equipment, etc.), fill the playing room with enthusiastic spectators, dignataries, potential future sponsors, the press (who are also provided nice facilities to create and transmit their stories), advertise extensively, broadcast the event worlwide in real time on the Internet, accompanied by expert commentary ... only to then allow it to be optional whether or not any of the games are really contested during a particular round. Jon - I can't believe that you think this is a good thing??

Jon - Also, forgive me for not being able to fully explain my proposal in the blog posts. I certainly did not mean to suggest a set of rules whereby the person with the most material left wins. My proposal is really straightforward 1) No agreed draws 2) Don't let the 3 time repetition of the position rule be a reward for mutual stalling, or a loophole for accomplishing an agreed draw. 3) Increase winning possibilities in the endgame by making stalement a win - thereby make it worthwhile to force the struggle to continue.

I admit that it still may be the better trade-off to allow agreed draws after some point, vs. trying to codify the complete set of circumstances that should be defined as automatic draws. But I'm not ready to give up on the idea yet!

rp, the game you propose (stalemate is a win, perpetual check is a win, K+P vs K always a win, etc.) might or might not be popular; but it would not be chess.

You claim your alternative would have greater sporting / spectator / advertiser appeal than chess. Perhaps; but even that is far from a given. After all, the aesthetics of the game must have something to do with spectator appeal, no? The nature and quality of the game would differ so radically from the chess that you currently enjoy when you compete or watch GMs compete, that the vast majority of people who enjoy chess, would not enjoy your diminished (but always decisive) new board game.

Without the various avenues of escape that traditional chess rules make possible for the side having less material, and without the subtleties of endgame technique associated with zugzwang, the opposition, corresponding squares, etc., chess would devolve to something close to a shoot-em-up video game.

rp, you obviously disagree with the above, and I won't label you a patzer because of your view. But I will say with great confidence that very few people who now enjoy chess would enjoy your fantasy version. (Whether your game would attract an entirely new and larger fan base among people who don't care for chess, I don't know -- and frankly, I don't care.)

That is what Yermo had in mind when he said you surely couldn't understand anything about chess, or you would not be proposing to save chess from itself in this way. (Commenting on similar radical anti-draw proposals in the past, I've often used the paradoxical Vietnam-war phrase, "We had to destroy the village to save it.")

You ask about my own view on the "draw problem." I don't see it as a problem. My reasons for following (or playing) chess have almost nothing in common with the reasons for watching a football game or a boxing match. So indecisive results don't bother me in the least.

What's more, many drawn games -- those I've played and those I've watched -- have given me as much pleasure as any decisive game. Even more important, the need to exercise special care to avoid a drawn result through perpetual check, the opposition, fortress, etc., is often a critical feature of one side's play that adds to the beauty of many decisive games.

I'll concede that maybe SOME draws might bother me if I were a direct sponsor (or even a paying spectator). But even in that case, if you like chess and you want to cater to an audience that likes chess, then why play "bait-and-switch" by giving them an entirely different kind of game? In other words, wouldn't it make sense to adopt less radical means of discouraging draws, than what you proposed?

Even Clint Ballard's BAP scoring system -- which I also have branded as "not chess, but a different game", for awarding less than a half point for any draw no matter how arrived at -- clearly does far less violence to the aesthetics and strategy and beauty of chess, than your recommendations.

So I can see banning draws by explicit agreement (i.e., banning the "draw offer"). I don't necessarily favor that change, but I don't oppose it either. Elsewhere I have made guardedly positive comments about the idea, based on what I saw of the 2006 Mtel tournament where both the amount of fighting chess and the overall quality of the games seemed to be unusually high.

On the other hand, I don't think even that mild reform is necessary; because for me, draws simply aren't a problem.

But clearly, just banning the draw offer would not change the nature of the game. It would still be chess; so none of the arguments I used against your radical proposals would be applicable.

Ken Rogoff was interviewed in "Schach" magazine last month. My German's not very good, but there were three reasons why he gave up chess:

1. He wanted to do something more serious with his life.
2. He didn't want to travel so much.
3. Playing professional chess wasn't compatible with his social life.

He decided he had to make a complete break, because otherwise his love for the game would have drawn him back. He still thinks a lot about chess, but not in any disciplined way.

Ironically, his chosen career is very time-consuming and involves a lot of international travel! He also talks about the differences between being a successful chess player and being a successful research economist.

Fascinating, James. Thank you for posting that.

Although my own years of major chess activity overlapped with Ken Rogoff's, I have never met him, either in or out of chess. I'm in finance, so I've "encountered" him on a virtual basis many times (i.e., through following his speeches and other writings) throughout his post-chess career.

I did meet Jeffrey Sachs, who is probably the only economist on earth who is even more prominent than Dr. Rogoff (here I'm excluding government figures like Bernanke, Greenspan, and their foreign counterparts).

Jeff was a college classmate of mine and we lived in neighboring dorms for a time and used to play a lot of table tennis together. (I was quite good, and he was a little bit better.) But I haven't seen or spoken with him since college.