Joel Benjamin on Draws

Hi Joel,

What do you think of the Sofia Draw Rule? Couldn't two players just create a repetition draw to get around the rule? Or worse yet, could they agree to a draw before the game starts and do something like this:

1. a3 a6
2. Ra2 Ra7
3. Ra1 Ra8
4. Ra2 Ra7
5. Ra1 Ra8
6. Ra2 Ra7

Thanks,
Jerry

By Confused by Sofia 2007-04-16

GM Joel responds:

Jerry,

The Sofia rules are the strictest attempt yet to eliminate short draws from tournament play. The tournament website states the rules as follows:

"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 arbiter has discretion to reject an obvious circumvention of the rules. This would certainly preclude the immortal rook dance that you suggest. I suppose the players could concoct a more plausible draw by repetition that might pass muster. Of course, the players would have to trust each other. Don't expect to see that when Topalov and Kramnik play.

But I think you are missing the point. The Sofia Rules (and various minimum move rules) aren't meant to eliminate draws, just to make players play out positions. Grandmasters make short draws not because they want the result, but because they don't see any percentage in continuing to play. The rules impact in both obvious and subtle ways. Boring or equal positions often change if the players simply have to keep making moves. Knowing that they will have to play out equal positions, players may decide to adopt riskier opening strategies. Gata Kamsky, who had a great result in last year's Mtel Masters and will play again this year, likes the Sofia Rules: "I think the Sofia rules are great for chess. I wish they were implemented in all top tournaments."

Another benefit is to eliminate the "mutual fear" draw, where the position is likely to produce a decisive result but the two decide to play it safe. This happens less and less in major tournaments anyway, but when it does the fans are always disappointed.

I think the players deserve a fair bit of leeway in the area of "theoretically drawn positions." Endgame play is so sophisticated now that loads of positions are extremely unlikely to produce a winner. In some cases you may see the players initiate a rational but not forced repetition to end hostilities. If the players have contested a reasonably long (beyond forty moves at least) game that has no future, it would be unnecessarily punitive to make them continue.

The article was provided by courtesy of the USCF and Chess Life.