From: sloan@cis.uab.edu (Kenneth Sloan)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Draw offers (was Re: More Reshevsky)
Date: 16 Apr 92 18:43:10 GMT
Organization: CIS, University of Alabama at Birmingham

In article <1992Apr16.172327.11257@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> ceblair@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Charles Blair) writes:
>sloan@cis.uab.edu (Kenneth Sloan) writes:
>
>>Would you be so kind as to point to the particular section of the rules,
>>or a published approved interpretation to support your claim?
>
>   GUIDE TO TOURNAMENT CHESS by Lombardy & Daniels refers to  ``Are you
>playing for a win?''  as a common way of offering a draw, although I
>don't think they encouraged this usage.

Indeed.  Obviously, I don't encourage it either!
>
>   There are two separate things (1) danger of honest misunderstanding,
>and I certainly agree that this is a risk with AYPFAW, although less so
>among highly experienced players 

Reshevsky certainly qualifies as "highly experienced".  

>...(2) a dispute about whether a draw offer
>was made in any form, which means one of the two players is deliberately
>lying.  

or, (3) one player *created* the misunderstanding - making is slightly
less than "honest", but not quite a lie. A bit like laying a trap which
aims at a cheapo.

>..I get the impression that the incident that started this thread
>was a case of (2), and restricting the phrase used to offer a draw would
>not have helped.
>

Ah - here we differ.  Restricting the phrase would remove the
opportunity to create the ambiguity.  Earlier, Bridge was mentioned; the
difference in that game between "one club" and "a club" is immense.  In
a "friendly" game, the difference has real monetary value.  In a
"tournament" situation, saying "a club" will allow you to meet the
director, up close and personal.

>   I would like to see the clock of the future provided with a ``draw
>offer button.''  While I'm dreaming, I would also like the clock to
>count the number of moves and automatically claim forfeits (it would be
>necessary to have some sort of reset button for illegal moves, though).

Don't forget to add a camera, so that the clock can recognize the
illegal moves...not to mention touch-move, etc., etc.

Seriously, if someone is determined to play with the rules, then there
is not a whole lot anyone can do about it, other than to scrupulously
follow the letter (and the spirit) of the rules yourself and count on a
good arbiter to sort things out.  If a particular player persists in
playing meta-games, I fear that the only effective sanctions are social.
Techno-fixes usually don't work - and usually simply offer more
opportunities for sharp behavior.  Consider the clock, itself.  Long,
long ago, the clock was not necessary (did not exist!).  Then, some
players made a habit of exploiting the opportunity for slow play (I
believe even the great Spanish cleric had a few words to say about
this).  The "solution" was the current chess clock.  I venture to say
that the great majority of all disputes these days center around the
clock.  Now, on balance I believe that the clock is useful - but it's
important to recognize that every mechanism you introduce offers the
possibility of abuse.


-- 
Kenneth Sloan                   Computer and Information Sciences
sloan@cis.uab.edu               University of Alabama at Birmingham
(205) 934-2213                  115A Campbell Hall, UAB Station 
(205) 934-5473 FAX              Birmingham, AL 35294-1170
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess