Tuesday, March 5, 2013

The deal with short draws

This game ref here received a lot of attention with some criticizing the short draw while others defended the two players action. Even Australian GM Ian Rogers had to comment on it in US Chess ; by the way I learnt a new word there -  ropable -  I had to look up a dictionary for the definition which by the way  means "extremely angry" :)

For what my opinion is worth, I do not see anything wrong with short draws, if drawing ensures a certain result e.g first place, and both players are agreeable with that result. Does it matter if the draw was in three moves or more than three moves?

What I do not like is when the players delay their draw and I have seen plenty of these examples. In one local tournament, the eventual winner needed only a draw in the final round. He was playing with a "friendly", and they were delaying their result waiting for the game on the second board. Presumably an appropriate result there could mean a loss would still ensure a first placing and at the same time help his friend to get a higher placing.  This is the type of situation everyone should be upset about and not a three move draw which was not even pre-arranged.

In the last round of the 2011 SEA Game selection, I offered my last round opponent , IM Lim Yee Weng, a draw after around twelve moves. The ever correct Yee Weng was hesitant about it even though the draw meant that both of us will tie for second placing. We eventually drew after I checked with the arbiter if it was alright for us to draw.

Filipino chess legend, GM Eugene Torre, achieved his title with a thirteen move draw offer against US GM Robert Byrne. When he published his biography, he titled it "Beyond the 13th Move". This book gave me the inspiration to achieve my own IM title.

FIDE Gen. Secretary , Ignatius Leong, once awarded two players zero points. Both players came late to the game and signed their scoresheet with a draw without a single move being made. Good decision I say.

On another occasion, at an important Open tournament, I witnessed the players at the  third board were delaying their game (obviously waiting for the first board result). The tournament director (a strong player himself) noticed this and warned them that he would not accept a decisive result as he contended that the players were involved in match fixing By then, one of the players had reached a winning rook ending. The player with the winning ending tried to appeal to the tournament director to no avail. Eventually they submitted a draw.


Anonymous said...

For chess, the end justifies the means, as long as at least 75% of the stakeholders agree to the means.

Anonymous said...

Rating was invented by FIDE and is managed by them also. Suggest to let them decide whether short draws are ok or players must fight until it becomes boring to watch.

Post a Comment