Draw offer... as a tactical ploy?

Sometimes you have lined up a brilliant combination... and all you need is for the gift to be greedily accepted... yet the opponent is thinking ''why would he/she just give me a free piece like that'', and you're silently or raucously (depending on the location) praying for them to just take it. And a crafty thought crosses your mind. Offer a draw so the opponent thinks that the ''free gift'' is in fact a blunder and gleefully gobbles it up, spiralling you to cloud 9 and a beautiful finish, and accolades (sometimes self-applied) for being such a clever clogs.

My question is... Is it against the rules? Is it wrong on an ethical or traditional standpoint? 

Has anyone done similar and regretted it? 

Thanks guys and gals!

It's not against the rules, but I have no idea why you would do that.  Once you offer a draw you're putting yourself in a position where your opponent can prevent you from winning the game.  Seems rather silly if you have a better position.

I prefer to trust my own chess instinct, and not use gimmicks.  Chess is a game of honor, and sportmanship.

Chess is a game of honor, and sportmanship.

Yes, I agree with this sentiment, despite Chess having a contentious past like a great deal of games; heads chopped off and the like.

But couldn't it be argued that chess today still employs a certain amount of psychology.

Don't get me wrong, I believe Chess to be a honorable game endowed with sportsmanship. However, look at all the ''honorable'' games, and there is still psychology at play. 

It's not against the rules, but I have no idea why you would do that.  Once you offer a draw you're putting yourself in a position where your opponent can prevent you from winning the game.  Seems rather silly if you have a better position.

In this case, if I may reiterate the scenario, it would function as reverse psychology. You are trying to enable an ''en prise'' piece to be captured in return for a brilliant checkmate. The problem being... the opponent is not silly, and knows that a sacrifice for no apparent gain is silly. Or maybe the opponent sees the finish, thus rendering the draw option, like you said the worse option - being in a winning position as it is. But if there is doubt, for example, the opponent hasn't moved for a couple of days, or 20 mins, depending on the location, could offering a draw and pretending that it was actually a blunder, help you instead by your opponent's refusal of said (fake) draw.

I am by no means endorsing such an action, merely asking if it would be acceptable, and if so, allowed, and if so, ethical?

Thanks for your comments.

I heard a story about something same happened in famous Reti Alekhine game:

After making his 19th move, Alekhine informed Reti that the position

had been repeated three times and he was claiming a draw. Alekhine

walked over and got the arbiter, told him the game was drawn because

the position had been repeated three times. Alekhine then signed his

score-sheet, handed it to the arbiter, and began making obvious

preparations to leave the tournament hall.

Meanwhile Reti began checking his score-sheet. He told Alekhine the

position had only been repeated twice and the game was NOT a draw.

A furious argument broke out. The arbiter took both score sheets,

another arbiter played through the game, and concluded the position

had only been repeated twice.

In the interim ... Alekhine and Reti continued their debate.

"The position was repeated only twice," said Reti. (In a very loud voice.)

"Three times!," barked Alekhine as he donned his scarf and hat.

At this point the arbiter stepped in and corrected Alekhine.

"The position has only been repeated twice and the game must continue,"

the arbiter (TD) told The World Champion somewhat fearfully.

(Alekhine's temper was already quite well known!).

At this point, a seemingly contrite, corrected, and humbled Alekhine

took off his coat, hat and other accoutrements; and sat down to

continue the game.

"I don't know why you bothered, put your Bishop on g2. I shall then

place mine on h3, and the game will be drawn," said Alekhine to Reti,

as he was pondering his next move.

(Alekhine told Reti this in his own language!).

At this point, poor Reti probably felt honor-bound to continue the game,

and therefore placed his Bishop on the slightly inferior square of h1.

(Making many of the tactics that work in the game, possible.)

Thus Alekhine's greatest stroke that he made in this game, was not

any moves he made on the chess-board ...

but his skillful maneuvers to trick Reti into avoiding a repetition of position!!!

I have occasionally offered draws in tough positions as a psychological ploy, particularly against stronger opponents; the problem is that, if they accept, it can ultimately bite you back, especially if you really wanted to continue the game in the first place.

I want to commend you and thank you, for replying to my post in the manner you did.  Its a refreshing change to get an actual reply to a post, that isnt filled with insults, ridicule, and immature bahavior. 

Yeah, it's a little underhanded and cheap. But, people do this on the board all the time. Sometimes the strongest move is a cheap trick of some sorts, especially if you have nothing to lose.

I'm confused; are you saying chess is a game or are you saying it is a sport(sportsmanship)?

Thanks everyone for your wonderful comments and thoughts. I agree, rTist21 and Kytan that it can jump up and bite you back; wittingly losing the chance to win.

It has given much food for thought, and it's indeed nice, as I_Am_Second said, to receive civil comments and replies. So I'll say thanks again before trolls come and ruin this thread. Also, EvgeniyZh, that was a really enlightening anecdote - thanks for sharing :)

Happy chess playing!

Sorry kleelof, I missed your comment while typing the last. So, I guess it falls between two schools of debate: traditional chess (honor, trophies, prestige) and more (I'm not sure of the word) cheat/trickery chess? (bars, street). That said, EvgeniyZh's story involved two traditional masters, so maybe chess evolves in ways of cunning. My 2-cents based on what I've read. Thanks again.

@Raj, then it is just a draw, but I wondered if the prospect of offering a draw might sway the opponent to take a piece I wanted them to take.

I guess I should make things clearer.

First off, I was hoping for a smothered mate, I reeeally wanted to pull one off (In a real game. Not just the tactics trainer ).

I messed things up, and will lose the game because I forgot that smothered mates need support which I didn't have. Unfortunately, I realized this before I went through the steps to get to where I wanted, and then painfully realized. 

I wanted this: 1. Qg8+ Rxg8 2. Nf7#

Shortly after, I realized my error, and now will definitely lose a game that I should have won. I hope this makes it clearer of what I intended in planning. I know it was fool-hardy and not well thought through. But that is the basis for offering a draw had there been a supporting bishop canon behind my queen and the opponent not readily jumping to take a free piece. Whew, that was quite long. Thanks again.

OP = original poster? That's me.

Oh, about the game being shown while it's still in progress. I will resign it, so no problem.

ohh haha, yes you're right...oh well..if people are interested in the topic hopefully they will find it 

This isn't really towards you boog.

The lower ratings ranks are peppered with players who rely on 'tricks' and 'traps'. And this is where they will stay until they die or change their 'style'.

It must be a horrible place to be to always worry if your opponent will catch you and turn the tables. And never understanding why after hundreds or even thousands of games why you are stuck at the same rating.

It seems it would actually be easier to follow these 2 points:

1.Always look to make the strongest move you can based on the position.

2. Always assume your opponent knows exactly what you are thinking and will make the strongest counter move possible.

Yes, I agree completely with those precepts, Kleelof. I just wondered if what I illustrated was a type of psychological tactic, or a 'trick', as you said, rather than a tangible trick of physical means; the pieces and their co-ordination, instead an incorporate means of psychological manipulation, as I'm sure occupies a big part of chess. Which would you classify it as? *genuine* Appreciate your input.

@EvgeniyZh: There are some twists related to that story about the Reti-Alekhine 1925 game from Baden-Baden.

According to the tournament book and an analysis by Reti which appeared in the newspaper three days after the game, the threefold repetition actually happened. See chessnote 6368 by Edward Winter for the newspaper clipping.

Reti mentions in his article that the repetitions were to gain time on the clock and that Alekhine verbally proposed a draw with 21 ... Bg4, but that Reti refused. That is odd if Reti's score is correct - then Alekhine did not need to offer the draw, he could just have claimed it.

The moves "20 Bg2 Bh3 21 Bf3 Bg4" are not present in Alekhine's book Auf dem Wege zur Weltmeisterschaft by Alekhine (Berlin and Leipzig, 1932). They had already disappeared in an article which Alekhine wrote about the game in May 1925. 

In any case, Reti was still better after 22 Bh1. If Alekhine was objective, his hypothetical ploy would not make sense.

 Interesting is that Reti points out where the errors in his play happened:

• Instead of 24 Rc1 he should have played 24 a4, then doubling rooks on the a-file and making the pawn-advance b5.
• 27 b5 was premature and his second error. It was necessary to play 27 e4.
• 29 Nf3 was the third mistake, and a fatal one. With 29 Bf3, Réti said, he would have had a good game.

psychlogical manipulation, trick; I say tomato, you say tomatoe.

The thing is, either way, when we do something like this, we are relying on the idea (hope?) that our opponent will not catch-on to what is going on. And we would only do this because we think our opponent is not as clever as we are.

Of course, this definition could lead to the argument that most chess moves are tricks because what chess player does not generally think he is more clever than his opponent? Proving who is more clever, at chess at least, is the WHOLE point of chess.

So you might call what you did a psychlogical manipulation because it is not immediately available for the eyes to see as your rook bait was; it is more abstract. But, since it was done with the hope that your opponent would not be clever enough to get it, then I would say it was a trick, plain and simple. A better than average clever trick, but a trick just the same.

Now, I should let you know one thing about my own thinking. I am not against tricks and other questionable tactics in any game or sport. I believe games and sports have rules for 2 reasons: 1) by creating artifical bounds through rules, creativity is challenged and strengthened in the process of working within those bounds 2) by having rules, you challenge the participants to further define the rules through a 'natural' evolution. For example, a couple of days ago someone posted this puzzle about a checkmate in 1. It was based on an abiguity in the promotion rules at the time. Basically, the author of the puzzle suggested promoting to a piece of your opponents color to checkmate instead of stalemate. After he presented this, the rule was clarified to require you to promote to a piece of your own color.

If the position in the puzzle had actually happened, would it be a trick to have promoted your pawn to an enemy knight? I think most people would agree it is a trick, a cheap and dirty one at that. But hey, it didn't violate any rule.

No doubt someone reading this is going to want to envoke the 'spirit of the rules' clause and go on some tyrade about ethics. To this I would say phoey! To claim that something violates this 'spirit' of the rules, is just petty (and maybe a bit of jealosy for not thinking of it themselves). Rules can be changed and adjusted at any time.

I do, however, believe in kharma. And, in your game, I would say it was served. No doubt you will think twice next time before doing something like that.

@Kleelof, Thanks, that was really great!

well, I might try it again given the right circumstances  But win, lose, game, trick, as long as I learn something useful.

Peace