deleted

Seems like a good idea. In the game between Anand and Carlsen I was talking about I think they both had exchanged little material. Other idea is maybe that there has to be a minimum number of moves before a draw can be agreed. Because of course I am talking about draws by agreement. Should have made that clear in the title, because a lot of people only read the title LOL

wasnt it linares years ago that gave bonus money if you averaged over 30 moves a game? The guy who ran it, maybe still does ,hated early draws.

I am all for 3 for a win 1 for a draw and 0 for a loss at the higher end tourneys like Linares. Or at least a have to play to move 30 rule. Of course I have a slim to none chance to ever make a living from the game. So I do understand why they draw alot , to make sure they have a good payday.

I seem to recall a proposal to try to avoid wins as well?

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/nonviolent-chess

(Or was it just captures that were to be eliminated?)

Abolish the draw and resignation?  ABSOLUTELY NOT. DON'T BE REDICULOUS. IF YOU DID THAT I WOULD NEVER PLAY CHESS AGAIN!!

Why do people declare they love something, or someone and then try to change whatever they are say they are in love with. I love chess, as do most people on this site, but If you don't really love it then leave it alone.

sorry, i didnt read every post

Maybe they should let the team of referees decide if its a valid draw. If it isnt they should play on, or if they still want to draw, they shouldnt be awarded any points. I think something like that would solve alot of problems.

The downside offcourse is that the referees get alot of power and beeing human they are always subject to "persuasion"

Another downside of this (i know its weird that i challenge my own argument) is that they cant make tactical draws for the outcome of the tournament which i believe is still a part of chess.

If you arent good/prepared/rested/... enough to win by beating the other players you shouldnt complain about someone winning the tournament by playing tactical draws. Cause they did have to win some matches to win the tournament

Basically, what it comes down to is that the rules are there for a reason and they have worked for along time. Changing them in some way would maybe improve the quality of the chess game but most likely it would just succumb to some other form of annoying play (I know you have to have skill to be able to draw an actual game, but face it, if you could choose between seeing a winning game or a drawing game, the choice is kinda obvious)

"Why do people declare they love something, or someone and then try to change whatever they are say they are in love with."

So what? Loving X and wanting to change some aspect of X are not mutually incomparable states of mind.

Then if you want X and want to change it, you cannot really love it, because there are aspects that you don't like, and what you don't like you can't love!

If you are completely love all aspects of a thing or a person, that means that the thing or a person is prefect. Since perfection is impossible, it follows that to love something does not necessary mean loving every aspect of it, or the word "love" would be meaningless.

Maybe abolishing agreed draws is fine below a certain level, but for a GM?  These guys know chess better than anyone in the world, and they spend time researching their opponents. If they think the position is going nowhere, who are any of us to gainsay it?  If they're just trying to save face, remember that confidence and self-control are important parts of OTB chess.  It might be that they don't want to risk their mental state to a blunder, when they don't need to win.  I know if I blunder away an even game, it stays with me.  I'm just that competitive.   

And besides, I bet you would agree to a draw if a win couldn't help you, and losing meant you didn't collect a check.  You can talk about this all you want to, but none of us are in GM shoes, so I think perhaps criticizing real-world prudence if favor of chessboard boldness is kinda silly, unless you have actually lost out on a cash prize by refusing to accept an offered draw......anyone here been there?  

Just because you Love something or someone that does'nt mean its perfect,  its just perfect in your eyes. They do say love is blind.

Draws are a part of chess and everyone just needs to learn to live with it. What I dont like is when 2 GMs play 20 to 30 moves of theory and then just agree a draw. I prefer real "fights" that end in a draw and have no problem with those. Not liking something though and believeing it should be stopped completely is something different. I think sponsors are in a better position to "punish" players who are guilty of doing this most often and flagrantly.... dont invite them back would be the best way to punish them I think. Also..... Linares was just won by Grischuk because he won more games than Ivanchuk. They finished with the same score but Grischuk lost one game while Ivanchuk was the only undefeated player and I prefer this tie break method because it discourages draws and encourages decisive chess. If the tiebreak had been by other traditional means Ivanchuk would have been first.

I think it is absurd to abolish resignation in chess. Resignation is the only truly free act one has in chess and, personally, I find it is honourable to lose by resignation in some cases as it shows that you appreciate your opponents intricate play when they've outclassed you, and have no wish to annoy them or waste their time by persisting in playing a lost position, it is respectful. (At an amateur level, however, where endgame blunders are rife, resignation is not the best of ideas)

As for draws, sometimes it's clear that nothing will come of an endgame, and at higher levels players are able to see from even earlier on that a game is heading for deadlock, therefore a draw serves, once more to save time for both parties and a mark of respect for the consistency of one anothers play. Again, at lower levels anything can happen so sometimes it's not advisable to accept a draw.

Neither of these counter-arguments justify the abolition of the resignation and the draw in chess; they are truly fundamental and without them chess would simply be incomplete!

Furthermore, draws and resignations are some sort of mark of respect, or acts of nobility (as has been mentioned throughout this blog). 'Midi' says earlier that we should abolish these 'old sensitivities'. Absolutely not! These old sensitivities are such a rarity in today's day when people tend to be so brash and careless with each other, that it is most gratifying to be able to have a platform where one can fight an honourable, good-spirited and well-mannered battle of intellects against a like-minded opponent.

Thank goodness for chess!!

 I agree. Sometimes, when you're hopelessly down in material, or face checkmate no matter how hard you play, its just rude to waste your opponent's time.