|
Sponsored Links
Wholesale Chess
Buy chess sets, clocks,
boards, pieces, books, and other chess equipment at great prices!
Chess Instruction Online
Lessons are available from Cardoza author, FM Eric Schiller,
using videoconferencing or Internet Chess Club facilities
Unique custom, autographed and personalized books and software,
and rare chess books too! Visit our
store today!
Other
Links
| |
Maurice Ashley speaks out against draws
The End of the Draw Offer?
To all chess fans:
Recently I have been thinking about a practice in chess that I believe needs
to be discussed by all of us who love the game, and that is, the draw offer.
This topic started to occupy my mind mainly because of two events: the 2003
US Championships and the Kasparov-Deep Junior match at which I was a
commentator. In the former, with 8 players tied for the lead going into the
last round and a $25,000 first-place prize up for grabs, draw offers were
made and quickly accepted on three of the top four boards. In the latter,
after having captured the imagination of millions of chess playing fans and
the general public, the players stunned everyone by agreeing to a draw in a
position where the tension was just reaching its peak.
I guess I might not have given the issue much thought if it had not been for
the bitter reaction that ensued in both cases. In Seattle, the chief
organizer, Erik Anderson, was shocked, angered and deeply disappointed. He
felt that with all the sponsorship money that had been raised, it was
terribly insulting to the benefactors and the fans that the leaders (with
the notable exception of Shabalov and Akobian) had snuffed out most of the
drama from the event. He also pointed out that this was a lost opportunity
for our nation’s top players to show what our game was all about. His anger
propelled him to be even more generous (!) by rewarding the two gladiators
with a $5,000 bonus for their fighting spirit. In the end, he said what
really hurt him the most was that one of his children interpreted the draw
offers as cheating because this fixed the result before the real contest had
occurred.
In the case of the Man vs Machine match, the reaction was even worse. This
match received a mountain of hype and arguably, in our internet age, it was
the most covered chess event ever with over 45,000 papers reporting on the
first game alone. Even more amazing, the prominent sports network ESPN2 sent
a crew to broadcast the event live across America. It was a fantastic moment
for chess as approximately 400,000 households were tuned in. Needless to
say, the finish was disappointing. The in-house audience booed raucously
while my usually eloquent co-commentator, Yasser Seirawan, and I struggled
to make sense of it for the TV viewers. Even my mother-in-law and her
sister, who have never touched a pawn in their lives but who watched the
entire three hours (imagine that), expressed their opinion that there must
have been some prior arrangement agreed upon by the two competitors. While I
quickly let them know that neither side would be a party to such nonsense, I
couldn’t help but wonder how many other viewers across America were thinking
the same thing.
As someone who has devoted my life to not only playing but also popularizing
chess, it hurt me to hear the game talked about so negatively. Kasparov
explained afterwards with astonishing frankness that he just “didn’t want to
lose.” After having thoroughly outplayed Deep Junior in virtually every game
and having the match still be tied due to the tactical wizardry of the
machine, he was concerned that even his own amazing powers might falter in
the last game. Those of us who have lost important games know the feeling
well. Still, if chess is to ever get the popularity that Kasparov has made
his admirable mission from the beginning of his career, I think the issue of
draw offers will have to be addressed.
When I put in a phone call to Tom Brownscombe at the USCF he read me rule
14.b.6 out of the USCF rulebook which states: “It is unethical and
unsporting to agree to a draw before a serious contest has begun.” Frankly,
I didn’t even know this rule existed, but the way it is worded means it has
no bite whatsoever. On top of that, it doesn’t address an even more
fundamental question: why are we allowed to offer a draw in chess? At what
point did this become allowed? Tom did not know the answer to this question,
but referred me to USCF President and chess historian John McCrary. When I
asked him, he was instantly able to tell me the origin of the fifty-move
rule and the three move repetition, but could not think of where the draw
offer had originated. He promised to look into it, and it wasn’t long before
I received this e-mail:
Maurice, Your question turned into quite a research topic! I could find
nothing in my standard sources, so I did some quick original research in my
old books, and found the following: In Medieval chess ( Shatranj) the draw
was recognized, but apparently only in simplified endgames in which it was
clearly impossible for either side to force a win. There is no apparent
reference to draws earlier than the late stages of the endgame in Shatranj
literature. Even until the 18th century, there seems to have been no draws
by agreement other than in very simplified endgames. In the Oxford
Encyclopedia of Chess Games, the earliest draw of any kind was a perpetual
check in 1750, although that book has recorded games all the way back to the
1400's. Staunton's Handbook (1848) refers to draws by agreement only if the
forces are greatly simplified, such as K+Q vs K+Q. The earliest reference to
draw by agreement I could find was in the American Chess Code of 1897, which
allowed draw by agreement at any time.
Certainly a draw can be a natural result of a well-played game. Few would
complain when two players slug it out, throwing caution to the wind only for
the fireworks to fizzle to a lifeless position (check out Tate-Ashley, New
York 1993 for an extreme example of this). But the draw offer, especially
one that is made after ten or twelve perfunctory moves, seems just bizarre.
Imagine a basketball game being played for a few minutes before both sides
decide to stop and call it a day. “You know, we had long flight in, our
players played last night and are a little tired. Would you like a draw so
that we can all go out and have a beer?” Not only does that sound completely
ridiculous, in some places the fans might start a riot! Even sports where
ties are allowed (soccer, hockey, and, surprisingly, American Football)
attempts are made to avoid this somewhat unsatisfying result. Most other
sports resolve the problem in a clear way: basketball can go into three or
four overtimes, baseball has extra innings, tennis has the tie-break, and
golf has some kind of playoff. Of course, chess is different since a drawn
result is sometimes unavoidable. If only two kings are left on the board,
adding a few extra minutes won’t make difference. It would be pointless to
play out many rook endings as well as many bishop of opposite color endings.
Draws are a natural part of our game, and to play for a win in many
positions is stupid if not suicidal. However, the draw offer in a position
full of life with mysteries yet to be revealed has got to be the most abused
rule in all of chess. I am not even sure you can call this a rule: it is
more like a practice that has been regulated, or, in this case, not
regulated enough.
Now don’t get me wrong: as much as I detest draws, I have also been guilty
of abusing this practice. Both times that I tied for first in Foxwoods were
due to early last round draw offers (one year my opponent extended the
courtesy while the next time I was the one who suggested peace). My tie for
first in the Bermuda Open was due to a quick draw offer I made. In all three
cases, against very strong GMs, I had come into the round unsure if my
opponents were as worried as I was about losing out on a decent prize.
However, at King’s Island in 2002 where I was in sole first by half a point
going into the last round, I expected and steeled myself for a heavy
struggle. Imagine my surprise when my opponent, a GM known for his fighting
spirit, offered me an early draw even though he had White! He said that he
had been out the night before and was too tired to play. The story got even
more curious when boards two and three, with some of America’s strongest
players now with a legitimate shot of tying me for first, also saw quick
draws, one because of “fatigue” and the other because of friendship. I know
this “friendship” excuse because my great buddy Josh Waitzkin and I
routinely drew our games before his Dad suggested that organizers might stop
inviting us to the same tournament. We talked it through and decided that,
as painful as it was, our friendship could withstand the competition.
Curiously, out of our six or seven games I think only two were decisive.
I say all this because it took me over twenty years to realize how much of a
spell we are all under. I can’t remember when I first learned that a draw
could be offered at any time, and I certainly don’t remember questioning it.
‘Bishops move diagonally, the object of the game is to checkmate the king,
and you can offer a draw whenever you like.’ In the lower rated sections of
many youth championships, you’ll invariably see one kid who has just learned
the rule use it to virtually harass the other kid with draw offers on almost
every move!
Unfortunately, the draw offer has been used in more devious ways. Recently,
it has come out that Bobby Fischer had been right all along when he said
that the Soviets ganged up on him in Curacao by agreeing beforehand to draw
each other quickly (Korchnoi has added that the he too was a victim of this
at the same event). The names of the conspiring players are among the
greatest to have ever touched a chess piece. Some might argue that this is
just good tournament strategy. If they had truly tried to defeat each other
the result may have ended in the same way. Why not save some energy for
later on, and to use against players who may be a bit more tired from
playing out long games? All this rationalizing aside, we all know that this
specious argument smacks up against every element that makes sports so
grand. And while today’s professionals are not in the business of fixing
games, we still see an epidemic of early draws even at the highest levels.
Imagine for a moment that it was the last round of a major tournament and
Player X is leading the field by a half-point. His opponent, Player Y has
had a horrible tournament and really couldn’t care less about playing. They
sit at the board, punch clocks, make a few moves and then Player Y resigns!
Of course, there would be an uproar that would probably result in the player
being banned from future events. Now let’s change the scenario and say the
players agreed to a draw. That would most likely elicit only modest grumbles
even though Player X had just been handed at least a tie for first for doing
nothing at all. Yes, Player X got into that situation by playing well in
previous rounds, but that does not change anything. Teams are constantly
playing well to get to the finals of major competitions without being handed
the title on a silver platter once they get there. In chess, the attitude
is, “We can do it so why not?”
If we were to agree that this is a serious problem that needs addressing,
the next question has to be “What can be done about it?” When I brought up
this subject with former Women’s World Champion Susan Polgar, she said that
she remembers that in the old Soviet and Hungarian championships players
were not allowed to offer draws before move thirty. She also reminded me
that Rentero, the organizer of Linares, used to have it in the players’
contracts that they were not allowed to draw before the first time control.
I agree that this is a great place to start, but why not after fifty moves
instead? We already have a fifty-move rule so this already creates some
harmony. The reason I am not jumping to eliminate the draw offer entirely is
to deal with the reality of those endgame situations where there really is
nothing to play for. Fifty moves seem like a reasonable compromise although
I would not be against someone saying sixty or seventy. The key is for a
real game to be played.
Paul Truong, who also shared in this discussion with Susan and me, suggested
that if players wish to draw then it’s impossible to stop them. They could
always create a game that ends in perpetual check or three move repetition.
This is true, but I think the vast majority of players are more honorable
than that. Almost all early draws are not due to prior agreement, but more
out of convenience or fear of losing. If players were not allowed to have
quick draws, they would simply erase this option from their minds and just
play chess. Naturally, the older you are the harder it will be to adjust to
the rule change. The ten-year-olds who will be our stars in the next decade
will have no problem because they will not have known any other situation.
Take adjournments: today no one cares that you can’t adjourn your games
after the first time-control (although Kramnik managed to resurrect this
dead practice in his match against Deep Fritz). Today’s teenage chess
players would think you insane if you told them that Botvinnik used to be
able to stop a game in progress, go have his assistants analyze the position
for several hours, and come back with analysis that had been polished and
spit-shined for him. Of course, computers really precipitated the demise of
this ridiculous exercise, but it didn’t seem so ridiculous back then. It was
just accepted as the way things are.
Even for players who are less than honorable, it is possible for organizers
to send the message. If a game ends in a quick perpetual check between two
players most everyone knows to be friends, any number of things can be done,
from warning to fining the players. It’s highly unlikely to have games end
in quick perpetuals in the first place so if this were to happen again, then
collusion would be clear. I think that ninety-nine percent of all players
are honorable and would not even think of doing something like that, but
some strong measures can nevertheless be agreed on by FIDE and the national
federations.
I do not pretend to know the exact solution to this as I have not thought
through every possible situation. I hope FIDE will seriously take up this
issue at one of its future meetings. I know Mr. Ilyumzhinov has been trying
various methods of making the game more accessible to a wider audience, some
of which have met with limited success. Possibly the idea of regulating draw
offers will be one of the easier changes to enact. No doubt, the world’s top
players can expedite this change if they can come to some agreement. For the
good of chess, we can only hope that they do.
Maurice Ashley firstblackgm@aol.com |
| |
|
