Draw, draw, draw...what's the solution? ChessBase readers write
Many chess players are vexed by draws, and for several reasons. One: there's a general aesthetic preference for decisive results. Two: some grandmaster draws are "grandmaster draws" - i.e. quick, bloodless, often pre-arranged games - most notoriously in the last round of a tournament. Third, the drawing haven motivates many players to prefer risk-averse chess.
What's to be done? One suggestion that gets bandied about from time to time is for chess to imitate soccer (strangely called "football" by non-Americans) and adopt a 3-1-0 scoring system. (Three points for a win, one for a tie/draw, zero [or "nil", for the soccer fans] for a loss.) That proposal was presented and critiqued a week or so ago in this article by Ron Dorfman, and his critique is critiqued in turn by lots of ChessBase readers over here.
Very briefly: Dorfman suggests that the clamor for a 3-1-0 system (generally labeled the "Bilbao draw" or "Bilbao scoring system" in both articles) is misguided and impractical. It's misguided because it penalizes draws when the real problem is the short, bloodless draw; hard-fought games that turn out drawn should be welcomed by chess fans. And it's impractical because it will encourage cheating: rather than pre-arranging draws, players - especially in a double round-robin - will arrange to swap victories. That works out as well as pre-arranging a pair of draws, but with the added advantage of giving themselves an extra point over a pair who only draw their games.
In reply, many offered a double critique. First, the victory swap plan requires a great deal of trust - especially from a player who is already violating the rules - in a situation where betrayal is reasonably likely with enough financial incentive. Second, soccer has used this system for years, and without any problem. We've seen it work, so we should trust it.
I'll offer a counter-response on Dorfman's behalf, though this doesn't mean I agree with him about the Bilbao system. (Or that I disagree, for that matter.) First, if pre-arranged victory swaps were to become common, as the discussants seem to allow, then someone who violated such an agreement would quickly become a pariah and lose out on any possible future benefits. He might gain one time by breaking the agreement, but the long-term repercussions would almost surely outweigh the one-time gain.
Second, the analogy with soccer isn't a very good one. To execute such a secure pre-arranged win swap there would require the collusion and confidentiality of a great many players. Maybe not all 22 starters, but a lot of them. Further, those players would have little to gain and tons to lose. They are salaried and receive endorsements; winning a higher team prize in a competition is nice, but only a small part of their earnings package. Chess players, on the other hand, with very, very few exceptions, receive little to no up-front money and no endorsements at all. So their level of temptation will be much higher and their level of risk far lower.
There may well be other problems with Dorfman's critique, but so far, his critics haven't made a compelling case.
What's to be done? One suggestion that gets bandied about from time to time is for chess to imitate soccer (strangely called "football" by non-Americans) and adopt a 3-1-0 scoring system. (Three points for a win, one for a tie/draw, zero [or "nil", for the soccer fans] for a loss.) That proposal was presented and critiqued a week or so ago in this article by Ron Dorfman, and his critique is critiqued in turn by lots of ChessBase readers over here.
Very briefly: Dorfman suggests that the clamor for a 3-1-0 system (generally labeled the "Bilbao draw" or "Bilbao scoring system" in both articles) is misguided and impractical. It's misguided because it penalizes draws when the real problem is the short, bloodless draw; hard-fought games that turn out drawn should be welcomed by chess fans. And it's impractical because it will encourage cheating: rather than pre-arranging draws, players - especially in a double round-robin - will arrange to swap victories. That works out as well as pre-arranging a pair of draws, but with the added advantage of giving themselves an extra point over a pair who only draw their games.
In reply, many offered a double critique. First, the victory swap plan requires a great deal of trust - especially from a player who is already violating the rules - in a situation where betrayal is reasonably likely with enough financial incentive. Second, soccer has used this system for years, and without any problem. We've seen it work, so we should trust it.
I'll offer a counter-response on Dorfman's behalf, though this doesn't mean I agree with him about the Bilbao system. (Or that I disagree, for that matter.) First, if pre-arranged victory swaps were to become common, as the discussants seem to allow, then someone who violated such an agreement would quickly become a pariah and lose out on any possible future benefits. He might gain one time by breaking the agreement, but the long-term repercussions would almost surely outweigh the one-time gain.
Second, the analogy with soccer isn't a very good one. To execute such a secure pre-arranged win swap there would require the collusion and confidentiality of a great many players. Maybe not all 22 starters, but a lot of them. Further, those players would have little to gain and tons to lose. They are salaried and receive endorsements; winning a higher team prize in a competition is nice, but only a small part of their earnings package. Chess players, on the other hand, with very, very few exceptions, receive little to no up-front money and no endorsements at all. So their level of temptation will be much higher and their level of risk far lower.
There may well be other problems with Dorfman's critique, but so far, his critics haven't made a compelling case.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Ever more on draws
- Draw, draw, draw...what's the solution? ChessBase readers write
Posted by Dennis Monokroussos on
Thursday November 8, 2007 at 2:55am
I certainly understand the intent of the above, but would argue that aesthetically a well-played game, ideally by both sides, would be desirable.
A win is not beautiful in and of itself, correct? A bar fight is hardly beautiful, no matter what the result.
I'm not trying to critique, just noting that "draw" and "aesthetics" are not polar opposites...... :) Even a "non-fighting" draw can be quite beautiful in the eye of some chess beholders......
Have fun!
I agree - that's an argument I've made on these (virtual) pages time and time again. My first paragraph reported a common argument, but didn't endorse it.
Linares: has there been a lot of colluding in Linares? It would give the same kind of benefit because most wins is the tie-breaker.
I don't understand your sentence "This shows American arrogance; something I haven't get used to in this blog." Do you mean that I don't normally demonstrate this (alleged) arrogance, so when it arises (as it supposedly did here) you're not used to it? Or do you mean that this is a regular thing (that you'll never get used to)? If the latter, and if you have some examples, elaborate.
But be forewarned. Your examples had better be good ones, or I'm really going to get annoyed. So help me, I might even ridicule the metric system!
Soccer = Metric Football
It gets shortened to "football" (or a variant) in nations where that is the most popular kind of football. In other nations (mostly the USA) where other forms of football are more popular, the more popular game is usually simply called football.
Rugby is another variant. And while it's normally just called Rugby, the more proper name for it would be "Rugby football". American football (sometimes called Gridiron football) would be the proper term for what we in the USA call football. But for ease of use all the modifiers usually get dropped when one form or another becomes the dominant sport. I imagine that Rugby football became "Rugby" simply because both Rugby football and Association football both remained very popular in the British Empire, and Rugby is a nice short term. (Also, in English, the 'rug' in Rugby suggests 'rugged', which it surely is.)
Finally, the term 'soccer' isn't an American term. It's English slang from the 1880's, and yes, it's slang for "Association football". (The story I've usually heard is that the SOC comes from as-SOC-iation. I’ve heard the SOC was prominent on old versions of the balls used, but I don't know if that's true or just urban legend.)
So, in short, "football" applies to a variety of games. Association football is what FIFA regulates. (In fact it is in the name of the organization!) Association football is often shortened just to "football" in countries where it is the dominant form of football. It is NOT the dominant form in the USA - that would be American football. Therefore Americans tend to call our game football for ease of use. However, "soccer" is an old established variant name of Association football and has its origins in England itself.
So, we're not being arrogant by calling our game football. Neither are Europeans &most of the rest of the world arrogant for calling Association football just simply "football". However, people who insist that Americans are arrogant for our use of the terms "football" and "soccer" ARE being ignorant, as they have no idea of the etymology of these words, or how &why they are used as they are around the world.
And, as has been noted, we're not looking to eliminate draws, just the unsportsmanlike short draws that are often pre-arranged. Other sports have had problems with similar non-played games. For example, there have been seasons in the NBA where a team finished so far ahead of its rivals that the last few games didn't matter -- they had the 1st slot in the playoffs locked up. So the temptation is to rest your starters and let the second string players play (and probably lose). Because this is bad for the fans, the league will fine a team for not trying to win. Why doesn't chess do this?
After all, if I pre-arrange a game for a win (e.g., I offer a higher rated player money to throw the game) and it is discovered, then I will suffer consequences. Why is pre-arranging a draw more acceptable than pre-arranging a win? Even if there is no "proof" of collusion, a review committee of strong players (perhaps retired players who can be more independent and judicial) might still reach a conclusion. Without real proof perhaps there is no financial penalty or banning from a tournament, but you might just give the players the score of 0-0 instead of 1/2-1/2. After all, you get the half point for drawing, not for "not playing" which deserves the same score as not showing up.
Since mutual agreement is one legal way to draw, I'm not sure how it's possible to set up the sort of committee and penalty structure you suggest without further measures.
This primarily american obsession with eliminating draw to make a game more popular is misguided. Personally I think speeding up the game is the way to go since GMs are now booked up 20-30 moves deep in the opening. It is good that Computers did away with adjournment. Now it's time to let go of the 2nd time control and use sudden death with 10 sec increment per move.
You also hit inadvertently on the great similarity between Chess and Football. Connoisseurs can enjoy the strategy and tactics in both games regardless of a draw outcome. Naturally Chess and Football tend to be more popular in Europe than in the US. The purist may take offense using a slang word to describe Football a game so rich in tradition. It is like it's OK to call Chess Checkers or call a World Series, a match between the NY Yankees and the Boston Red Sox. Then the rest of the World feel like we think they are all Soccers (oops Suckers).
This "obsession" seems to be worldwide, though it seems to me a minority position still. And then I'm confused by your second sentence. If the goal of eliminating draws is mistaken (as I've long and often argued on this blog), then what's the point of advocating a faster time control? Either you're contradicting your first sentence or changing the topic.
As for soccer, let's drop it, please. No one watches the game anyway, do they?
When I started playing chess I was confused by the half point for a draw... you basically get awarded half a point by achieving nothing aside from making sure your opponent achieved nothing. It just doesnt make much sense to me.
This soccer topic (i.e. the "soccer" vs. "football" issue) is now officially closed; violators' comments - my own included! - will be deleted by the management.
Thomas: do draws still not make much sense to you, or are you just reporting what you used to think? If you've played or watched many tournament games, you'll know that there are tons of draws that have little to do with making sure the opponent "achieved nothing". Some - many - draws require more work and a far higher level of play (from both opponents) than many wins.