Discussion: Rules for draw offerings

So I came across this idea, posted by Peter Heine-Nielsen on his Twitter account:
"People offer draws to avoid risk. Add risk to the draw offer! E.g. a 10 minute penalty for offering a draw. Or the more controversial, allow the opponent to play on with either colour."
The second suggestion is what seems really interesting to me; I'd like to hear your thoughts! Do you think this is a good idea? Could it work or are there any problems connected to it?

Some context for those who might not be aware of it: some grandmasters, especially at the very top level of chess, sometimes play games that are drawn very quickly and uneventfully; essentially games where neither one is really trying. There can be different reasons for that; mainly I think it happens when both players feel already exhausted and want to play a game where they don't have to use much mental energy, so that they can use the rest of the day to relax and/or have extra time to prepare for other upcoming games. Sometimes it is also that white only wants a draw because they already have a lead in the match/tournament and black, naturally having an opening disadvantage, is not able to make anything interesting happen either. See for example Game 12 of the 2018 World Chess Championship where Carlsen agreed to a draw in a better position.
Such "grandmaster draws" are often seen as undesirable by organizers and spectators (even though some, particularly chess.com, are making it out to be a bigger problem than it really is) and a couple of things have been tried to discourage them. In some (high-level) tournaments, draw offers are not allowed until move 30, or not at all. In a recent tournament, Norway chess, there has also been a sort of tie-break armageddon game after each draw - the winner of the tie-break would get 1.5 points as opposed to 2 points for straight up winning the long game.

None of those are really convincing to me, though. In my opinion, agreeing to a draw when the game has just started or when the position is actually complex and interesting because "meh, I don't feel like trying" is pretty much a disgrace to chess. On the other side, there are times when both sides just play really well, so neither side can gain enough advantage to win (for instance, a lot of the draws in the past WCC). The problem with the approaches from above is that there is absolutely no distinction between those different types of draws, which makes them feel unfair to me. That's why I really like this color-switching idea! If you truly believe that the position is equal, or maybe directly playing out to a forced draw (which is what draw offers are intended for!), then you won't mind playing the other side as well. But you really would have to very seriously think about whether or not you have any chances to win before ever offering a draw, and you could never dare to offer a draw in a superior position (as the opponent might choose to switch sides, play on and win). So this would really encourage/force players to try to win whenever it is realistic, while also seeming quite fair, at least in my eyes.

Possibly, this could even be extended to draws by threefold repetition. Over the board, one player must actively claim a repetion in order for the game to be drawn, therefore the other one could be given the choice whether to accept the repetition or switch sides and play on. I've tried to find any loopholes or weird situations that could be caused by this, but I haven't found anything really problematic yet. What comes closest is this: suppose player A spends almost all his time to work out a variation, where he sacrifices a lot of material for an attack. He can't see a forced win yet, but he knows that there is at least a forced perpetual check in all lines, and maybe more. So he decides to go in for it. Eventually, he wants to take the perpetual, as he's very much in time trouble and still not seeing anything better. However, under our "new rules" he can't claim the perpetual! If he does, then player B might switch sides, and, having a lot more time, find a win that player A has missed. So player A would just have to repeat moves indefinitely without ever claiming a repetition; which is of course very silly. However, it should still work out as player B would actually want to claim the repetition himself! If the game has an increment (and I think almost all major classical tournaments have 30 seconds increment) then by repeating a lot, player A could gain a lot of time and eventually find the win, if there is one, or otherwise work out that there is no win and then claim the repetition. Since allowing that could only be bad for player B, he therefore wants to claim the repetition himself before player A can gain too much time.
Admittedly, this is a bit weird, but it just seeeems to barely work out? Alternatively, an arbiter could rule games as drawn, if such weird situations with continuous repetitions should ever arise.

As far as I know, this "color-switching" rule is not implemented anywhere currently. It does sound really nice though, I think I'd even enjoy playing under such rules myself, at my very much non-elite level. What are your thoughts on this long post?

It is not possible to be penaltized for offering a draw. Imagine if you have only 20 minutes and your opponent has around 40, you play an endgame which is indeed a theoretical draw, so you offer a draw. Under normal circumstances, your opponent would accept, but due to to 10 minutes penalty he plays on to flag you. Or in a blitz game, where if you are penaltized like this you lose he game. So, that kind of penalty is impossible. What about letting the opponent to continue with either color. Well, just like Magnus, you don't want to play because it will consume mental energy and either you already have won the match, so you offer the draw just to end one hour earlier or because you don't want to risk losing elo points. But, if you have that better position, you won't offer the draw, because you will likely lose the elo points. And you play on until move 100 were you are exhausted. What's the point? will you ask me. Well, you cannot force anyone to play chess if he is not up to.

Draw is a condition. According to Steinitz, if played properly, every game should lead to a draw. And you just can't help it. It was a remarkable call by FIDE, but they understood that it is not right to try to eliminate draws. If implemented, there are going to be practical problems such as, with what color did the winner win? Is it possible to flip the board in the middle of the match, and at one point you have to copy with a certain position and then with the totaly different one? Probably not. Plus, if you think about it, every "solution" revolves around time. I incline to believe that you hate losing on time, if you don't let me know. That "color-switching" idea will require a lot of thime to calculate if you have anything that your opponent might use and if you can hold the position of your opponent. You may burn a lot of time and you will end up either losing on time or make a big blunder due to low time on the clock.

As far as the threefold repetition is concerned, if you can delcine it, then your opponent will continue it indefinately.In another case, after so many sacrifices, there should be a defence, otherwise you may have found that forced win, because your opponent will have to spend some time to thing what to play.

After all, if you offer a draw in an inferior position, your opponent will decline. If the position is equalish he will accept, in either cases. So the whole thing is when you have a better position. But if you offer the draw, it's because you know that he would accept it. Otherwise, you will continue play. There is no need to implement a rule about optional choise of switching colors in case of draw offer.

Last but not least, if -for some reason- all these measures are implemented, EVERY game will end with either two bare kings, or one with a pawn but blocked by the other king or even with a piece in very long games, that will be almost impossible to keep up. From this perspective, I would prefer some quick draws for some fireworks in the next game, because all that saved mental energy is channeled in the next game. And what I think that measure of the color-switching would bring is exactly the opposite of what was insituted to eliminate, because the player will distribute his mental enegry equally, and while he could produce a masterpiece and lose by an opponent's masterpiece, he will draw the two games.

These are my thoughts about what should be done with draws. I hope they were useful. Good luck to every one's games.

I really read nothing but like 4 lines but IMO it's not rude to offer a draw in an imbalanced position which it isn't clear who is better. It is in fact weird to offer a draw to someone when you are down a queen, though in a position which there are some imbalances and it is not clear who is better, I do not find it rude to offer a draw.

Just abandon draw offers. It would add a huge benefit to the game. People are afraid of every change but I played with Sofia rule and it was ok.

Does every game played “perfectly” on each side really end in a draw? Two top level computers played each other and one was forced to lose its queen. Funny as it sounds, one computer resigned! I play for wins and live with my draws and loses. The sport is better when the player, tired or not, goes for the win - in my opinion, Cheers!
Also what about 3 for a win, 1 for a draw, 0 for a loss - could this percentage work?

Top computers can't play perfectly. The only way to find a perfect game is to calculate it from start to finish and todays computers are impossibly far from doing that

@dark_bishop01 Thanks for the detailed answer! The thing about the 10-minutes-penalty is only included because I copied the entire tweet, I don't like it myself. Mainly because draw offers as such are no bad thing and therefore there's no reason to penalize them. Also, I was only talking about long time control games with increment (for example 90+30 or higher) - those are the games I really care for.
In my opinion (and I know some will disagree) draw offers are only meant as a shortcut. When you know you are definitely going to lose, you can resign instead of playing it out. When both players know the game is going to be a draw, they can agree to a draw instead of playing it out. Offering a draw when the position is not clearly drawn (when you're not sure about the position / you have the better position but are low on time / the position is equal but has interesting imbalances) - I consider that to be abusing the possibility of agreeing to a draw.
I absolutely hate losing on time, yes. But a) that's what increment is for and b) I still wouldn't ever offer a draw only because I am low on time. Besides, if the position is actually one that should be drawn, you don't have to offer a draw. You can also play it out until it is clear that neither side has winning chances and then offer a draw without risking anything with the color-switch.
Basically, under this new "color-switching rule", offering a draw would mean saying "I don't believe anyone can win this position", then your opponent has the choice of answering "okay, I believe you" (accepting the draw immediately) - which would probably happen most of the time anyway - or challenging this claim, saying "I don't believe your judgment was correct" (switching the colors). Then, if you were correct about offering a draw, it shouldn't give you too much trouble to prove it with the other color, either.
"EVERY game will end with either two bare kings..." - I don't see why it would. If the players know that the position is a theoretical draw, they can still agree to a draw long before.

@jux303 I disagree with you on that, I don't think draws should be offered in unclear positions. Thanks for telling me your opinion though

@Sarg0n well, Sofia rules are something that has been tried in practice, so we do have some information on how that works out. I think there were a lot of cases where the players unnecessarily played out completely drawn endgames (sure, not the end of the world and probably educational for lower-rated spectators too, but it does feel a bit silly). More importantly, there were a lot of cases where both players "implicitly" agreed to a draw by, say, just shuffling their kings around on the same two squares to create a threefold repetition - and at this point, why shouldn't they just be able to offer the draw directly? it would be simpler for everyone. That's why I'm excited about this idea, because I think it might be able to apply to repetitions as well.

Does Switching Sides defeat the point of winning with your own strategy?
Each side of the board plays out differently.
A good drawn or stalemated game is fun to watch.
Draws are a necessary part of the game.
Olympic chess would be good at rapid levels. Exercising your brain counts as a sport.

I don't have any problem with players taking a draw for any reason they want. They have no duty to entertain us.
But if draws really bother you -- obviously true for some people -- the simple solution is football scoring. 3 points for a win, one point for a draw. Thus if a draw is agreed, each player has lost 2 points that he might have made if he played on and won, and the total reward to both players is less than could be obtained by victory.
It works in football, where teams fight to get or avoid the draw, which can be exciting play, an getting one point rather than three is considered "dropping two points."

yeah but in football draws are less often than in chess, i feel like 3 points for a win in chess is a bit too much.