FREE - In Google Play
FREE - in Win Phone Store
I'm with the crowd that wants a "I refuse the draw and will continue to refuse until I say otherwise" button. What would be the problem with that? On some sites like MSN or Pogo, the draw offer is a pop-up box you have to dismiss before you can play so it is more than a distraction, it is a way to win games by consuming your opponents clock. This is highly problematic and probably the reason some people do it here.
But I just hate to hear people whine that I am treating them unfairly by making them prove the draw. I want an "Anti-whine" button. I would also like that for kids, dogs, wives, etc...
Just as MSN has its problem (personally never tried it), my purpose making this thread is to make chess.com staff aware of a problem that I have the feeling that surely I'm not the only one who experienced it.
So yes, it is a much lesser problem than what you described in MSN chess, but it is a problem nonetheless (i.e. visually distracting for me personally).
Lol, somebody crying about drawing a game and being distracted telling other people to grow up. Hahaha, I love this site. Shouldn't you kids be in school? It's not summer yet.
I also love the fact that you are not reading thoroughly and not realize that this is not about "crying". Rather about annoying distraction that I encountered during livechess. The draws mean less to me rather than the allowance of such distractions.
Answer me this, would you like having a guy dancing in front of your face the whole time while you are in the grand final of a chess tournament?
Try disabling chat?
I hardly ever notice draw offers unless I am looking for it intentionally.
I only offer a draw once and thats only if i Think the game is truely drawn else ill just play till the other side makes an error due to greed for a win. I actually offered a guy a draw and he refused then I won the game lol.
Aahhh, c'mon, being an egomaniac is the truth. You said that your lack of performance was due to the pop-up of the draw option. Everyone has that annoyance, some deal with it and win, some deal with it and lose, some deal with it and draw. Pretty practical.
Of course you have the right to voice your opinion, if you hadn't then we couldn't have known that you had an entitlement to win. That's egomanical. And you're not Bobby Fischer. So buck up, bucko!
As for Fischer beating Spassky, and all the other Americans and non-Americans that beat Russians, where is the Russian superiority then?
Indeed, we know arguments like that are rived with stupidity and illogic. You're Russian, does that make you non-human? I live in Toronto, a very multi-cultural city, and just yesterday I played couple of my friends at the local pub. One was Polish, the other Russian. I won against the Pole and lost against the Russian. That was yesterday. A few days back I won against my Russian friend who was born in St. Petersburgh. He lost; and I'm sure you do too, to non-Russians as well!! (double exclam, beoutch)
someone in a otb tournament was so nervous he offered a draw and the other person accepted it.
both didn't realize the person offered draw had checkmated the other person.TD told them draw was the result. cause they both accepted it.Kind of funny to notate 56. R4=# ½ ½ draw
I just drew a game yesterday due to so many distractions with the draw offer on the chatroom (which led me to wrong move). That's just annoying. I'm not simply asking for compensation for the rudeness of the other player, but simply for the better enjoyment of the more mature audience of chess.com.
Who agreed that a draw offer should be reduced to a certain number of attempts before the server recognizes it as a form of distraction? Put your support by posting.
I've heard ''didnt try''I've heard ''didnt care''I've heard ''slept badly''
I've even heard ''I saw a forced win but I wanted to keep enjoying my position''I've never heard ''the draw offer happened too many times''You screwed up. Stop making alibis, this is why you're never russian
LOL'd so hard!!
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that if in an OTB game my opponent asked me if I would accept a draw after each of the last twenty moves before the end of the game, I would approach him after the game in the parking lot and say "about that draw"....
I would be through using any form of "verbal" language after that.....need I say more?
I would be through using any form of "verbal" language after that.....need I say more?
I wouldn't go that far, but yeah this thread has a lot to do with the annoyance brought by such distraction.
Some responses here accuse me of being egomaniacal and "crying out", which are wrong.
I think it's very fair (and maybe even to your benefits in the future) for me to want that the disabling an "allowance" of repeated offers of draw which is not for the draw ITSELF but rather for the annoyance of the other player and hoping for a mistake.
I believe the draw offers will still show up. Not sure though.
In OTB chess, repeated draw offers can be considered distracting the opponent, a violation which can be penalized by the arbiter.
It seems reasonable to limit the ability to offer a draw after one has been declined, say 5-10 moves must pass before the next.
There is never a reasonable excuse for offering a draw on successive moves. It can only be done to distract, disturb, or mock the opponent, which should be as illegal online as in OTB games.
what if the position is a book draw and the opponent doesn't realize it like my example above, noone would say my claim for draw is unreasonable. if I offered draw on each move.
Grandmasters occasionally lose "book draws" in the ending. Just because the position may be a book draw is not cause to harass the opponent. Chess provides for draws in the cases of stalemate, threefold repetition, and 50 moves without capture or pawn move. I see no "book draw" in the rules to "claim," although you may claim a draw if the opponent is not "trying to win by normal means" and the arbiter agrees.
If you think it's a "book draw," you should have no trouble playing it out without being a jerk. And I would complain if you tried that crap with me in a tournament, and the arbiter would sanction you.
If the player, having the move, has less than two minutes left on his clock, he may claim a draw before his flag falls. He shall summon the arbiter and may stop the clocks. (See Article 6.12.b)
If the arbiter agrees the opponent is making no effort to win the game by normal means, or that it is not possible to win by normal means, then he shall declare the game drawn. Otherwise he shall postpone his decision or reject the claim.
10.2a gives you the right to call the TD and he can claim the draw.in my example because the bishop is on the wrong square black can never win.
Not every book draw is also an obvious draw. King, bishop and wrong rook pawn vs king for instance is extremely trivial to hold and would fall under 10.2 no problem; things aren't as clear-cut with rook vs knight.
However, the correct way to get the draw if your opponent doesn't accept your draw offer in such a case (which I agree is stating the obvious, but your opponent may need time to realize it) is to either just make the 50 moves or to wait until time goes low enough for you to claim the draw for good. "Offering a draw" every move, however, is plain disrespectful. It's got nothing to do with how obvious the draw is, you don't treat an opponent as if he only understands something if you drill it into their head, like a child, or a parrot. They know you want the draw the first time you offered; they'll get back to you once they've double checked, triple checked, that they just lost the win they were so certain they'd get. Repeating the draw offer turn after turn is rude, condescending (which means it's against the rules and can get you penalized if you keep it for long enough) and it might result in your opponent playing you up to the 50th move or the time limit out of spite.
At least be helpful. Say "I offer draw" one time, and then explain why, one time. "I can't be chased from the corner square because the bishop can't control it." If they want to see for themselves, let them. The game is over for you anyway. Spend the remaining time not being an arse.
@Estragon - He doesn't mean a "book draw" in the sense that Q + P vs Q is a book draw because as you say you can lose that one and everyone has a right to keep on playing that until perpetual check or 3-fold repetition. No arbiter would say that is an automatic draw.
He means a situation in which say there are K + 8 P + B vs K + 8 P + B, the bishops are of opposite colors, all pawns hopelessly locked and the pawns are all on the same color as the bishop. Hopeless draw. But..the bishops can move around a lot and the king can move around a lot so a 3-fold repetition might be 400 moves in the future and very difficult to prove without having a computer hash table. The above rule says that you can't lose that one due to time pressure (a questionable rule in my mind but a rule nonetheless).
Such a position would not be a "hopeless draw", it would be a draw period, because there is no legal sequence of moves that can lead to mate for either side. The game is already over, so to speak.
He is talking about king, bishop and wrong rook pawn against king, which is a hopeless draw in that it's extremely trivial to hold once you know how, unlike, say, Q+P v Q, which I agree is not clear-cut at all.
In other words, there are four kinds of positions to consider:
- Just plain draw (stalemate, insufficient material, all positions in which no legal sequence of moves can lead to mate for either side)
- Hopeless book draw (Some K+P v K positions, wrong bishop in king+rook pawn, sometimes even K+Q v K+P - there is a number of them). Of course, them being hopeless hinges on whether or not the defending sinde knows the book draw method. Once it's proven they do, a draw claim per 10.2 will easily go through.
- Really difficult book draws without a clear-cut drawing method, which will usually be played out until repetition or 50 moves rule, but in which draw claims per 10.2 may still go through.
- Alive positions or even won positions, in which a draw claim will fail unless the attacking side doesn't bother to even pretend it's trying to find a winning plan, i.e. just moves a bishop all over the place waiting for the flag to fall.
In none of these situations is it appropriate to offer a draw over and over. Once you've offered it once as the defender in an endgame, you've said all you needed to say. Explain the drawing method once if you want to, or just shut up until the result is played out.
"At least be helpful. Say "I offer draw" one time, and then explain why, one time. "I can't be chased from the corner square because the bishop can't control it." If they want to see for themselves, let them. The game is over for you anyway. Spend the remaining time not being an arse."
I dunno about this. Explaining something to your opponent.. I wouldn't do that in a serious game. Remember Korchnoi flipping out because Karpov offered the draw directly to him instead of throught the arbiter?
Neither would I (I'd stay quiet and concentrate on not screwing up the draw method), but it's much more respectful than offering draws over and over. Etiquette in grandmaster matches is something different altogether.
I agree with OP. There should be a button - disable draw offers.
There is a similar argument, in another thread, over someone using vacation, for that game only, one move before checkmate, after multiple insults and attempts to distract and annoy. Some people have the nerve to say its within the rules, yet if the shoe was on the other foot, I am sure they would be crying the blues. I get so tired of people and their double standards and people wonder why I would rather "give an astronomy lesson".