Most people here disagree with you(So do I) because simply asking for a draw after the first move I repeat THE FIRST FREAKING MOVE just to win a tournament for some decent money(your gonna spend that fast or save for college)is very cowardly and dishonorable. PLAY IT OUT. Every single tournament I have been to where there is a situation where the first place guy just has to draw has never ended in one move. The first place guy plays it out and even if he loses, he accepts the fact that he played badly. It has happened to me before and I did draw, but that was after like 40 something moves and I was down on time and my opponent was 100 points higher than me. Thats different from drawing a guy 450 points lower than you even though he played very well throughout the tournament.
Draw after 1 ply
I'm mostly talking to Adriandmen.
Cases in which it can be wrong is if there are teams of players and the players or coaches decide that they want some players to be finalists and then the other team players don't compete one vs the other and just choose draws to create certain score for players on the team. Kind of like how Soviet chess teams did it and were infamous for.
Yeap, in all examples we have a game, a match. But here , the case is just no game is played, like fixing the result without a play. Nobody want that. It should be against the rules. Not fair.
Here is John Nunn's take on the issue of "short" draws (those that are 25 moves or less):
"There is a difference between the top grandmasters and those lower down the rating list. Top GMs (say the top ten in the world) make a comfortable living from chess and will normally be paid an appearance fee (or guarantee) to play in a tournament. In this situation it is perfectly reasonable to expect them to display their skill to the best of their ability, which is after all why they are being paid an appearance fee.
The situation is different lower down. In the current austere chess climate, even quite highly-rated GMs struggle to make a living, and if a quick draw guarantees next month’s mortgage payment and thereby a roof over their family’s head, it is perhaps understandable that they should give way to temptation. Most of those who criticise quick draws have a regular salary and find it hard to appreciate how uncertain the life of a professional player can be. Chess journalists who are lucky enough to receive a regular income from their column(s) are especially prone to this."
I don't know about the rest of you, but sure, if it comes down to feeding your family, go ahead and take the draw and walk away with some guaranteed money. If you want to ask on a forum whether or not it is "ethical", you should ask yourself first: Are you comfortable with the decision to offer the draw, considering how much you need (or do not need) the money? Do you regret not fighting it out and beat this kid that no one else was able to? If you find yourself in some doubt, then perhaps you already know your answer. At the end of the day, you are the one that needs to be comfortable with your action, otherwise you are just looking to the general population for some agreeable folks so that you can feel better about yourself and your actions.
Caissa will never forgive you.Your draw was cowardly and selfish.If I were the player who was in second place, I would have called you out!
So, the following happened:
I was at a chess tournament in which I was already becoming 1st in the competition. The only thing I had to do was to win or get a draw in the last game. I played 1.e4 and after that, I offered a draw. To my surprise, my opponent accepted the draw and that was it.
After doing some research, I found out that this game will not be rated. This was in favor of me, because I have 1850 while my opponent has a 1400 rating. This can be found at article 5:
http://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html?id=172&view=article
This brought up some questions about whether this is ethically correct or not.
- Is it ethically correct to propose a draw after I have done the first move?
- The game eventually was rated. Who do I have to contact about the situation? The tournament, or the FIDE?
Note: We did not plan this before the game. I had prepared the game just in case he did not accept the draw.
Of course it wont be rated, your opponent didnt make a move. But besides that, its a very poor example of chess. What happened to sportsmanship, will to win, and the desire to actually roll up your sleeves and get into a great game of chess with an opponent?
This roll over and die mentality just for a prize ruins the game.
You did what you had to do to secure the result you wanted.
Congrats on winning the tournament.
One more thing,your opponent was just as bad for accepting the draw. Apparently, he had nothing to lose by playing out the game so he is justas culpable as you. Finally,simply because an act doesnt break any established rule,does not make that act fair.
Why didn't you just beat the opponent? I know calling it a day and draw is nice but if you were going to win the tournement, you migh as well have played your best game you are most likely going to get a draw at least. No point losing points, why don't you play the game you signed up for and be a warrior. ;)
"In this situation it is perfectly reasonable to expect them to display their skill to the best of their ability, which is after all why they are being paid an appearance fee."
Then it's the appearance fee that should be questioned, not the short game. Simply appearing might get attention sponsors want, but it does nothing for the game.
So they are to move pieces around prearranged style and deceive the audience? I could see justifying a draw between amateurs well before legitimizing an appearance game. Go to play, not to appear.
I think you missed the point....John Nunn is saying it is fair to criticize short draws in these types of scenarios. "reasonable to expect them to display their skills"....
If anyone agrees to pay you the tournament money at stake if you lose, then their opinion would be more valid. If they aren't willing to put their money where their mouth is, then their opinion is worthless.
The goal of a competitor is to win the competition. The tournament competition outweighs the competition of a single game.
A similar thing can happen in team play. Say there is a team match, six players a side. Five games have finished, the score is 3 to 2 in favor of team A. In the final game, the player from team A can either force a draw or play for a win and take a chance on losing. What should he do?
For those who say the OP's action is unfair: unfair to whom? If you say the other players, how is it unfair to them? They are not in a position to win the tournament. So unfair to whom?
They may not be in a position to "win" the tournament, but they may be in a postition to get a higher standing, and more money, if they can overtake the guy who was just handed a draw. So imagine two people ties for second with someone a half point behind them going into the last round. the leader hands one of those tied for second a free .5, which could very likely be just a luck of the draw on who gets it. Had the tournament leader played and won, the player in fourth could jump to sole 2nd with a win. Yes, you could say that they could have played better earlier in the tournament to be in the tournament leader's shoes sure. But when many times the person who gets the free half point is determined by a luck of the pairing, there is going to be some people who feel they were treated unfairly.
Not to mention, the other guy who was tied with the person who recieved the free draw. He played just as well the whole tournament, and just so happens to get paired with the person in 4th instead of the person in 1st
The goal of a competitor is to win the competition. The tournament competition outweighs the competition of a single game.
A similar thing can happen in team play. Say there is a team match, six players a side. Five games have finished, the score is 3 to 2 in favor of team A. In the final game, the player from team A can either force a draw or play for a win and take a chance on losing. What should he do?
For those who say the OP's action is unfair: unfair to whom? If you say the other players, how is it unfair to them? They are not in a position to win the tournament. So unfair to whom?
They may not be in a position to "win" the tournament, but they may be in a postition to get a higher standing, and more money, if they can overtake the guy who was just handed a draw. So imagine two people ties for second with someone a half point behind them going into the last round. the leader hands one of those tied for second a free .5, which could very likely be just a luck of the draw on who gets it. Had the tournament leader played and won, the player in fourth could jump to sole 2nd with a win. Yes, you could say that they could have played better earlier in the tournament to be in the tournament leader's shoes sure. But when many times the person who gets the free half point is determined by a luck of the pairing, there is going to be some people who feel they were treated unfairly.
That wouldn't work if the players were far in points(1 or more points apart)
The goal of a competitor is to win the competition. The tournament competition outweighs the competition of a single game.
A similar thing can happen in team play. Say there is a team match, six players a side. Five games have finished, the score is 3 to 2 in favor of team A. In the final game, the player from team A can either force a draw or play for a win and take a chance on losing. What should he do?
For those who say the OP's action is unfair: unfair to whom? If you say the other players, how is it unfair to them? They are not in a position to win the tournament. So unfair to whom?
They may not be in a position to "win" the tournament, but they may be in a postition to get a higher standing, and more money, if they can overtake the guy who was just handed a draw. So imagine two people ties for second with someone a half point behind them going into the last round. the leader hands one of those tied for second a free .5, which could very likely be just a luck of the draw on who gets it. Had the tournament leader played and won, the player in fourth could jump to sole 2nd with a win. Yes, you could say that they could have played better earlier in the tournament to be in the tournament leader's shoes sure. But when many times the person who gets the free half point is determined by a luck of the pairing, there is going to be some people who feel they were treated unfairly.
That wouldn't work if the players were far in points(1 or more points apart)
no kidding, but more often then not, there are multiple players vying for each platform of the podium
How is that 'loser-ish'? We were both afraid to lose, so why not end in immediately with a draw.
so why even show up to the tourney?
He wasn't afraid to lose per se. He was afraid to lose first prize, wich he could secure with a draw.
thats very weak argument.