Tweet
Aris Marghetis beat me to the punch a bit with his thread about the French banning agreed draws, but I had the same concept in mind in thinking about how to make draws very rare in chess.
I did go a little further than the French though.
Proposal For Making Draws In Chess Very Rare
============================================
We have all been either part of or witness to discussions about how to eliminate "Grandmaster Draws" in organized (tournament or match play) chess. I'm going to take this discussion a step further and propose that draws of any kind are bad for organized chess. However I do recognize that eliminating any chance of a draw in a game of chess is problematic. Therefore I am going to propose ideas here for radically reducing the occurence of draws without eliminating them altogether.
If we eliminate agreed draws by pure rule, and we then eliminate both 3 time repetition draws, perpetual check draws, and 50 move rule draws by some other mechanism, the only remaining chances for a draw in chess is via stalemate or lack of mating material on both sides or equal material that can't become unequal without a total blunder (i.e. K & R versus K & R). Thus draws should become very rare indeed. But not totally impossible.
So the first part of making draws in chess extremely rare is to specify: no AGREED draws EVER.
The second part is to declare that any time in organized chess that the two players wish their game to be declared a draw, it must be APPROVED BY THE TD.
The TD would be looking for any one of the following characteristics before approving the draw:
(i) stalemate
(ii) lack of mating material on both sides
(iii) equal or near-equal material that does not include pawns and is capable of mating for at least one side, but that cannot be forced into winning material by either side. This would include
- K & N versus K & N
- K & N & N versus K & N & N
- K & B versus K & B
- K & B & B versus K & B & B
- K & R versus K & R
- K & R & R versue K & R & R
- K & R versus K & N
- K & R versus K & B
More complicated material matchups such as K & Q versus K & R & R or such would not automatically fall under this third characteristic, but would instead be left to fall under the next:
(iv) 120 moves by both sides without a checkmate.
Given these necessary characteristics, what do we do then about games that are headed for an inevitable draw by, say, 3 time repetition or 50 move rule or perpetual check?
3 time repetition / perpetual check is something that could occur at any time, and if we outlaw agreed draws, players could still mutually play into 3 time repetition / perpetual check instead. So here's an idea to handle these situations: instead of a 3 time repetition (including via perpetual check) giving a player a chance to claim a draw, make it trigger a new rule. The new rule says: upon 3 time repetition having just occurred, the player on the move shall have the right to take any one of his / her captured pieces and place it on the board, on any empty square provided that it does not give check to the opposing King. This shall constitute that player's move. The opposing player, who now is on the move, has the right to respond with the same type of move: taking one of his / her captured pieces and placing it on the board on any empty square provided it does not give check to the opposing King. Once these two moves are completed, play continues as normal, until such time as another 3 time repetition should occur.
What this means is, if a 3 time repetition is imminent, both players need to assess what pieces they can place on the board and where, and what it would do to the position. If it would totally destroy one player's position, that player will do whatever must be done to avoid 3 time repetition.
If the move that creates the 3 time repetition is a move that puts the opposing King in check, then dropping a piece on the board is still a right of the player in check (Player A) if it can eliminate the check. If that isn't possible, or Player A prefers not to enact the right, then Player A cannot claim a draw but must get out of the check by other means, including continuing the repetition. However, the consequence of continuing the repetition is that Player B now has the first right to drop a piece on the board, and then Player A has the right to do the same in response.
Remember that both players cannot just continue the repetition and try to "agree" on a draw. ALL DRAWS MUST BE SIGNED OFF BY THE TD. The TD must be brought over to determine if any game is a legitimate draw. If the TD sees that both players are just continuing a 3 time repetition without even attempting to drop pieces, s/he will reinstate the position at the point where the 3 time repetition has first occurred and force the player on the move to drop a piece and continue the game. Players will eventually become aware they can't just agree on draws and will stop trying.
In the case where the first player with the right to drop a piece refuses to do so and instead breaks the repetition, the opportunity for either player to play a drop piece is lost, and so the game just continues with no drop piece moves until another 3 time repetition occurs.
Now we come to the 50 move rule. The way to tackle this is via the same mechanism as for 3 time repetition: at the point that the rule first occurs, award each player in turn the right to drop a piece anywhere that the piece doesn't check the opposing King. But there is still a problem because requiring 50 consecutive moves of no captures or pawn moves is... well, it's a lot of moves. Thus we change the rule to be a 20 move rule. Much shorter, and whenever the rule is approaching occurence, each player must be alert to the consequences. It could happen in a middlegame just as easily as in an endgame. As with the 3 time repetition, if the first player to have the right to drop a piece because of 20 move rule decides not to do it, and makes another move that continues the 20 move rule, the right passes to the other player. The two players cannot simply continue playing non-captures and non-pawn moves forever; eventually the TD will get involved and force the piece dropping to occur.
How to notate the dropped piece moves?
I propose using the @ symbol, as follows:
45. Q@d7 Q@e4
This means White dropped a Queen on d7, and Black dropped a Queen on e4.
All chess engines / pgn readers would have to be updated to handle this new symbol.
Summary:
========
The 4 characteristics I have given for a legitimate draw in chess would, IMO, make the occurrence of draws much rarer but not totally impossible. Along with this, the drop pieces rule and 20 move rule makes going the route of 3 time repetition / perpetual check or 20 consecutive moves of no captures or pawn moves by both sides a non-drawing proposition by allowing the position to very dynamically change in a way that could very easily favor one side and change the game completely.
I did go a little further than the French though.
Proposal For Making Draws In Chess Very Rare
============================================
We have all been either part of or witness to discussions about how to eliminate "Grandmaster Draws" in organized (tournament or match play) chess. I'm going to take this discussion a step further and propose that draws of any kind are bad for organized chess. However I do recognize that eliminating any chance of a draw in a game of chess is problematic. Therefore I am going to propose ideas here for radically reducing the occurence of draws without eliminating them altogether.
If we eliminate agreed draws by pure rule, and we then eliminate both 3 time repetition draws, perpetual check draws, and 50 move rule draws by some other mechanism, the only remaining chances for a draw in chess is via stalemate or lack of mating material on both sides or equal material that can't become unequal without a total blunder (i.e. K & R versus K & R). Thus draws should become very rare indeed. But not totally impossible.
So the first part of making draws in chess extremely rare is to specify: no AGREED draws EVER.
The second part is to declare that any time in organized chess that the two players wish their game to be declared a draw, it must be APPROVED BY THE TD.
The TD would be looking for any one of the following characteristics before approving the draw:
(i) stalemate
(ii) lack of mating material on both sides
(iii) equal or near-equal material that does not include pawns and is capable of mating for at least one side, but that cannot be forced into winning material by either side. This would include
- K & N versus K & N
- K & N & N versus K & N & N
- K & B versus K & B
- K & B & B versus K & B & B
- K & R versus K & R
- K & R & R versue K & R & R
- K & R versus K & N
- K & R versus K & B
More complicated material matchups such as K & Q versus K & R & R or such would not automatically fall under this third characteristic, but would instead be left to fall under the next:
(iv) 120 moves by both sides without a checkmate.
Given these necessary characteristics, what do we do then about games that are headed for an inevitable draw by, say, 3 time repetition or 50 move rule or perpetual check?
3 time repetition / perpetual check is something that could occur at any time, and if we outlaw agreed draws, players could still mutually play into 3 time repetition / perpetual check instead. So here's an idea to handle these situations: instead of a 3 time repetition (including via perpetual check) giving a player a chance to claim a draw, make it trigger a new rule. The new rule says: upon 3 time repetition having just occurred, the player on the move shall have the right to take any one of his / her captured pieces and place it on the board, on any empty square provided that it does not give check to the opposing King. This shall constitute that player's move. The opposing player, who now is on the move, has the right to respond with the same type of move: taking one of his / her captured pieces and placing it on the board on any empty square provided it does not give check to the opposing King. Once these two moves are completed, play continues as normal, until such time as another 3 time repetition should occur.
What this means is, if a 3 time repetition is imminent, both players need to assess what pieces they can place on the board and where, and what it would do to the position. If it would totally destroy one player's position, that player will do whatever must be done to avoid 3 time repetition.
If the move that creates the 3 time repetition is a move that puts the opposing King in check, then dropping a piece on the board is still a right of the player in check (Player A) if it can eliminate the check. If that isn't possible, or Player A prefers not to enact the right, then Player A cannot claim a draw but must get out of the check by other means, including continuing the repetition. However, the consequence of continuing the repetition is that Player B now has the first right to drop a piece on the board, and then Player A has the right to do the same in response.
Remember that both players cannot just continue the repetition and try to "agree" on a draw. ALL DRAWS MUST BE SIGNED OFF BY THE TD. The TD must be brought over to determine if any game is a legitimate draw. If the TD sees that both players are just continuing a 3 time repetition without even attempting to drop pieces, s/he will reinstate the position at the point where the 3 time repetition has first occurred and force the player on the move to drop a piece and continue the game. Players will eventually become aware they can't just agree on draws and will stop trying.
In the case where the first player with the right to drop a piece refuses to do so and instead breaks the repetition, the opportunity for either player to play a drop piece is lost, and so the game just continues with no drop piece moves until another 3 time repetition occurs.
Now we come to the 50 move rule. The way to tackle this is via the same mechanism as for 3 time repetition: at the point that the rule first occurs, award each player in turn the right to drop a piece anywhere that the piece doesn't check the opposing King. But there is still a problem because requiring 50 consecutive moves of no captures or pawn moves is... well, it's a lot of moves. Thus we change the rule to be a 20 move rule. Much shorter, and whenever the rule is approaching occurence, each player must be alert to the consequences. It could happen in a middlegame just as easily as in an endgame. As with the 3 time repetition, if the first player to have the right to drop a piece because of 20 move rule decides not to do it, and makes another move that continues the 20 move rule, the right passes to the other player. The two players cannot simply continue playing non-captures and non-pawn moves forever; eventually the TD will get involved and force the piece dropping to occur.
How to notate the dropped piece moves?
I propose using the @ symbol, as follows:
45. Q@d7 Q@e4
This means White dropped a Queen on d7, and Black dropped a Queen on e4.
All chess engines / pgn readers would have to be updated to handle this new symbol.
Summary:
========
The 4 characteristics I have given for a legitimate draw in chess would, IMO, make the occurrence of draws much rarer but not totally impossible. Along with this, the drop pieces rule and 20 move rule makes going the route of 3 time repetition / perpetual check or 20 consecutive moves of no captures or pawn moves by both sides a non-drawing proposition by allowing the position to very dynamically change in a way that could very easily favor one side and change the game completely.
If they take away draws will they
Comment