Talk:Draw by agreement

position in diagram

Just came across a discussion about this article here (the position in the diagram). --Sir48 16:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

moved page

I moved this page here from "draw by mutual agreement" because (as someone pointed out), "mutual" is superfluous and neither the FIDE or USCF rules seem to say "mutual". Bubba73 (talk), 23:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minor POV

"Of course, it is not unethical or illegal to offer a draw even in a clearly lost position". I disagree with this statement, I think that "pulling rank" on a weaker player and using ones Elo rating to intimdate them into granting a draw in a won postion for them is unethical.

That sounds like someone's opinion to me. The only thing about this I could find in the FIDE rules is article 12.6 "It is forbidden to annoy or distract the opponent in any manerr whatsoever. This includes unreasonable claims or unreasonable offers of a draw." So it may fall under that. I'm added "cite needed." Bubba73 (talk), 15:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

not quite correct...

Match play golf has a rule allowing each player or team to concede a stroke, a hole, or a game; that alone does not suffice to compare golf with chess, however a relevant decision by the ruling authorities has explicitly legalised agreeing on a draw; therefore golf is similar to chess in that respect. 91.64.30.17 19:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Confused

I'm no master of the game, that's for sure, but I'm familiar with the rules. I don't see how the Reshevsky - Mastichadis game results in a loss by the 24-25 moves shown. See with the Knight in position f2, the king is not in check. Is something wrong with the board, or am I just totally confused? McKay 05:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is my bedtime, but I'll try to answer. After 24 ... Nxf2, if 25. Kxf2 then 25 ... Qxe3+ 26. Kf1 Qxd3+ 27. Kf2 or Kg1 Qxd4+, black has won three pawns and has a strong position. If white moves his bishop out of danger on move 25, then 25... Qxe3 then black is threatening a discovered check by moving the knight, so he will pick up a third pawn on d4 (or g3), again with a strong position. It is late, and there may be more forcing lines for Black. Bubba73 (talk), 05:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, mind if I edit your moves? I'm pretty sure you meant e3, as the Q can't get to c3. Thanks for your help. But in any case, you speak as if the loss comes soon, but the article says the loss comes immediately (which is where my confusion was coming from). McKay 14:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tmight be better to say that he immeditately gets into a lost position, not that he loses immediately. A strong chess program gives this as the best defense: 25. Bxg6 fxg6 26. bxc6 bxc6 27. Nf3 ... and white has lost a piece and has a bad position. There are many variations, however, and all of them are bad for white. Bubba73 (talk), 15:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sofia 2005

The very strong Sofia 2005 tournament is planned to employ such a rule. It's now 2007; can this be replaced by a statement about what actually happened? Was the rule employed, and if so, what effects did it have? 213.249.135.36 18:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added some external links. The final results: 18 draws out of 30 games - 60% - plus players were more fatigued. Bubba73 (talk), 03:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

professional level

I didn't get to finish my edit comment. I changed "professional level" to "amateur club/tournament level and higher" because most draws that occur at the amateur club or amateur tournament level are draws by agreement rather than stalemate, 3-fold, 50 moves, etc. Bubba73 (talk), 02:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a test, I used a database of millions of games. I took "professional" as being both players were rated 2500 or above. Over 900,000 of the games were draws, but of those draws, only about 1 in 484 (0.21%) was a stalemate. I couldn't get the fitures on 50-move or 3-fold. The 50-move draw is very rare, but the 3-fold may be more common than stalemate. Bubba73 (talk), 03:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And draws by insufficent material were slightly more common - about 1 in 387 of the draws, 0.26%. So it seems that 99% of the draws are draws by agreement, of games below professional level in the database. Bubba73 (talk), 03:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Board generation

The alt tags are all fscked up - this is what it looks like in a text-only browser:

Reshevsky vs. Mastichiadis, Dubrovnik 1950
Solid white.svg a          b           c            d            e           f            g            h          Solid white.svg
8               black king black king  black bishop black king   black rook  black king   black king   black king 8
7               black king black pawn  black king   black knight black queen black pawn   black king   black king 7
6               black king black king  black pawn   black king   black king  black king   black pawn   black pawn 6
5               black king white pawn  black king   black pawn   black king  black king   black king   black king 5
4               black king black king  black king   white pawn   black king  black king   black knight black king 4
3               black king black king  white knight white bishop white pawn  white knight white pawn   black king 3
2               black king white queen black king   black king   black king  white pawn   white pawn   black king 2
1               white rook black king  black king   black king   black king  black king   white king   black king 1
Solid white.svg a          b           c            d            e           f            g            h          Solid white.svg

Karpov's suggestion

I'm almost certain I've read somewhere that Karpov suggested that draw offers should last until accepted or until the game ends, not being automatically rejected by a move being made. That way, it would be impossible to offer a draw, have it rejected, and then go on to win the game. Has this been tried? It seems that it would be a fair solution, allowing the players to agree to a draw when both genuinely believe they have no winning chances, without having to do silly things like wait a certain number of moves or play dull repetitions, while still discouraging players from offering draws when both could very well play for a win but just don't want to. If someone has the reference for this, or more information on it, I think it warrants mention. 85.226.204.42 (talk) 15:08, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard that but I don't know who suggested it (nor do I know of a reference). Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 22:28, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Draw by agreement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:03, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Draw by agreement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bilbaofinalmasters.com/en_reglamento.asp
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bilbaofinalmasters.com/en_reglamento.asp
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.slugfest.org/board1
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070825231654/http://beta.uschess.org/frontend/magazine_124_174.php to http://beta.uschess.org/frontend/magazine_124_174.php
Corrected formatting/usage for http://chess.about.com/od/news/i/aa07a27.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:48, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense?

This explanation is nonsense, isn't it? How can something that takes place in chess at the highest and most official level (e.g. World Championship) be "not part of chess" ?? W. P. Uzer (talk) 14:02, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, even in the set of rules provided as a reference for the statement, it explicitly states: "The regulations of an event may specify that players cannot offer or agree to a draw, whether in less than a specified number of moves or at all, without the consent of the arbiter." W. P. Uzer (talk) 14:09, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think the lead should be worded differently to be accurate, and I don't think it is good style to link to a later topic in the same article from the lead. I have reworded it accordingly, though I think it still could be better. Article 9.1 of the FIDE Laws of Chess was only reworded to allow restrictions on draws by agreement in 2009 ([1]). My concern is that stating "competition rules can restrict draws by agreement" would be incorrect regarding pre-2009 chess games and tournaments, and the article lead should be correct for chess in general, not just the current rules. Fbergo (talk) 19:44, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Other games?

Magic: the Gathering allows draw by agreement, both at the game level and the match level (best 2 out of 3, for those who aren't familiar). It's less common than in chess because Magic awards 3 points for a win and 1 for a draw and individual games rarely end in a draw via gameplay itself, but it does happen if e.g. both players need one point to advance to the top 8, or it's the final two players and they agree to split the prize. From what I understand, Magic's competitors have the same tournament rules, although I don't play them. Should we include this in the article? HotdogPi 13:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds more like an argument for changing the article name to "Draw by agreement (chess)" than introducing a completely unrelated topic. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 14:03, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]