The Sofia rules are fine in a super tournament where there are lots of skilled arbiters, the players are pros who can be expected to know the rules, and the whole chess world is watching.
I would like to play by anti-draw rules at my amateur level, but I cannot see how it could possibly work. In the minor leagues, there is always a lot of hassling and dealing. The Sofia rules just will be hassled and dealt with like anything else.
For Bulgarian players it's quite hard, since they easily could have avoided the problem. But for the arbiter it is a clear-cut case. He told them about the consequences,and they still chose to ignore the rules. 0-0 is therefore the logical result according to the rulebook - not specially for Sofia, but for every case where both players break rules serious enough to justify a forfeited game.

Simple: If the chess players want the sponsorship $, they are going to have to abide by the (sometimes artificial) demands of the sponsor.

This rule allowed in regulations for Dresden chess olimpiad

This is a discussion that will never reach a conclusion.
Personally I think the water will flow any way downwards it can find. Look at the fourth round of the Russian championship superfinal: 6 draws, 5 by (early) repetition.
Of course, when you're a professional player, playing short draws is not the perfect way to advertise yourself.
But let's look at the game in question, after 25... Nxb4, is there really 'a total exhaustion of the position'? I wonder what Kramnik or Carlsen would do with any colour. I would say black is a little better, b3 is easier to attack. As usual, especially in team competitions, the draw has probably more to do with players feeling insecure than with the position on the board.

Just want to comment on a few things that I've read here.

If you enter a tournament, you inherently agree with the rules that apply. If you find the rules too stupid to play with, don't play. That's the choice they should have made, instead of choosing not to play on at move 22.

Stupid rules or not (who's to say?), you cannot ask an arbiter to not adhere to the rules, just because he's a human being and gifted with intelligence, insight or reason.
If arbiters start ignoring rules, burn your chessboard and pieces along with it, that's the end to civilized chess as we know it.

There are 3 possible results for a chess game: 1-0, 0-1, 1/2-1/2
Awarding a game a 0-0 result is absurd and a big mistake by the arbiter. I don't believe that it's the way to penalize players for not following tournament rules. If the Sofia rules don't describe what to do in case of players not adhering to that "no draw before move 30" rule, then the Sofia rules are not complete.

1. Qd1-g7 isn't mate anyway. It's not even check. Black just responds Raxg7, with advantage. ;)

Actually, 0-0 is a possible outcome per the FIDE rules.

Dikke Deur, the difference is that your move Qd1-g7 is against the official FIDE laws of chess, while the rule of not being allowed to draw before move 30 is just a whismy idea of some tournament organisers. I'm sure you can make a distinction between the two...

They could also have showed that this rule is pointless by playing moves like Kh1 Kh8, Kg1 Kg8 until they reached the 31. move. I wonder how the arbiter would react then.

The main point is : If players want a draw, you can't stop them. I like the idea of rewarding players more for a win then punish the ones that choose to go for a draw.

Personally i don't like quick draws, and i am not tempted to accept or offer one. But if both players like to do that. Let them. But i can't understand what is nice about that.

It's stupid to follow stupid rules, that's why they refused to play on. Sometimes it's more important to make a point than to gain a point, but oh well ...

Yesterday I won my game by playing the brilliant Qd1-g7 mate!

My opponent claimed this was against the rules, but I just said I was not interested in stupid rules.

You know what? I made a point and gained a point at the same time!

2-0!!

About the amateur; I don?Ǭ¥t think this makes any difference for him. There a lots of amateurs that don?Ǭ¥t won?Ǭ¥t short draws at all. Why are you playing chess in the first place? For a short draw?! Is that fun? I don?Ǭ¥t think so.
And chess exist out of rules. I don?Ǭ¥t think that one rule more chases the amateur from the board.
But this is, of course, my personal opinion,

The players knew the rules going into the tournament (or should have). Tough! The rule may not be perfect but that's the rule.

Ok, my opinion:
Sofia rule is stupid because:
a) It's easily fooled, if the players want (especialy by masters!)
b) I think the result of a chess game belongs to nobody but the players. Even from the "move" 0. So I agree with fighting the unfought draws, but only by positive stimuls (money, elo, invitations, etc.). Never trying to "punish". It's simply stupid.

NOW!: In the present case, I absolutely suport the arbiter, because he is only doing his job, and stupid as the rule is, the players must know where they are when accepting to play some tournament.

They shouldn't provoque the arbiter, especialy after being (re-)informed, and in fact they had the adicional option of resuming the game (stupidily, in fact!) onto move 30 or to a fast 3-fold repetition.

0-0 is a completely civilized, fair and happy result of such a game, as the information provided tells me!
I congratulate the brave arbiters (and give a laugh at these blind organizers and irresponsable masters -- nothing personal, of course :-) .

OMG! We are talking about geniusses here and still they are stupud enough to put more effort in complaining about this rule instead of playing to move 31!

Whats the problem?!?!?!?!

1. When you consider yourself professional you know the rules of the tournement. If you dont like it, dont play.
2. Its so easy to teckle this rule you cannot say its an disadvantage.
3. There are the rules of the game and of the tournement. They dont strike with eachother. When a position is draw its not neccesary to play on for the game but for the tournement it is (still stupid but whatever) so PLAY ON.

I cannot understand why the two players awarded 0-0 refused to comply with the arbiters. If they really wanted to, they could have just blitzed 5 moves in about a minute and agreed a draw.

If one of the players agreed a draw before 30 moves twice in a row, they are "castling kingside" (0-0)

If one of the players agreed a draw before 30 moves three times in a row, they are "castling queenside" (0-0-0)

That's the only thing he can do. But when he is on the tournament he had to follow the rules.

That is easy, simply.

Sofia Rule is only good for invited or contracted Professional players who are by contracts tasked to play in very important tournaments like Dortmund, Mtel Masters, Linares and Corus, to mention a few, and in return they are entitled to appearance fees and free accomodations apart from winning tournament prizes. Thus the said players are obliged to play chess of high quality. This Rule reminds me of what the late GM Robert James Fischer had fought for in the past about those intentional draws among Soviet Grandmasters so that they could gang up against him in their respective turns.

On the other hand, one of the drawbacks of this Rule is that it is an indirect violation of one's right not to play further especially if the given position is more or less equal.

In my opinion, the Sofia Rule has to stay because its rationale clearly outweigh some known inconveniences or shortcomings for the best interest of the sport itself.

chessfan: It does not mean the rule is OK :(

I absolutely agree with the article. This rule is nonsense for amateurs (like me), who want to play for fun!

Et pourquoi ne pas g?ɬ©n?ɬ©raliser le syst?ɬ®me utilis?ɬ© ?ɬ† Bilbao... La victoire ?ɬ† 3 points, la nulle ?ɬ† 1 point et la d?ɬ©faite ?ɬ† 0 point. Cela forcerait ces joueurs nourris, log?ɬ©s (et blanchis?) et d?ɬ©fray?ɬ©s pour leurs petits achats (tabac...) 'de prendre conscience d'?ɬ™tre des privil?ɬ©gi?ɬ©s' par apport aux joueurs ordinaires... et les encourager ?ɬ† se battre! A bas les NULLES DE SALON !!!

And why not generalize the system used in Bilbao... The victory to 3 points, the draw to 1 point and the defeat at 0 point. It would force these players fed, housed (and bleached?) and paid for their small purchases (tobacco...) "to take conscience to be privileged'' by contribution to ordinary players... and encourage them to fight! At the bottom CLAUSES OF SHOW!!!

I fully agree with the arbiter.

Response to:
Frank Str?ɬ§ter on 9 October 2008 15:13 PM

There are 3 possible results for a chess game: 1-0, 0-1, 1/2-1/2
Awarding a game a 0-0 result is absurd and a big mistake by the arbiter.

Loestik: Participating in a tournament is a contract, to play in following the rules of the tournament (you rob a subject, you do not follow the regulations... you pay a fine or go to jail) you refuse to play (or made package) so you are in breach the rules-where O-O (zero-zero, and not small roque) is a score justified!

When i proposed a draw i had in mind not the move 25.b3, but 25.Bd2 with 25...Bb2 26.Rb1 Bf6 27.b5 ab5 28.Rb5 Nd4 and a really stupid draw.
So i was sure that it's not possible to win or to lose this position...

I can not agree with the regualtions.
First of all I think that before the arbiter declares the game lost to both players he should have been used other penalties. In order to declare the game lost it is reqiured that the player systematically refuses to follow the rules. In the case mentioned i do not see such situation. So my opinion is that the Chief arbiter has made a big mistake declaring the game lost.
Concerning the rule i think that the rule is applicable only for tournaments where the players receive conditions - appearance fee, accomodation, etc... We have to not orget that this is a team championship and all players follow the team interests, even more it is played by match points not by board points. So one won game in a match is enough or a team win.... Is it stupid... do u think... u forbid draws and at the same time use match points.....

Cheers
FIDE IA

Vous ?ɬ™tes tous des 'marrants'... Si la r?ɬ®gle dit: pas de nulle avant les trentiemes coups blancs et noirs - qu'importe la comp?ɬ©tition... cela pourrait ?ɬ™tre une 'partie de petits chevaux ou de dominos... LA REGLE C'EST LA REGLE... Il ne faut chercher rien d'autre! Et donc 0 blancs + 0 noirs.

You are all of 'comics'... If the rule says: no draw before the thirtieves blows - white & black - regardless of the competition... could be a ?Ç‚Äò part of small horses or dominoes... THE RULE IS THE RULE... We must seek nothing else! And therefore 0 white + 0 black.

Maybe the it's given to the arbiter the right to put a score 0:0, but it would be very strange if he may to this in a case of draw agreement.
And there wasn't anything in he reglament of the tournament about putting such a score in case of draw agreement.
It was totally an improvisation of the chief arbiter and i think it wasn't a succesful one :)

ah just goes to show why arbiters are stupid. These rules are going to hurt chess alot before we see any help at all. Or as the writer tried to allude to... 'the cure is worse than the disease'

Bureaucracy triumphing over reason ... where have we seen this before?

aha, the classical 12-move pirc draw

Was the first the real?

I don't understand why the arbiter is criticized here. It was the tournament organizers that decided that this rule was to be included, not the arbiter. When the players drew while it wasn't allowed, he explained this to them and was prepared to let them continue.

When they refused, what other option did he have?

Yes, the purpose of this article is clear, all should see how bad the Sophia rule is. Well, I don't think so. The rules are simple, if the players want they can repeat the same position 3 times = draw.

All in all I think the Sophie rule is great. Is it for amateur tournaments, I don't know. But as pointed in the beginning the organizers EXPERIMENTED with it.

I think that we have to ask the players once why they achieve such a position without trying to fight for a win earlier and twice why they don't play to the kings. When they really love the game, then they have no problem - not only going for move 30- but hoping to employ a late false of the opponent and try to beat him, if necessary, until the two Kings were left alone on the board.

"When they refused, what other option did he have?"

Well, he's not a robot who automatically has to follow the rules of the organizers, is he? He is a person, an expert even; he can form an opinion as a human being gifted with reason, and judge upon it. In this case, it's completely obvious what was going on, and awarding the players with 0-0 is absurd. Chess is not a game where you have a choice on every move. Sometimes the position simply demands a certain move or action, and this move or action might simply lead to a dead draw. It's just the nature of the game, and no Sophia rule or whatever can ever change it.
The arbiter should simply have returned the ball back in the organizer's court or perhaps consult FIDE before making such a harsh decision.