I offered a draw in a bishop v two passed pawns endgame (with other pieces on the board), because I knew that if I tried to win I would overextend and lose, but a draw would be simpler to hold. Later on the game changed to a KQP v KQ endgame, an obvious draw, but I declined his draw offer because I wanted to see what chances the pawn would give me. My opponent ended up blundering his way into a queen trade and I won. Sometimes it isn't worth it to play out positions but other times it is.
Why Asking for a Draw is Wrong
Sort:
Mar 9, 2012
0
#63
Maybe it would be ok to have a "draw offer limit" before that option is no longer available.... I have been offered a draw 4 times now and it is KP v KBPP with one of my pawns about to promote and his pawn trapped by my king.
Mar 9, 2012
0
#64
cspeterson2 wrote:
Maybe it would be ok to have a "draw offer limit" before that option is no longer available.... I have been offered a draw 4 times now and it is KP v KBPP with one of my pawns about to promote and his pawn trapped by my king.
It is extremely easy to ignore draw offers by just making your next move. There's no reason to add a new rule just because you're letting your opponent play with your mind. You'll still get the win, right?
I disagree. Sometimes I offer a draw to someone who has played a really good game , but is going to lose because of time. I dont like winning because of time. Also , I might offer a draw to someone if Im clearly going to win, but my mom is yelling at me to set the dinner dishes or something like that. If im losing of course I just resign with a word of explanation. To me it sounds like people are to hung up on there rating. I dont need Chess.com to tell me if I won or lost the game.
But, Then - OTB is different. Then I win no matter what if I can, especially if im playing a boy.
Anyway , I hope that makes sense.
Keep making those good moves, Kelly
I have asked for draws when the only way I can win is if the other player actively plays for a win. It has gotten me several wins from OP types. Frank Marshall used to refer to the OP type mentality as "playing for the loss".
I used to think it was rude to ask for a draw in a lost position, but today I played in a game down a pawn and in an obviously lost rook and pawn ending (although I should have had some drawing chances), and my opponent thought I was winning. I managed to blunder and l lost. If I had offered a draw from that lost position, he would have agreed and I would have gained a half point. Now I realize that it never hurts to offer a draw, even if you expect your opponent to decline.
A pawn down in a rook and pawn endgame doesn't neccesarily mean you are in a losing position, those type of positions are often drawn. Did you play the game online or OTB, if you played it here can you link to the game and state when you thought think yo could have offered a draw?
Sep 28, 2022
0
#70
Rude can be intentional and unintentional. Are you ignoring etiquette or did not learn it? If an opponent is down in material sufficiently enough where you feel the win for you is imminent, and then they offer a draw. Guess what, they don't feel like taking an L. I'd call them childish, poor sport, or confused about what draw means. Not something I'd call rude.
Because you shouldn't be able to talk or make "meta-moves" in
a chess game. This "null move" (draw offer) can be used for psychological purposes
without affecting your chances negatively.
Is that a bad thing? Maybe we shouldn't be able to repeat a position twice, because that can be used for psychological purposes. Maybe we should just give up the game for soulless computers to play without any psychology involved.
If we weren't allowed to offer draws, then how would the game end? Would you really want to play out every single drawn game to stalemate, threefold repetition, or the fifty-move rule?
For those of you seriously thinking about doing this, browni3141 is asking a Rhetorical Question.
Sure. Why not?
That is the point - psychology is fine if its based on moves on the board
not on "slamming doors".
Call it what you want...psychological or not...I just think that most players would rather agree to a draw if it something ridiculously drawish, like King+Rook vs. King+Rook. You'd be surprised to learn how many players don't know how to win in a King vs. King+Bishop+Knight endgame (myself included!) At this point in my chess career, I know that I haven't learned enough about the subtleties between theoretical draws and wins in certain endgames, so I would be content to draw. I bet any your favorite chess players on high levels recognize that some positions just can't be won or lost without a serious blunder(s). They are content (quite often sometimes) to draw at appropriate times because they used to play drawn positions until stalemate, third repition, or 50-move rule and they've learned that sometimes trying for a win just isn't a worthwhile prospect in certain positions.