I was thinking the exact same thing! Such a classic dichotomy. Jesse leans too heavily on the pseudo argument of “oh well that’s how things just used to be.” I think David’s perspective is pretty reasonable. We all live with our choices and while quick draws aren’t bad full stop, they’re undoubtedly unsportsmanlike.
Here's my idea. No agreement draws, and if any draw arises in the game, the board position restarts to the starting position but the clock stays where it is.
But a draw by stalemate, eternal check or lack of material to win should be counted more imo, as it can be the result of a fierce battle.. I'm not sure about threefold répétition as that's often used to draw when draw offers aren't allowed.. I don't know..
It all comes down to the purpose of the tournament. If the purpose of a tournament is audience entertainment, then of course quick draws are terrible if they were supposed to be consequential. If the purpose of a tournament is to gain a norm, the norms-gaining process pretty explicitly is built to test not just your skill but your mental stamina, so taking quick draws is bad. Draws tend to be particularly bad when the tournaments are primarily cooperative or constructive instead of competitive. On the other hand, if the purpose of a tournament is simply to win prizes as "proof of skill," then if you are ahead by a full point you've already proven skill by that point; similarly, if you're out of contention it doesn't really matter as long as your pre-arranged outcome doesn't give someone else an unfair advantage farther up the rankings. Additionally, since it's a competitive event, there is nothing "unfair" about spontaneous quick draws given _everyone else_ has access to the same strategy. This is different from Soviet Collusion, which requires entire teams of cooperating players.
Its easy to disagree with Davids fierce stance (imo) but a “culture of agreed draws” can easily be unfair in the small world of otb chess. Its well known that both Fischer and Larsen complained of more or less prearranged draws between the Soviet players in the large turnaments where they met. Saves strength to be used elsewhere. Same, in a smaller scale, may well play out in todays tournaments. PS Kostya mentiones this a bit later, sorry.
I wonder what would happen if, in tournaments, the number of moves played to the draw result constitute the percentage of points won. E.g., if a 15 move draw, .15 points. If 50 moves, you get the traditional .5.
In what other sport is it considered normal for the players to file onto center court, and shake hands because they don't want to play tennis or whatever game it is, and go home, as well-rewarded as if they had played? In what other fight game do the fighters get locked in the steel cage while the crowd roars and the announcers say "so excited!" and "it's really happening!" and the announcer cries out "WE'RE READY TO RUMBLE!" and the fighters touch gloves and immediately go home?
From a sporting point of view, I don't see a problem with quick draws where both players are happy with the result. If you're a clear point off the lead of a tournament going into the last round then that's on you for not playing better before then, the leader doesn't have an obligation to take risks just to give you a chance of catching them. As a spectator I'd rather it didn't happen but there I'd say that the organizers have options - either tweaking formats to remove some of the situations where neither player has an incentive to try to win, or favouring players who'll play fighting chess regardless. But I don't think you can blame players if they're in a position where a half point would guarantee them first place / a norm / a candidates place / qualification to the knockout stages / whatever and then blame them for taking a half point if it's on offer. Quick draws that only benefit one player but where the other is either offered money if they don't try to hard or the chance of an all-expenses paid holiday to Siberia if they do are obviously dodgy as hell.
Thinking of points of comparison, pro-cycling is an interesting one. In a multi-week stage race like the Tour de France, there are actually relatively few days when the overall contenders are expected to go all-out to get an advantage, large chunks of riding which are essentially non-competitive, and it's generally accepted that the current overall leader is going to ride conservatively and let their rivals throw the dice if they want to try to get back into the race.
Once again David is the one I most agree with from my heart but Jesse brings up plenty of practical considerations particularly for older players A bit close to home for him and I wonder if Kostya will comment on this: there’s an organization called 1000 GM which has recently popped up in the Bay Area. They play a bunch of tournaments and a bunch of kids have gained ratings and titles really fast. I wonder if the Dojo or someone actually investigate these tournaments because to me it seems like they’re closing up shop and creatively inviting players to get kids titles and as a result help them in college applications Would love the Dojo or someone to look into this
@@ChessDojo good to know from someone of repute that these are well run tournaments . The “only over 2000” entry bar seems very restrictive imo And their entire mission to “create 1000 GMs in the US” seems a bit too “norm factory” for my liking Like David says in this video , titles should be a consequence not a mission.
In most open tournaments the results will be decisive in every round at levels lower than 2000. Look at any open tournament results, most of the time you will have someone running 5/5 or maybe 4.5/5 in first place in the lower levels. The only real incentive for a lower rated player to make a quick draw is to guarantee a prize, if they are sick/don't want to play, or are playing someone much higher rated than them. So truly the Master's and up have the drawing problem. We chumps have no problem with decisive games.😅 Well, except for the kid who you are obviously beating but has offered you their 5th draw in a row to try to desperately save the game because they know they are losing.
A couple of examples that are similar to Jesse’s draw (not prearranged). Soccer teams will send weaker squads to early rounds of domestic cup competitions to save resources for other games. Top level runners will not go 100% during qualifying round to save energy for the most important moments. There are lots of example of taking a lower effort way to a long term outcome. I think some quick draws are like this and just seem like good strategy.
I'm definitely a new person to the game, only really getting properly started in 2019, and I do pretty much entirely agree that early draws are bad outside a few exceptions. If one of the players is suddenly unwell, I think it would be sporting to offer a draw if the position was somewhat equal, as from a human perspective it's fair to allow them to get their rest. We shouldn't punish people for things outside their control. I also think early draws are fine (if disappointing) where the result would not affect the outcome of the tournament i.e. the two playing are clear first and last and it's the final day, or something like that, where even the one in last winning the game wouldn't change any standings. However outside of that I don't think its right to end a game in a draw without any attempt at all. If you tried something new, got into a bad position and have a forced repetition on move 20, obviously I don't begrudge that. It's more just quick draws with no try at an actual game. I agree with David that it's not sporting to people behind you as if you win a tournament, I think you should have been the best there. If you got a good early lead and stopped playing well, but won the tournament because of a couple of quick draws that feels deeply unfair to me. I think the main thing for me is that, as a newcomer, it's not that I don't understand the culture of early draws, it's obvious the benefits to certain people involved, and I understand the respect thing. I get it, I just disagree with it being disrespectful to not accept a quick draw, and want to play the game I came to play. On Kostya's initial point also, I do think that time-wasting in football and other sports is unsportsmanlike, and I think most spectators do for other sports. Just because something is prevalent doesn't mean it's inherently good. To note though, I'm not angry about the presence of quick draws, theoretical draws are just a part of the game as stalemate or threefold repetition is. However, I am just always disappointed to see it, as even the most boring positions can have some enjoyment and value from both a player and spectator perspective, in my opinion.
The real problem is that it is legally too easy to draw. Pawns often become blocked due to the rules for moving them. The 50-move rule forces pawn moves but pawn moves are not intrinsically important to the game and there are theoretical won endgames that draw in practice due to this stipulation by having a pawn such that they are only won if the pawn moves after move 50 or even move 75. There are various unusual sufficient material combinations that can force stalemate but not checkmate, most famously two knights, but stalemate is only a draw. Repetition is also a draw even if it is forced by perpetual check. Eliminate or mitigate any of these and the temptation to play to prepared draws will be reduced.
When we talk about this old-time culture, let's remember that this "culture" was not shared by ordinary chess fans, who despised it, or by tournament organizers, who hated it and tried in all sorts of ways to stamp the vice out, or by some of the best players, above all (as mentioned) Bobby Fisher, who prided himself on being the same determined fighter in every round and against every opponent, and who was admired for this commendable, sportsmanlike attitude. There were no tournament sponsors delighted to announce that they had sponsored a "tournament of peace" which would make it impossible to publish a tournament book. The "culture" was a "culture" of people who wanted to be admired and paid as "chess artists," but whose "artistry" would be evident in the tournament book as a pathetic little squib of fake / non-competitive moves accompanied by some remark by the annotator, such as "this game does not merit even a single diagram." Wow, how artistic, how cultured!
Also part of that old culture was that tournaments often had more rounds than today is the case..so maybe that's also where the energy saving comes from
The sponsors of these tournaments wanted a lot of top quality elite chess. Maybe there was also a feeling that the players should be allowed to "go for gold" without fearing an unlucky result in a single game, because there was time to catch up. Unfortunately the players would provide a few fake, non-competitive moves leading to a pre-arranged draw, and the players would congratulate themselves of their "efficiency," having gotten their half-points with the least effort and the fewest moves.
I believe these issues can become serious for online chess. In my view, online chess is not chess; it is an e-sport. History guides us. Two early Starcraft scandals almost killed e-sports when it was still a baby. Can early and pre-arranged draws lead to match fixing for gambling? People went to prison over the Starcraft scandals.
@@cooloutac I agree with your anonymity point, but we live in different worlds. "e-sports have never really been popular" -- I disagree; e-sports is money and very popular. Watch twitch numbers during tournaments for League, Dota, Counter-strike, Overwatch, ... 30 years ago, you had to pay and get a part-time job in Korea to pro-game(I have eaten tons of ramen). Pro-gaming is a legit career in the US now.
Kosta says that it's wrong to use rules like a thirty move rule to force people who don't want to play chess to play chess. That's correct. The better solution is to identify and list "players" with that attitude and ensure that they are never invited to play in any event in the first place. People who think that playing chess is a cruel imposition shouldn't be playing chess for a living.
Honestly, I hate the equivalent thing in sports. As soon as it becomes clear you can game the rules and draw the clock or foul ridiculously in the ending minutes or whatever, the rules should be updated to fix it. That's so unsporting. Also, this happens in professional sports where the players are already making millions of dollars a year to just play. No incentive for winning or losing. Just play. That's what you are paid for.
It's worthless to rely on honorable individuals, some portion of players, probably most will play within the rules to maximize their gain. This can only be solved by governing bodies in chess.
1 It’s Ethics and Integrity… not necessarily Morality. 2 It’s part of the game. You do what’s required for a result (prize, rating, norm). No different than Clock management Football or Load Management resting players NBA. 3 Hard to legislate. If impose a 30 move minimum, players will memorize and play a known 30 move drawn line So…. Change the scoring: Draw = 0 More will fight for the win. Or…. Draw = White 0 Black 1/2
@@SuperNarski Great question! In round 8 of that tournament he had a 17 move draw, which definitely was not a full game. The one with Iordachescu is also borderline- some play left, but white to my eye comfortably safe in the position. Different people could go different ways on those games (if I wasn’t clear in the video, there’s a whole gray area or spectrum on whether a game has really been played). So I would not count that norm. However, I might give him more chances because he was a kid at the time :-) In other words, maybe his next norms should count. Obviously not a mathematically pure answer, but thanks for the good question!
@@SuperNarski I've heard Naroditsky often talk about when he made his final GM norm with a draw. He only required a draw to clinch it, and grabbed the opportunity instantly to accept the draw, rather than playing on with the mere possibility of losing.
Kostya is wrong to compare running out the clock when leading in a sport. The chick is part of those games and using it is part of the strategy of the game. Taking a quick draw is more like both football teams taking a knee the whole game and letting it end in a tie. This did happen in soccer once and they had to change the world cup to avoid it
While chess is not a proper sport in this respect it is an art, in that there are artists who want to get paid and do get paid for the handshake and not per work of art actually produced. They'll scatter some garbage on the floor or tape a banana to the wall and say, "there's my 'art,' pay me." And they do get paid, so that is how it is done in these days. That's the "culture." But it shouldn't be.
The fight over this is as old as chess. I think the key to this question, is what your goal is. You aiming for a certain score? Sometimes a draw is your best bet. You aiming to play fun chess? Setting for a draw is anathema to you.
@cooloutac Not really? It's just a part of the game. I take David Pruess' point, which is an interesting one. Obviously if you catch someone asking for draws that's standard no-no. If someone takes the initiative to walk down the line of a known forced draw that's suspicious. Chess is a game of holding your nerve anyway.
The more I think about it, the less it works, unless the tournament has a lot of rounds, but someway of incentivising white to not play for draws seems like it'd be a big help
That’s a very interesting idea. Not as extreme as the 3 points for a win, which is an approach most experienced players find too brutal, because if a lot of GMs play well against each other there will be a lot of draws. But to find some little tweak to put pressure on white… is not a bad idea.
Great talk guys, I feel like y'all covered a lot of the angles on this one. I think one interesting solution is to look at the game from a game theory aspect, which would suggest that *draws are in general too valuable* somehow. It's worth more to take a safe draw, than to risk a loss, even if the winning chances are pretty reasonable, say 60-0-40 WDL, versus 20-70-10. The first chances have an expected score of 0.6, whereas the second has 0.55, but GM's and SuperGMs too often take the second path. The meta has shaken out to too safe of play in general. I don't think it's right to touch how ELO is affected by draws, that seems to be in a good spot, but ELO is half of the reason why you'd rather take a draw than risk a loss. So the problem (in my eyes) is that draws are too valuable from a tournament standpoint. You'd still rather take a draw than lose for ELO's sake, but if draws don't score any points, then Wesley So and Anish Giri would never win a tournament again. I don't think +5-3=1 should be the same as +2-0=7. Strategically, this pressures players into playing more risky, or at least more aggressively, but still taking things seriously. The only perspective I don't think I heard, was about the popularization of chess. "Chess is cool but this tournament broadcast sucks, everyone's just drawing all the time." There's chess for chess' sake, and I think draws being made less valuable for tournament scoring is a reasonable way to address that, but there's also the fact that chess is also an entertainment industry now. GM Jesse's not just a player, now that he's going to be playing on the big screen at Saint Lou, he's an entertainer! The crowd doesn't want the boring draws, that's not how viewcount goes up, which is how sponsorship dollars goes up, which is how everyone in the higher echelons gets paid more. I do think y'all made a salient point about this being on the tournament organizers, and I think the simplest way to address it is to retain ELO the way it is, but have draws less valuable from a tournament perspective, even the Norway chess scoring seems to help a lot.
Are Quick Draws a Serious Problem in Chess? No, it's a minor one. A serious problem in chess is the 1400+ people with a Grandmaster Title. No disrespect intended to Jesse, but that's far too many. The GM title doesn't mean what it used to. Let's be honest....GM's who've barely qualified for the title would stand no chance whatsoever against Carlsen, Ding, Caruana and other top GM's. IMHO - It's high time for a title restructuring at the top.
Oh, David calls me a cheater 😞 I have to go with Jesse then. Thats how it was done in these times. Fishers main objection was not two player who both wanted a draw, but the systematic agreement between the sovjets that made his tournament much harder that his oppenents.
Robert James Fisher would picket-fence the tournament if he could. He was exactly the same fair test of skill in the last round, when he had already won the tournament, as he was in the first round. There wasn't a "lucky" guy who played him when he didn't want to win, or an "unlucky" guy who played him when he hadn't banked enough points yet. That's fair.
@@davidblue819 Well, he did make a 18 move draw in the last round, when he won his first US championship in 1958, hoping that Lombardy, would not lose to Reshevsky. So I guess he didnt become US champion that year accoring to Davids rules.
I agree with David here. In fact, I'd take it even further and say that FIDE should introduce a rule that states there can be no draws offered before move 35, and any game that ends in a draw before move 35 should be counted as a loss for both players. Early draws are a disgrace to the game.
I am sorry, but you have no clue of what you are talking about. If two GMs/IMs want a draw, 35 moves rule won't change a thing, they will just make those moves and agree to a draw. On the other hand, if you actually have a normal game and your position is like a 90% + a clear draw after 20 moves, then why force players to make those additional moves, seems silly to me
Political philosophy rant: Chess is a great argument against capitalism. If we didn't need money to survive, this game and competition would be so much better. Perhaps the problems with chess, including outright cheating, speak to the need for a better world.
When ChessDojo uploads, you know its gonna be a great day
So much tough talk from Jesse Kraai about so many subjects, only to discover he's an avocado toast-eating softie when it comes to quick draws 😂
I was thinking the exact same thing! Such a classic dichotomy. Jesse leans too heavily on the pseudo argument of “oh well that’s how things just used to be.”
I think David’s perspective is pretty reasonable. We all live with our choices and while quick draws aren’t bad full stop, they’re undoubtedly unsportsmanlike.
Here's my idea. No agreement draws, and if any draw arises in the game, the board position restarts to the starting position but the clock stays where it is.
That sounds very interesting actually! I can see that being a variant
I like using the football scoring system of 3 pts for a win, 1 for a draw, 0 for a loss. Incentivises playing for the win
Use that system, and watch "inevitable" draws vanish like dew on a hot morning.
But a draw by stalemate, eternal check or lack of material to win should be counted more imo, as it can be the result of a fierce battle.. I'm not sure about threefold répétition as that's often used to draw when draw offers aren't allowed.. I don't know..
It all comes down to the purpose of the tournament. If the purpose of a tournament is audience entertainment, then of course quick draws are terrible if they were supposed to be consequential. If the purpose of a tournament is to gain a norm, the norms-gaining process pretty explicitly is built to test not just your skill but your mental stamina, so taking quick draws is bad. Draws tend to be particularly bad when the tournaments are primarily cooperative or constructive instead of competitive.
On the other hand, if the purpose of a tournament is simply to win prizes as "proof of skill," then if you are ahead by a full point you've already proven skill by that point; similarly, if you're out of contention it doesn't really matter as long as your pre-arranged outcome doesn't give someone else an unfair advantage farther up the rankings. Additionally, since it's a competitive event, there is nothing "unfair" about spontaneous quick draws given _everyone else_ has access to the same strategy. This is different from Soviet Collusion, which requires entire teams of cooperating players.
Its easy to disagree with Davids fierce stance (imo) but a “culture of agreed draws” can easily be unfair in the small world of otb chess.
Its well known that both Fischer and Larsen complained of more or less prearranged draws between the Soviet players in the large turnaments where they met. Saves strength to be used elsewhere.
Same, in a smaller scale, may well play out in todays tournaments.
PS Kostya mentiones this a bit later, sorry.
David must be the only true titled player 😂.
I wonder what would happen if, in tournaments, the number of moves played to the draw result constitute the percentage of points won. E.g., if a 15 move draw, .15 points. If 50 moves, you get the traditional .5.
In what other sport is it considered normal for the players to file onto center court, and shake hands because they don't want to play tennis or whatever game it is, and go home, as well-rewarded as if they had played? In what other fight game do the fighters get locked in the steel cage while the crowd roars and the announcers say "so excited!" and "it's really happening!" and the announcer cries out "WE'RE READY TO RUMBLE!" and the fighters touch gloves and immediately go home?
From a sporting point of view, I don't see a problem with quick draws where both players are happy with the result. If you're a clear point off the lead of a tournament going into the last round then that's on you for not playing better before then, the leader doesn't have an obligation to take risks just to give you a chance of catching them. As a spectator I'd rather it didn't happen but there I'd say that the organizers have options - either tweaking formats to remove some of the situations where neither player has an incentive to try to win, or favouring players who'll play fighting chess regardless. But I don't think you can blame players if they're in a position where a half point would guarantee them first place / a norm / a candidates place / qualification to the knockout stages / whatever and then blame them for taking a half point if it's on offer.
Quick draws that only benefit one player but where the other is either offered money if they don't try to hard or the chance of an all-expenses paid holiday to Siberia if they do are obviously dodgy as hell.
Thinking of points of comparison, pro-cycling is an interesting one. In a multi-week stage race like the Tour de France, there are actually relatively few days when the overall contenders are expected to go all-out to get an advantage, large chunks of riding which are essentially non-competitive, and it's generally accepted that the current overall leader is going to ride conservatively and let their rivals throw the dice if they want to try to get back into the race.
Once again David is the one I most agree with from my heart but Jesse brings up plenty of practical considerations particularly for older players
A bit close to home for him and I wonder if Kostya will comment on this: there’s an organization called 1000 GM which has recently popped up in the Bay Area. They play a bunch of tournaments and a bunch of kids have gained ratings and titles really fast. I wonder if the Dojo or someone actually investigate these tournaments because to me it seems like they’re closing up shop and creatively inviting players to get kids titles and as a result help them in college applications
Would love the Dojo or someone to look into this
I haven't played in the Bay Area events but all of the 1000GM events I played were absolutely well run. -Kostya
@@ChessDojo good to know from someone of repute that these are well run tournaments . The “only over 2000” entry bar seems very restrictive imo
And their entire mission to “create 1000 GMs in the US” seems a bit too “norm factory” for my liking
Like David says in this video , titles should be a consequence not a mission.
In most open tournaments the results will be decisive in every round at levels lower than 2000. Look at any open tournament results, most of the time you will have someone running 5/5 or maybe 4.5/5 in first place in the lower levels. The only real incentive for a lower rated player to make a quick draw is to guarantee a prize, if they are sick/don't want to play, or are playing someone much higher rated than them. So truly the Master's and up have the drawing problem. We chumps have no problem with decisive games.😅
Well, except for the kid who you are obviously beating but has offered you their 5th draw in a row to try to desperately save the game because they know they are losing.
A couple of examples that are similar to Jesse’s draw (not prearranged). Soccer teams will send weaker squads to early rounds of domestic cup competitions to save resources for other games. Top level runners will not go 100% during qualifying round to save energy for the most important moments. There are lots of example of taking a lower effort way to a long term outcome. I think some quick draws are like this and just seem like good strategy.
I'm definitely a new person to the game, only really getting properly started in 2019, and I do pretty much entirely agree that early draws are bad outside a few exceptions. If one of the players is suddenly unwell, I think it would be sporting to offer a draw if the position was somewhat equal, as from a human perspective it's fair to allow them to get their rest. We shouldn't punish people for things outside their control. I also think early draws are fine (if disappointing) where the result would not affect the outcome of the tournament i.e. the two playing are clear first and last and it's the final day, or something like that, where even the one in last winning the game wouldn't change any standings.
However outside of that I don't think its right to end a game in a draw without any attempt at all. If you tried something new, got into a bad position and have a forced repetition on move 20, obviously I don't begrudge that. It's more just quick draws with no try at an actual game. I agree with David that it's not sporting to people behind you as if you win a tournament, I think you should have been the best there. If you got a good early lead and stopped playing well, but won the tournament because of a couple of quick draws that feels deeply unfair to me. I think the main thing for me is that, as a newcomer, it's not that I don't understand the culture of early draws, it's obvious the benefits to certain people involved, and I understand the respect thing. I get it, I just disagree with it being disrespectful to not accept a quick draw, and want to play the game I came to play.
On Kostya's initial point also, I do think that time-wasting in football and other sports is unsportsmanlike, and I think most spectators do for other sports. Just because something is prevalent doesn't mean it's inherently good.
To note though, I'm not angry about the presence of quick draws, theoretical draws are just a part of the game as stalemate or threefold repetition is. However, I am just always disappointed to see it, as even the most boring positions can have some enjoyment and value from both a player and spectator perspective, in my opinion.
The real problem is that it is legally too easy to draw. Pawns often become blocked due to the rules for moving them. The 50-move rule forces pawn moves but pawn moves are not intrinsically important to the game and there are theoretical won endgames that draw in practice due to this stipulation by having a pawn such that they are only won if the pawn moves after move 50 or even move 75. There are various unusual sufficient material combinations that can force stalemate but not checkmate, most famously two knights, but stalemate is only a draw. Repetition is also a draw even if it is forced by perpetual check. Eliminate or mitigate any of these and the temptation to play to prepared draws will be reduced.
When we talk about this old-time culture, let's remember that this "culture" was not shared by ordinary chess fans, who despised it, or by tournament organizers, who hated it and tried in all sorts of ways to stamp the vice out, or by some of the best players, above all (as mentioned) Bobby Fisher, who prided himself on being the same determined fighter in every round and against every opponent, and who was admired for this commendable, sportsmanlike attitude.
There were no tournament sponsors delighted to announce that they had sponsored a "tournament of peace" which would make it impossible to publish a tournament book.
The "culture" was a "culture" of people who wanted to be admired and paid as "chess artists," but whose "artistry" would be evident in the tournament book as a pathetic little squib of fake / non-competitive moves accompanied by some remark by the annotator, such as "this game does not merit even a single diagram." Wow, how artistic, how cultured!
Also part of that old culture was that tournaments often had more rounds than today is the case..so maybe that's also where the energy saving comes from
The sponsors of these tournaments wanted a lot of top quality elite chess. Maybe there was also a feeling that the players should be allowed to "go for gold" without fearing an unlucky result in a single game, because there was time to catch up.
Unfortunately the players would provide a few fake, non-competitive moves leading to a pre-arranged draw, and the players would congratulate themselves of their "efficiency," having gotten their half-points with the least effort and the fewest moves.
I believe these issues can become serious for online chess. In my view, online chess is not chess; it is an e-sport. History guides us. Two early Starcraft scandals almost killed e-sports when it was still a baby. Can early and pre-arranged draws lead to match fixing for gambling? People went to prison over the Starcraft scandals.
@@cooloutac I agree with your anonymity point, but we live in different worlds. "e-sports have never really been popular" -- I disagree; e-sports is money and very popular. Watch twitch numbers during tournaments for League, Dota, Counter-strike, Overwatch, ... 30 years ago, you had to pay and get a part-time job in Korea to pro-game(I have eaten tons of ramen). Pro-gaming is a legit career in the US now.
Kosta says that it's wrong to use rules like a thirty move rule to force people who don't want to play chess to play chess. That's correct. The better solution is to identify and list "players" with that attitude and ensure that they are never invited to play in any event in the first place. People who think that playing chess is a cruel imposition shouldn't be playing chess for a living.
Well said
Honestly, I hate the equivalent thing in sports. As soon as it becomes clear you can game the rules and draw the clock or foul ridiculously in the ending minutes or whatever, the rules should be updated to fix it. That's so unsporting. Also, this happens in professional sports where the players are already making millions of dollars a year to just play. No incentive for winning or losing. Just play. That's what you are paid for.
Balaton something. :). (Balaton is a lake, the largest one in Intermediate Europe).
It's worthless to rely on honorable individuals, some portion of players, probably most will play within the rules to maximize their gain.
This can only be solved by governing bodies in chess.
David should try a quick draw, it's so SATISFYING!
1 It’s Ethics and Integrity… not necessarily Morality.
2 It’s part of the game. You do what’s required for a result (prize, rating, norm). No different than Clock management Football or Load Management resting players NBA.
3 Hard to legislate. If impose a 30 move minimum, players will memorize and play a known 30 move drawn line
So….
Change the scoring: Draw = 0
More will fight for the win.
Or…. Draw = White 0 Black 1/2
David, is Magnus a GM? I believe his last GM norm was made with a 22 move draw. There was still play left, at least to my eye.
Dubai Open 2004. Carlsen - Iordachescu
@@SuperNarski Great question! In round 8 of that tournament he had a 17 move draw, which definitely was not a full game. The one with Iordachescu is also borderline- some play left, but white to my eye comfortably safe in the position. Different people could go different ways on those games (if I wasn’t clear in the video, there’s a whole gray area or spectrum on whether a game has really been played). So I would not count that norm. However, I might give him more chances because he was a kid at the time :-) In other words, maybe his next norms should count. Obviously not a mathematically pure answer, but thanks for the good question!
@@SuperNarski I've heard Naroditsky often talk about when he made his final GM norm with a draw. He only required a draw to clinch it, and grabbed the opportunity instantly to accept the draw, rather than playing on with the mere possibility of losing.
For me, the only early draws I would offer are the ones that guarantee me my norm/title
Kostya is wrong to compare running out the clock when leading in a sport. The chick is part of those games and using it is part of the strategy of the game. Taking a quick draw is more like both football teams taking a knee the whole game and letting it end in a tie. This did happen in soccer once and they had to change the world cup to avoid it
I meant more like at the end of a tournament to secure victory but yeah, fair point! -Kostya
While chess is not a proper sport in this respect it is an art, in that there are artists who want to get paid and do get paid for the handshake and not per work of art actually produced. They'll scatter some garbage on the floor or tape a banana to the wall and say, "there's my 'art,' pay me." And they do get paid, so that is how it is done in these days. That's the "culture." But it shouldn't be.
I can see how Pruess would be a subject of a mass bullying as a kid..
The fight over this is as old as chess.
I think the key to this question, is what your goal is.
You aiming for a certain score? Sometimes a draw is your best bet.
You aiming to play fun chess? Setting for a draw is anathema to you.
Obvs prearranged draws are NOT okay.
@cooloutac Not really? It's just a part of the game. I take David Pruess' point, which is an interesting one.
Obviously if you catch someone asking for draws that's standard no-no.
If someone takes the initiative to walk down the line of a known forced draw that's suspicious.
Chess is a game of holding your nerve anyway.
@cooloutac But inherently chess is an more or less equal game, hence the inevitability of draws. Why would that be a bad thing?
Why not make the score for draws 0.45 - 0.5 ? or is that way too punitive to white? it'd completely change top level chess
The more I think about it, the less it works, unless the tournament has a lot of rounds, but someway of incentivising white to not play for draws seems like it'd be a big help
That’s a very interesting idea. Not as extreme as the 3 points for a win, which is an approach most experienced players find too brutal, because if a lot of GMs play well against each other there will be a lot of draws. But to find some little tweak to put pressure on white… is not a bad idea.
Just make a draw by agreement optional after 30 plus moves
Taking draws isn't as bad as repeatedly saying "bowce"
fisher most famous anti draw guy,would laugh at draw offers
"Of course not!"
Great talk guys, I feel like y'all covered a lot of the angles on this one. I think one interesting solution is to look at the game from a game theory aspect, which would suggest that *draws are in general too valuable* somehow. It's worth more to take a safe draw, than to risk a loss, even if the winning chances are pretty reasonable, say 60-0-40 WDL, versus 20-70-10. The first chances have an expected score of 0.6, whereas the second has 0.55, but GM's and SuperGMs too often take the second path. The meta has shaken out to too safe of play in general. I don't think it's right to touch how ELO is affected by draws, that seems to be in a good spot, but ELO is half of the reason why you'd rather take a draw than risk a loss.
So the problem (in my eyes) is that draws are too valuable from a tournament standpoint. You'd still rather take a draw than lose for ELO's sake, but if draws don't score any points, then Wesley So and Anish Giri would never win a tournament again. I don't think +5-3=1 should be the same as +2-0=7. Strategically, this pressures players into playing more risky, or at least more aggressively, but still taking things seriously.
The only perspective I don't think I heard, was about the popularization of chess. "Chess is cool but this tournament broadcast sucks, everyone's just drawing all the time." There's chess for chess' sake, and I think draws being made less valuable for tournament scoring is a reasonable way to address that, but there's also the fact that chess is also an entertainment industry now. GM Jesse's not just a player, now that he's going to be playing on the big screen at Saint Lou, he's an entertainer! The crowd doesn't want the boring draws, that's not how viewcount goes up, which is how sponsorship dollars goes up, which is how everyone in the higher echelons gets paid more. I do think y'all made a salient point about this being on the tournament organizers, and I think the simplest way to address it is to retain ELO the way it is, but have draws less valuable from a tournament perspective, even the Norway chess scoring seems to help a lot.
3 p for win 1 p for draw ??
“I didnt yell at you in person”
“You yelled at me in public”
Ugh. 😁
Are Quick Draws a Serious Problem in Chess? No, it's a minor one. A serious problem in chess is the 1400+ people with a Grandmaster Title. No disrespect intended to Jesse, but that's far too many. The GM title doesn't mean what it used to. Let's be honest....GM's who've barely qualified for the title would stand no chance whatsoever against Carlsen, Ding, Caruana and other top GM's. IMHO - It's high time for a title restructuring at the top.
remember gurevich-short
That day, both players got what they deserved.
what exactly happened? wasn't around back then.
@@misterkefir gurevich had to make a draw, froze and lost with white and thus qualification to candidates matches. Never recovered from this 😪
No, they're not a problem at all. On the contrary, they're advantageous.
Oh, David calls me a cheater 😞
I have to go with Jesse then. Thats how it was done in these times. Fishers main objection was not two player who both wanted a draw, but the systematic agreement between the sovjets that made his tournament much harder that his oppenents.
Robert James Fisher would picket-fence the tournament if he could. He was exactly the same fair test of skill in the last round, when he had already won the tournament, as he was in the first round. There wasn't a "lucky" guy who played him when he didn't want to win, or an "unlucky" guy who played him when he hadn't banked enough points yet. That's fair.
@@davidblue819
Well, he did make a 18 move draw in the last round, when he won his first US championship in 1958, hoping that Lombardy, would not lose to Reshevsky.
So I guess he didnt become US champion that year accoring to Davids rules.
I love how David sticks to his guts. I feel deep down everyone knows he is right.
it is basically match-fixing!
I agree with David here. In fact, I'd take it even further and say that FIDE should introduce a rule that states there can be no draws offered before move 35, and any game that ends in a draw before move 35 should be counted as a loss for both players. Early draws are a disgrace to the game.
I am sorry, but you have no clue of what you are talking about.
If two GMs/IMs want a draw, 35 moves rule won't change a thing, they will just make those moves and agree to a draw.
On the other hand, if you actually have a normal game and your position is like a 90% + a clear draw after 20 moves, then why force players to make those additional moves, seems silly to me
i think non drawing players tend to be stronger
At least they might be fitter. They are willing to really play, day after day.
Basically match fixing.
no
Preuss comparing slavery to accepting draws. lmao I'm glad he got heated up as it went on.
Political philosophy rant: Chess is a great argument against capitalism. If we didn't need money to survive, this game and competition would be so much better. Perhaps the problems with chess, including outright cheating, speak to the need for a better world.