Short draws - I love ‘em!
22 May 2008 10:55 AM | Last modified: 15:06
Are draws, or even quick draws, a problem? You might think so if you read the endless strain of articles on ChessBase (creating their own hype, they’ve decided to call it ‘The Great Draw Debate‘) and elsewhere about the so-called ‘problem of short draws’. It sometimes feels like a real crusade.
By Arne Moll
Are you a chess player? Then honestly ask yourself a question: how often have you seriously rebuked yourself for proposing or accepting a (short) draw? I must admit that there have been rare moments when this has happened to me. For example, I recall offering a draw in a completely won position against GM Viktor Kupreichik. This was silly, of course, but even then, I was much too happy with the result to ask myself such painful questions.
Usually, I offer or accept a draw for good reasons, and never think about it twice. (The only occasions on which I really think about it afterwards is when I have unjustly refused a draw offer and eventually lost!) I suspect most chess players have similar feelings. We all grew up with draws, and accept them as a part of the game itself. It’s when others make draws, that many people start complaining and see problems.
When you think of it, drawing has many hidden advantages for any chess player. There are moments when I am even proud of a well-timed draw offer. They can be very useful in inferior positions (for example right after the opening) against weaker opponents, or in superior positions against stronger players. They can be theoretically important. They can be cleverly prepared repetitions. And short draws can even do something that, for me, no other aspect in chess can: they make me feel like a ‘professional’. Personally, I always feel extremely smart when I drily manage play a correct and methodical draw against an opponent of equal strength. Look at me, playing like a real pro! It can be deeply satisfying.
And this brings me to an aspect of (short) draws which I have never heard yet: making a quick draw is extremely difficult! In my opinion, it’s completely inappropriate for amateurs to complain about. Try it yourself. Making a quick, correct draw is something only very strong chess players can do, and we can all learn something from it. After all, making correct moves is the most difficult aspect in chess.
Recently, I tried to make a ‘quick draw’ against someone from my club whom I don’t like playing against. The game was indeed drawn after 20 moves and I was of course rather pleased with it. But when I came home and looked at the game with Rybka, it turned out my (and my opponent’s) play was full of small inaccuraries. The ‘correct’ draw vanished before my eyes. No doubt, this clever strategy would not have worked against a stronger opponent. A valuable lesson!
I don’t know about you, but for me, it’s the apparently ‘boring’, ’stereotyped’ moves that GMs automatically, almost casually make, that always impress me most. Dazzling brilliancies, complex endings - it’s great for the spectators, but as a chess player I prefer to learn from the small moves that are never commented upon in analysis, and from the small draws that are never analysed at all. I sometimes even try to copy them. It’s to no avail, of course, but at least I have tried.
I think the issue is really about top-level chess, where sponsors want spectators and spectators want entertainment, so the story goes. Imo however the issue is a relatively minor one at present, because top-level chess for the most part is extremely entertaining, currently.
i travelled 800 miles by plane, train and taxi, paid for an expensive London hotel room, and settled myself down in a second row seat to watch a game live in the kasparov - kramnik 2000 world championship match. it was an anodyne 14 move draw. to say i was angry and disappointed is to understate things. i felt cheated.
I know, shane: I was there too that same day! And I was equally disappointed at the time. But then I realised that these players are not there to entertain me or you, but to win the title. Think of it this way: that draw was perhaps the ulitmate cause of Kasparov’s defeat after 15 years of absolute supremacy. And you and I were there to witness this historical event!
Since i play many many games on internet i never play a draw because i am afraid of the opponent or just because it is an easy way to end a difficult endgame. OTB i play always for a win.
Its good with a chess players opinion on the “problem” for once. in the chessbase articles there have been many pretty weird discussions and especially suggestions (like very complicated point systems…).
but I think John Nunn has more “healthy” opinions in those chessbase discussions. And his point, if I remember correct, is basicly that the only important time to avoid short draws is in super tournaments, and the only reason is because chess needs money, and to get money chess needs the broad audience. It is like this in all sports, if it isnt fun to watch then that will prevent the sport from growing. So I dont think it is entirely correct to, like you Arne, say that the WCC is all about the game between the two players, because money is just a very big part of it too. Maybe it wouldnt in the ideal world but in fact it is.
Maybe that isnt a good reason to ban short draws, but it is a reason for organizers to look at ways to give them more money, and if it pays to ban the short draws, like with sofia rules, then that is what they are gonna do.
Chessbase (or Friedel, rather) think very highly of themselves, and their role in professional chess. And, of course, their stress on the “problem”, and the “solutions” they publish are silly. But, apart from the super-tournament/spectator issue, I think there is that of short *planned* draws, i.e. agreed upon before the game. This has been accepted practice (e.g., in Eastern Europe) for a while, but recently I think the “market-based” chess tournament situation has changed that. (Steve Giddins will tell you otherwise, I’m sure.)
Great article. Very original. Thank you.
If one looks at the chess game as the spectacle, then a quick draw is bound to be a disappointment. But if one looks at the match or tournament as the spectacle, then the quick draw is a fascinating part of the overall strategy, tied closely to the player’s personality, health, energy, etc. It makes the tabloid debacle potential higher which, like the toilet-gate scandal of Kramnik-Topalov, increases the visibility of chess in the media. I’m all for letting the top GM’s choose their own outcomes. But then again… I’m also for the televising of bughouse, which is the most audience-friendly version of chess.
I think that draws are not a problem, and even if I thought they were, there is not much to do about it. IMHO there is no way to prevent two players from making a draw if they want to.
For example I remember reading in Chessbase one brilliant “solution” to the problem: to change the points given to the players after a game, like in football, so that a player who wins one game and loses another gains more points than another player who makes two draws. This means promoting risky and unsound play instead of correct play, and it would alter the whole game of chess as we have known it for such a long time.
I don’t want chess to change so that amateurs, who usually blunder pieces in their games and understand close to nothing when they watch GMs play, are satisfied.
Nobody complained at the Petrosian-Spassky matches, where short draws were played frequently. The organisers should make something nice if the players play short draws, for example problem solving or simultans. That would solve the problem of the spectators and let the players play the game.
arne makes a good point, and so does arpad.
After the very short draw the TD and commentators played a series of entertaining blitz games for the audience, against members of the audience. That was awfully good fun. And I remember everyone commentating on how uncomfortable Kasparov’s chair was!!
Christos, you’ve made an excellent point. A question people (organisers, sponsors, chess lovers) rarely ask themselves in this discussion is this: do we care more about spectacular play, or about the nature of the game? As many (including Kasparov) have said before, chess is probably a draw. This doesn’t mean one has to make a draw after 14 moves in every game, and it also doesn’t mean a draw is a more likely result than a win, but it does show that a draw is a natural part of the game, sometimes even after relatively few moves. And for this reason alone, it should be respected. Why should we want to avoid something which is natural and in a sense logical? Do we not care about the true nature of chess? Do we only care about the results? Then Christos is right and we should admit openly that we want to create a different kind of game altogether. Which shouldn’t be called ‘chess’ in my opinion.
The truth is that chess has become quite boring after the introduction of computers.Players who normally shouldn’t find even one good novelty in the opening in their whole life profit from novelties by others or from the computer’s suggested innovations.
Today it is people who have a good memory who are leading the chess world.The creativity factor has been almost eliminated.
I think this is quite disgusting.
Given the fact that chess is not an immensely complicated game, even according to Vishy Anand,and that its average length should be something like 40 moves, the situation is that we witness fights starting sometimes as late as on move 25 or 30 as everything before has been worked out by the machines,which leaves just an average of 10-15 moves of real action.Considering that on move 25 already some simplification has taken place this leaves little, if any life at the position for one to show his creativity or intelligence.
This is the real problem of chess today, and not early draws.
The solution to the problem is a combination of three factors.
1) There should be a very slight change to the rules, not enough to change the symmetric nature and the character of the game,but enough to add new life to it .
2) The ELO rating point system should be abandoned.Only high placings in tournaments should give points and the world rankings should be based on accumulation of those.Then people will have much less to gain from a draw.
3) In high class tournaments the most fighting players should be invited.
@Vassily, personally I think all novelties, whether they’re found by computers, amateurs or professionals, are of equal value. They bring us closer to the truth of chess. How can you call this ‘disgusting’? How can any search for truth be bad? Surely chess is much more than just a competitive game?
I want to react on a specific part where you write that making a short draw is very difficult. This though is totally off the subject and also not true.
It is NOT difficult to make short draws, even for a patzer. The problem with short draws is not about finding good/correct moves, but about knowing good moves. The “problem of short draws” is not about playing calm positions or playing correct moves, but about stopping the games after 10 moves of theory in a position that thousands of players already know.
Nevertheless I am very happy with this article because it finally gives a counterattack to the false hype that there is a problem with short draws. In my view there isn’t a problem.
But Peter, can you show me some games from top tournaments where the players literally stopped in a theoretical position? In my view, this happens only extremely rarely. And even then, I know from experience how difficult it is to find exactly that equal line that the opponent also knows to be equal (what if he doesn’t know it, and thinks he has an advantage and therefore plays on? This is a risk one has to calculate carefully!). When the draw is not pre-arranged, this is not easy at all to do.
On a more general note, you say ‘the problem with short draws is …’ and then you next say there isn’t a problem. Whose problem is it then, since it’s not yours? The thing with this discussion is, everyone already presumes there is some problem, and then tries to find a solution for it, or to give his own interpretation of the problem. But as you rightly say, there is no problem at all and therefore it doesn’t need a solution.
I also agree that draws in chess is not a shame.
Fightless draws in 12 moves, well… sorry: that IS a shame!
I hardly accept a draw and like to fight out the position for another 20 or 30 moves until i’m convinced it might be drawn.
Drawn is one of the 3 logical results in chess. Draw is a part of chess.
But if you intend to play a draw in 10 moves, you better find another hobby like collecting stamps or watching TV ,-)