|
Home > Archive > Chess politics > April 2005 > New Anti-Draw Rule in Grandmaster Tournament
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
New Anti-Draw Rule in Grandmaster Tournament
|
|
| Sam Sloan 2005-03-31, 6:00 pm |
| Players: Viswanathan Anand (India), Veselin Topalov (Bulgaria),
Vladimir Kramnik (Russia), Ruslan Ponomariov (Ukraine), Michael Adams
(England) and Judit Polgar (Hungary).
The Category 20 event will be a double round robin with a 7 hour time
control. There will be a winner of the event as there will be a
playoff in the case of a tie.
One unusual rule is that draw by mutual agreement between the players
is forbidden. The players won't be allowed to offer a draw or speak to
their opponent. The player can claim the draw only via Arbiter in 3
cases: A) Perpetual check B) Triple repetition C) A theoretically
drawn position. Only the Arbiter can confirm the result of the game.
The Arbiters will be advised by Zurab Azmaiparashvili on this.
Arbiters: Chief Arbiter: Joaquin Espejo (Spain),Deputy arbiters: Boris
Postovski (USA),Panaqiotis Nikolopoulos (Greece).
| |
| Larry Tapper 2005-03-31, 6:00 pm |
| Mark Crowther probably doesn't mind this notice being lifted verbatim
from TWIC, but he should get an acknowledgment at least:
http://www.chesscenter.com/twic/twic.html#news324
That's an unusually radical approach to the draw problem. My guess is
that in these 30 games, we'll see more than the usual proportion of
draws by repetition.
Larry T.
| |
| Adrian MacNair 2005-03-31, 6:00 pm |
| "Larry Tapper" <larry_tapper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1112290825.273456.54500@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
quote:
> Mark Crowther probably doesn't mind this notice being lifted verbatim
> from TWIC, but he should get an acknowledgment at least:
>
> http://www.chesscenter.com/twic/twic.html#news324
>
> That's an unusually radical approach to the draw problem. My guess is
> that in these 30 games, we'll see more than the usual proportion of
> draws by repetition.
Something has to be done about 16-move coward draws.
| |
| Larry Tapper 2005-03-31, 6:00 pm |
|
Adrian MacNair wrote:
quote:
> "Larry Tapper" <larry_tapper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1112290825.273456.54500@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
verbatim[vbcol=seagreen]
is[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Something has to be done about 16-move coward draws.
Perhaps. It's always seemed to me that this issue has been way
overblown, though I acknowledge that it's not a good thing when only a
minority of GMs in a round robin seem seriously interested in real
combat.
Anyway, this is the first tournament I've seen in which draws by mutual
agreement are totally prohibited, even after long struggles. It's an
interesting experiment and we'll see what happens.
Larry T.
| |
| Gunsberg 2005-03-31, 9:55 pm |
|
Larry Tapper wrote:
quote:
> Mark Crowther probably doesn't mind this notice being lifted verbatim
> from TWIC, but he should get an acknowledgment at least:
>
> http://www.chesscenter.com/twic/twic.html#news324
>
> That's an unusually radical approach to the draw problem. My guess is
> that in these 30 games, we'll see more than the usual proportion of
> draws by repetition.
>
> Larry T.
Well, the most interesting detail is that "Only the Arbiter can
confirm the result of the game."
--combined with this....
"The Arbiters will be advised by Zurab Azmaiparashvili on this."
There seems to be the implication that Azmaiparashvili could, in
effect, tell the players to "play on", if there is a way to avoid the
repetition without having a player compromise his position.
Thus, he might make a judgement about reptitions in Middle Game
positions, where most of the pieces are still on the board, and where
one (or both) players could make a different move that is about as
good.
Of course, the danger here is that Azmaiparashvili could misjudge the
position.
Still, Azmaiparashvili can't really prevent 2 draw minded players
from relentlessly chopping wood.
It is perhaps impossible to prevent fightless draws, but I guess
that it is possible to make such a pacifistic approach more of a hassle
than it's worth.
| |
| John Rowland 2005-03-31, 9:55 pm |
| "Larry Tapper" <larry_tapper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1112302374.766298.224220@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
quote:
>
> It's an interesting experiment and we'll see what happens.
If this experiment were a success, the ban on draws would become the norm
across all tournaments. However, the top players would rather have the
freedom to call early draws whenever they feel like it. Therefore it is in
the interest of all of the players to make this the most boring tournament
ever, so that the experiment is never repeated.
--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acr...069/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes
| |
| Mike Murray 2005-04-01, 3:54 am |
| On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 03:04:57 +0100, "John Rowland"
<johnr@journeyflow.spamspam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
quote:
>"Larry Tapper" <larry_tapper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:1112302374.766298.224220@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
quote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> it is in
>the interest of all of the players to make this the most boring tournament
>ever, so that the experiment is never repeated.
Of course, it's also possible not to repeat particular invitations.
| |
| beliavsky@aol.com 2005-04-01, 5:58 pm |
| Sam Sloan wrote:
quote:
> Players: Viswanathan Anand (India), Veselin Topalov (Bulgaria),
> Vladimir Kramnik (Russia), Ruslan Ponomariov (Ukraine), Michael Adams
> (England) and Judit Polgar (Hungary).
>
> The Category 20 event will be a double round robin with a 7 hour time
> control. There will be a winner of the event as there will be a
> playoff in the case of a tie.
>
> One unusual rule is that draw by mutual agreement between the players
> is forbidden. The players won't be allowed to offer a draw or speak
to
quote:
> their opponent. The player can claim the draw only via Arbiter in 3
> cases: A) Perpetual check B) Triple repetition C) A theoretically
> drawn position. Only the Arbiter can confirm the result of the game.
> The Arbiters will be advised by Zurab Azmaiparashvili on this.
> Arbiters: Chief Arbiter: Joaquin Espejo (Spain),Deputy arbiters:
Boris
quote:
> Postovski (USA),Panaqiotis Nikolopoulos (Greece).
Overall I think the rule is a good idea. I suggest it be called the
anti-Kramnik rule. It may not be a coincidence that it is being first
adopted in Bulgarian tournament, where the organizers may have been
influenced by their compatriot Topalov, who is a real fighter.
Rule (C) troubles me a little . If a player A offers a draw to the
arbiter, and the arbiter agrees that the position is theoretically
drawn, the approval of player B should still be required before the
game is drawn. Otherwise, the 50 move rule should be used to terminate
play in dead drawn positions.
| |
| Larry Tapper 2005-04-01, 5:58 pm |
|
Gunsberg wrote:
quote:
> Larry Tapper wrote:
verbatim[vbcol=seagreen]
is[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>
> Well, the most interesting detail is that "Only the Arbiter can
> confirm the result of the game."
>
> --combined with this....
>
> "The Arbiters will be advised by Zurab Azmaiparashvili on this."
>
> There seems to be the implication that Azmaiparashvili could, in
> effect, tell the players to "play on", if there is a way to avoid the
> repetition without having a player compromise his position.
The way I read that clause, I take Azmai's role to be limited to
determining whether a position is a theoretical draw. If draw by
threefold repetition is permitted, it should, in principle, speak for
itself. Otherwise there's no point in mentioning it specifically as one
of the three permissible ways to draw.
Anyway I'm sure that the players will ask for clarification of this
point.
Larry T.
quote:
>
> Thus, he might make a judgement about reptitions in Middle Game
> positions, where most of the pieces are still on the board, and where
> one (or both) players could make a different move that is about as
> good.
>
> Of course, the danger here is that Azmaiparashvili could misjudge
the
quote:
> position.
>
> Still, Azmaiparashvili can't really prevent 2 draw minded players
> from relentlessly chopping wood.
>
> It is perhaps impossible to prevent fightless draws, but I guess
> that it is possible to make such a pacifistic approach more of a
hassle
quote:
> than it's worth.
| |
| Dr A. N. Walker 2005-04-01, 5:58 pm |
| In article <1112320333.324387.211880@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
Gunsberg <gunsberg@kasparovchess.com> wrote:
quote:
>There seems to be the implication that Azmaiparashvili could, in
>effect, tell the players to "play on", if there is a way to avoid the
>repetition without having a player compromise his position. [...]
Barring a case where the players see only a draw but ZA
sees a win, forcing the players to switch from one drawn position
to another is not actually going to help anything. "Play on",
however such an instruction is couched, is just an invitation to
meaningless wood-shifting. ...
quote:
> Still, Azmaiparashvili can't really prevent 2 draw minded players
>from relentlessly chopping wood.
... I don't think "chopping wood" is the problem so much
as tired, boring play. If neither player is really interested in
playing on, but they have to [whether, as in the old days, to
reach move 30, or now because ZA says they have to, or previously
because otherwise Mr Rentero threatened their prize money], we are
just going to see lots of clueless, planless play, of no merit, and
with every prospect that every so often a careless move will lead
to an undeserved win for the opponent. It's not going to do much
for the image of chess.
--
Andy Walker, School of MathSci., Univ. of Nott'm, UK.
anw@maths.nott.ac.uk
| |
| Harold Buck 2005-04-01, 5:58 pm |
| In article <1112369919.298689.161400@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"Larry Tapper" <larry_tapper@yahoo.com> wrote:
quote:
>
> The way I read that clause, I take Azmai's role to be limited to
> determining whether a position is a theoretical draw. If draw by
> threefold repetition is permitted, it should, in principle, speak for
> itself. Otherwise there's no point in mentioning it specifically as one
> of the three permissible ways to draw.
>
It would take longer than threefold rep, but they could always move
pieces back and forth with no captures or pawn moves for 50 moves.
--Harold Buck
"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson
| |
| Larry Tapper 2005-04-07, 6:07 pm |
|
Adrian MacNair wrote:
quote:
> "Larry Tapper" <larry_tapper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1112290825.273456.54500@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
verbatim[vbcol=seagreen]
is[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Something has to be done about 16-move coward draws.
Perhaps. It's always seemed to me that this issue has been way
overblown, though I acknowledge that it's not a good thing when only a
minority of GMs in a round robin seem seriously interested in real
combat.
Anyway, this is the first tournament I've seen in which draws by mutual
agreement are totally prohibited, even after long struggles. It's an
interesting experiment and we'll see what happens.
Larry T.
|
| |
|
|