quote:

---

> The End of the Draw Offer?
> An open letter by GM Maurice Ashley
>
> 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 this 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 first
> 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 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 top players (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.
> Naturally 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 of the match, 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?" As completely ridiculous as that sounds in most sports, we see
> this happen in chess at almost every tournament. Even sports where ties
> are allowed (soccer and hockey, and, surprisingly, American Football)
> some attempt is 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 had an unspoken agreement to draw 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 next ten 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 can 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
> see some kids who have just learned the rule use it to almost harass
> the other kid with draw offers on 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 drawing
> each other quickly to save energy (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. In
> some sense, who can blame them since 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? Yet 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 at all 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. Think back to the
> time of adjournments: no one cares that now 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
>