"It‘s against the rules. If an arbiter overhears the agreement both are forfeited." Yeah sure, players are so dumb, that they gonna shout in a room to each other hey let's draw this game, do you agree, ok fine. Rules, which can be enforced only by miracle aren't rules... just written text in some useless book.
In other forum thread some time ago, I was considering the tournament, where only wins count, both draws and losses = 0 pts. Yes, not 0.5, not 0.05, not 0.3, but straight zero points. You know why people agree to draws? yeap, 0.5pts, which is way too much for some draws I saw so far, and additional free day for resting and analysis. Why not to make only wins to count? I do believe, that game strategy would change quite a bit. No more Draw Gangsters, no more sneaky dirty draw agreements before the tournament begins, etc. Like seriously, one guy will draw 10 games in a row, other guy will win 5 games and lose 5 games? who is better chess player? are they equal? they both got 5 points in tournament right?
So many times GMs will avoid going into some crazy positions, just not to risk, because draw is 0.5 pts worth... Take it away, let's see some real fireworks on the board.
I mean if you have the right arbiter he will forfeith both:
One could abolish the draw offer at all. Of course results can always be arranged though but during the game finding a consensus is an obstacle.
Aside from these boring philosophical considerations about proves: Pre-game agreed draws *are* detectable. At least in some cases. And this is enough for a rule.
@sheckley666 can you please explain how to detect pre-game agreed draw? just please use serious example, not that two children are talking in toilet about draw agreement and it happens arbiter to seat on toilet just in the next cabinet and record it. Or like GM of 2600 elo is playing some patzer of 1800 elo and they do draw within 20 moves etc.
@TrainingOTB What is bad with these examples? Other ways: Two grown-ups talking in toilet, some other participant hears it? Or one of them gets a guilty conscience and squeals?
We have similar crimes in real life: In capitalistic economy, collusive pricing is mostly forbidden. And it is equally hard to detect. But sometimes it is detected, and this is enough to justify a rule against.
For as long as it remains against the rules an agreed upon draw would be unethical because it's a violation of an agreement that was made upon entering a tournament. I don't think it's unethical in and of itself though.
Say that in a tournament player A would secure the tournament win with a draw and is playing against player B who needs to win in order to win the tournament. In a situation like that nobody would question the validity of player A playing to secure half a point. So why should it be wrong for both players to play to secure half a point if it gets them the desired tournament result when it's OK for one player to do so? And if that's OK, what would be the point of the pretense of playing the game? I think the reason is a pragmatic one: Spectators yield revenue whether directly or indirectly. More draws by agreement=fewer spectators=less money.
As a side note: I'm a beginner at chess but I'm an advanced Magic the Gathering player (for those of you unfamiliar with that it's a collectible card game with tournaments played for very decent chunks of money) and in that game it's perfectly legal to agree on a draw. If both players would advance to the next round of a tournament by drawing it's the norm to do so.
i'm against predetermined wins or draws. Ruins the game. I understand the reasons both parts can come up with, but it's a sports, and it's like determining 1 year beforehand, who the next WCC will be
I'm pretty sure that Sometimes an agreed draw is the best strategic move for both parties. Suppose we both need 1/2 of a point to be "in the money". Gaining a full point will not get either of us more money, or a win of the tournament as a whole. An early agreed draw is best for both of us. In terms of game theory. It's similar to the "Prisoners dilemma. " However it has even mroe emphasis on cooperation being beneficial.
White wins white gets money.
Black wins black gets money.
Draw Both get money.
Losing players black or white get no money.
Draw agreed is win-win.
That being said I feel that all or most grandmaster chess tournaments should be like the recent Sinquifield Cup when it comes to draw rules. No draws by agreement, play to 3 fold, not enough material, or stalemate, or 50 move rule. It totally removes any possiblity of the above mentioned draws being unethical.
On top of that it makes the games more educational. When I was much weaker at chess sometimes I would look at a GM draw, and wonder "Why did they draw here?"
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.