< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
|Oct-11-15|| ||SirRuthless: A practical decision by both players to jettison but Luke McShanes chances in a classical game against his opponent were probably better than him winning the rapid tiebreak. The onus is on white to prove something in the opening at this level but apparently he was not in the mood and Nakamura was content to escape unscathed.Both got a good chance to advance to a playoff on 5.5 points.|
|Oct-12-15|| ||FSR: <zanzibar> Ha! I had forgotten about that game!|
|Oct-12-15|| ||FSR: <tpstar> Did someone say something about handy drawing lines? Game Collection: Drawing lines|
|Oct-12-15|| ||breaker90: <tpstar> In the Robson game they were trying to draw by agreement which the rules state you can't until the 40th move. Here they did a threefold repetition which is in FIDE rules and can't be regulated against with Sofia rules.|
|Oct-12-15|| ||tpstar: <Drawing Lines> This one is pretty obvious = N Kosintseva vs T Kosintseva, 2012|
OK, they don't want either one to lose, so move along and watch another game please.
<breaker90> I see your point but the short draw is still highly unsatisfying for a high profile event. In the Robson game they had already reached the endgame, whereas this one wasn't even out of the opening. In any event, these two players shouldn't complain about any lack of funding in professional chess.
|Oct-12-15|| ||zanzibar: The shortest path to stalemate without a capture is interesting me a little...|
I found an earlier example in tournament play in <ICOfY> than what <CG> has, it's from Oberliga Baden 1992 and is also here:
http://www.chess.com/games/view?id=... (as 1991/92)
<ICOfY> (rip) has four such games, the most recent can be found here:
Missing is the game where I first learned about it:
A 2009 game between E. Paehtz and R. Tischbierek (her former instructor I believe).
I think there were some penalties involved for that game, but I can't exactly remember.
Also - I have a vague recollection that S. Lloyd was the originator - is that true?
Anybody have a ref to the proper source?
|Oct-12-15|| ||Howard: Game of the Day! I'm nominating it right now.|
|Oct-12-15|| ||Marmot PFL: nominate this one too (dozens more where that came from)- Yu Yangyi vs I Nepomniachtchi, 2015|
|Oct-12-15|| ||zanzibar: I'm looking for a 3-peat draw that goes like this:
1.Nf3 Nf6 2.Ng1 Ng8 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Ng1 Ng8 1/2-1/2
But I don't think anybody's been quite so audacious to play it. I would think Black would immediately understand the significance of 2.Nf3-g1, and this might eliminate some of the pussy-footing.
Here's a list of all <CG> games that have <= 4 moves and are draws:
There's 220 of 'em. The earliest is from 1882, there are only 26 before 2000. Is this an accurate reflection of play, or a relic of the database, I wonder?
|Oct-12-15|| ||harrylime: Can just see RJF playing this line when he was burning the world of chess up .... lol|
|Oct-12-15|| ||zanzibar: There's this anecdote:
Huebner vs K Rogoff, 1976 (kibitz #1)
|Oct-12-15|| ||zanzibar: And for a laff,
Apparently they don't enforce the draw-by-repetition rule on chess.com!?
|Oct-12-15|| ||zanzibar: I think I have a ref for Loyd's stalemate here:
I know an other solution. It is from Sam Loyd. The solutions from Sam Loyd I found in the (German) book Schach und Mathematik, by J. Gik. (Schach und Mathematik means chess and mathematics)
|Oct-12-15|| ||zanzibar: And apparently there's an actual example of a Knight-Knight two-step draw discussed here:|
where FIDE article 12.1 (about bringing the game into disrepute).
|Oct-13-15|| ||whiteshark: How embarrassing!
|Oct-13-15|| ||zanzibar: I suppose there are at least a couple of ideas of how to avoid games like this - |
1) Sofia+ Rules: catalog these known short 3-peats, and force the players to begin a new game.
I was going to propose forcing a non-draw continuation by one of the colors, but the forced draw in the Gligoric Spanish shows that idea untenable (unless we determine that one color will lose - maybe the idea is workable, since the goal is to force players away from these lines).
2) Modify the tie-break system to give tie-break points to hard-fought games.
This could be done algorithmically, and impartially, with engine oversight. The algorithm could easily be designed to penalize short drawing games like this (or rather, would award such games very few tb points).
Since tb points might translate into cash this strategy might actually work.
|Oct-13-15|| ||SirRuthless: IF there is nothing in it for players to produce a decisive result then they will draw. Continually modifying the game to prevent collusion or draw by self interest is ridiculous, especially when several players got a free point in the early round which is essentially a double bye in a swiss event and other players take a dive early on, aka the swiss gambit...This draw made sense for black but I am not so sure McShane shouldn't have pushed a bit.|
|Oct-13-15|| ||diceman: <zanzibar: I'm looking for a 3-peat draw that goes like this: |
1.Nf3 Nf6 2.Ng1 Ng8 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Ng1 Ng8 1/2-1/2>
This has more a bit more tension:
1.Nf3 Nc6 2.Ng1 Nb8 3.Nf3 Nc6 4.Ng1 Nb8 1/2-1/2
|Oct-13-15|| ||hedgeh0g: An unfortunate, but completely understandable decision from the players' points of view: McShane was not prepared to play the anti-English lines with 7.Bg5 and Nakamura had obviously gone into the game with the intention of meeting 6.Be3 with 6...Ng4, so unless the organisers' solution is to force one player to deviate by playing into his opponents' preparation, I don't see how this sort of thing can be avoided.|
Clamping down on quick draws by agreement is one thing, but forcing players to go into a position they don't like/consider too risky is simply absurd.
|Oct-13-15|| ||starry2013: Or it forces players to become better at more positions or find ways of making sure they go down other lines.|
|Oct-13-15|| ||SirRuthless: That is not black's responsibility in chess. It is on white to win. Interesting that this now becomes a hot button issue...|
|Oct-13-15|| ||belgradegambit: McShane should have played 8.f3 which can easily transpose into the English Attack.|
|Oct-16-15|| ||hedgeh0g: No, he should have played 1.f3 to give the organisers their desired decisive result.|
|Nov-06-15|| ||SimplicityRichard: Why not make a draw with Black 3/4 point whilst 1/2 point with White, meaning that technically Black wins if he draws against White. This would force White to try and win, and means that Black can play for a win or a draw, but White must play to win otherwise loses a quarter of a point if he draws.#|
|Nov-06-15|| ||SimplicityRichard: Or give a win 3 points and a draw 1 point. This would make winning more attractive and drawing less so.#|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·