How about:
1. Offer Draw
1... Accept Draw
Exactly what I was thinking.
From the FIDE Handbook
|
B5.0 |
Unplayed games |
|
5.1 |
Whether these occur because of forfeiture or any other reason, they are not counted. Any game where both players have made at least one move will be rated
So I think a game where neither player makes a move is not considered a "game". |
When you study some of his (Rubinstein) games you (and grandmasters who analyzed this games) can't see any mistakes - he was a master of positional play and sometimes he lead his opponents to endgame where most would agree draw without hesitation but he was able to outplay them somehow.
I'll try to find and post here a good example one of his games.
I'm sure there are other grandmasters who played in similiar style.
Rathhood you said---
"When you study some of his (Rubinstein) games you (and grandmasters who analyzed this games) can't see any mistakes... "
I dont think you''re looking hard enough! Just look at the Carlsbad tournament of 1911. Rubinstein was at his peak. He was a full rook up on Tartakower---and couldn't win. My God Rathhood---you could have won that game.
In the same tournament he was playing Kostic and missed a knight fork against his king and rook. It turned out alright though---Kostic didnt see it either.
"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it
was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness. . . ."
Charles Dickens
I'm not sure I could win against Tartakower even with rook more
. They were both Polish so maybe they agreed not to hurt each other LOL. But seriously every grandmaster makes terrible mistakes sometimes. My point was just to give an example of the game where you can't see any side making mistakes still someone wins. And Rubinstein just came to my mind first I'm sure there are other GM's who play (and win) in similiar fashion.
without mistakes no game will have winners. mistakes are making players to win or loose.
And draws are made because people are giving up the fight or they repeat moves in the idea not to loose a tight position or game.
Hi. Ok. Let's make it this way:
What will be the result of a game if two super-computer (at the highest level) play chess against each other?
Answer: it will end to a draw. Most of the time this draw is because of a situation in which non of the players accept to change his repeated move since it is the best one. So, it will be a draw by repetition.
When you study some of his (Rubinstein) games you (and grandmasters who analyzed this games) can't see any mistakes - he was a master of positional play and sometimes he lead his opponents to endgame where most would agree draw without hesitation but he was able to outplay them somehow.
I'll try to find and post here a good example one of his games.
I'm sure there are other grandmasters who played in similiar style.
Rathhood you said---
"When you study some of his (Rubinstein) games you (and grandmasters who analyzed this games) can't see any mistakes... "
I dont think you''re looking hard enough! Just look at the Carlsbad tournament of 1911. Rubinstein was at his peak. He was a full rook up on Tartakower---and couldn't win. My God Rathhood---you could have won that game.
In the same tournament he was playing Kostic and missed a knight fork against his king and rook. It turned out alright though---Kostic didnt see it either.
"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it
was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness. . . ."
Charles Dickens