Issues on the Chess Table : Short Draws

What are the causes of these short draws? Most are not pre-arranged, but are agreed while the game is being played. A statistical study published at Chessbase.com ('Most and least aggressive world champions'; see the linkbox), showed that the number of short draws became significant when the Soviet school of chess had become the dominant force in professional chess. One of the principles of that school was 'Win with White, draw with Black'. When one player is already satisfied with a half point at the beginning of the game, more draws will occur than when both players are playing to win.

Current World Champion Vladimir Kramnik is known for his willingness to take a short draw at every opportunity. The Chessbase study came after the 2004 Kramnik - Leko title match, where six of the 14 games were drawn in less than 25 moves. It was intended to determine the validity of Kramnik's claim that previous World Champions, like Petrosian and Spassky, were just as prone to short draws. The statistics showed that where the other champions had taken on peaceful dispositions later in their careers, Kramnik had started as a peacemaker.

Peter Leko, Kramnik's opponent in the match, is also known as a peacemaker. This underscores the general opinion that it takes at least one committed warrior to make a fight of a chess game. Veselin Topalov, Kramnik's opponent in the 2006 unification match, is just such a warrior and there was not a single short draw in their match.

One factor contributing to grandmaster draws is the depth of modern opening theory. The home preparation of top GMs is spent mostly on preparing opening novelties. If, when the day arrives to try a prepared variation over the board, especially as White, the opponent neutralizes its effect after a few moves, the player of the White pieces may willingly concede the draw. Many games of the Kramnik - Leko match seemed to follow a set dialog: White: 'OK, I'm going to play this new move. Show me what you got.' Black: 'Here's the move I prepared.' White: 'Looks good. Draw?' Black: 'Agreed, draw.'

Other factors can be a balanced position with little chance to prevail, a complicated position which is not well understood, or an uncomfortable position which the player just doesn't like; fatigue; not feeling well or not feeling confident; fear of a stronger opponent; or short on time with many moves to be played. Sometimes a draw offer is made just to see the opponent's reaction.

While the causes of short draws are many, so are the solutions which have been proposed. Almost all of them have drawbacks.

Match play, with its one-on-one format, demands certain strategies for a successful outcome, tournament play demands other strategies. Ditto for round robin tournaments and open tournaments. In an open tournament the prize for a win might be slightly more than for a draw, while the prize for a draw considerably more than for a loss. If a loss means not being able to pay next month's rent, is it any wonder that players accept an easy draw? Qualification events also dictate certain strategies. If a draw qualifies both players to the next stage of a multi-phase competition, why should either player risk a loss? These factors aren't valid only in the final round. Tournament standing can be a factor for a quick draw in earlier rounds.

Some solutions to the short draw are more appropriate in certain types of competition than in others. For example, organizers of invitational events can invite only fighting players. They have more freedom than organizers of opens or of tournaments where the participants have qualified. Financial incentives for a win in the last round are more appropriate to Swiss systems than to matches. Replaying a drawn game at reduced time controls until there is a decisive result don't work well in knockout competitions, where players can preserve their energy in early rounds by heading for the rapidplay or blitz games after an early draw.

A common suggestion is to change the scoring system. Three points for a win and one point for a draw is one suggestion; giving Black slightly more than 0.5 points for a draw, while giving White slightly less, is another. This penalizes all draws, even long games which reach a theoretically drawn position. The idea would also have an impact on how theoretical draws are evaluated.

Another idea often proposed is to increase the risk of proposing a draw. This can be done by charging a time penalty for a player who offers a draw, by giving extra time to a player who declines a draw, or by giving the recipient of a draw offer longer than the next move to consider it. One radical idea is to give a player who declines a draw offer the right to turn the board around and play the position from the other side.

The idea that has been tried the most frequently is to prohibit draws before a certain number of moves have been played: usually 30 or 40 moves. These rules often fail because the penalty for agreeing to a draw is inconsequential, or because the players find the means to extend the game to the required number of moves.

Perhaps the most effective way to reduce the number of short draws is to prohibit draw offers completely. Why should a chess player be allowed to propose a draw to the opponent at any time? The origin of this practice is buried in the sands of time, and most players consider it a natural right. The Sofia M-Tel Masters, held on Topalov's home turf, has this rule:

The players should not talk during the games; additionally they should not offer draws directly to their opponents. Draw offers will be allowed only through the Chief Arbiter in three cases: a triple repetition of the position, a perpetual check and in theoretically drawn positions. The Chief Arbiter is the only authority who can acknowledge the final result of the game in these cases.

Breaking the Sofia rule into its three parts:

• the players are not allowed to communicate during the game;
• no draws are allowed except those specified by the rules of chess; and
• a neutral official determines whether a position is really drawn or not.

Will this become a standard in chess? Spectator and sponsor interest might depend on it.