From: sloan@cis.uab.edu (Kenneth Sloan)
Subject: Draw offers (was Re: More Reshevsky)
Summary: move, offer, clock
Organization: CIS, University of Alabama at Birmingham
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 18:51:25 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.161922.13987@newshost.lanl.gov> mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson) writes:
>...
>At the risk of re-opening a r.g.c frequent (and frequently flame-filled)
>topic, let me point out that draw offers are among the more contentious of
>chess rituals.

Usually because virtually no one takes the time to learn the proper
procedure, and understand the logic behind it.  This is, alas, unlikely
to change.  I have heard (credible) stories revolving around a
grandmaster(!) not knowing the details of castling.  It should be no
surprise that the draw-offer-procedure is misunderstood.  We'll never
outgrow our need for arbiters!

>  I don't know the details of this particular story, but
>Reshevsky has been pointed out (by Robert Byrne among others) for his "artful
>use of draw offers," to use Byrne's words.  Let me see if I correctly recall
>Bronstein's notes to his game with Reshevsky from the 1953 Candidates':
>	"While making this active move Reshevsky offered a draw, although he
>	appeared to be in a fighting mood and would probably have been quite
>	upset if I had accepted it.  His inquiry 'Are you playing for a win?'
>	seems to be more in the nature of a probe designed to needle the
>	opponent into a precipitate step."

As written (quoted?) this says more about Bronstein than Reshevsky.  "Are
you playing for a win?" is *not* a draw offer.  It's also probably not
correct behavior,  but it's not a draw offer.  

>
>Lots of other stories exist involving draw offers.  Kavalek describes a game
>with Ljubojevic in which the latter offered a draw *before* making his move
>(rules of the day called for the draw offer to be made *with* the
move). 

The rules of today specify: Make your move on the board, offer the draw,
and then hit your clock.  If you make the draw offer *before* making a
move, or *after* you hit your clock, then you are subject to a penalty
at the TD's disgression.  In all of these cases, the draw offer remains
valid, and only disappears when your opponent either verbally declines
the draw, or makes a move on the board.

> He
>replied, "I think you should make the move first."

Entirely correct. (today) I usually use the precise wording: "I would
like to see your move, please."  If I get an uncomprehending stare, I
may go on to explain the rule, or I may summon the director.  Usually
though, I see a sheepish shrug, followed by another 5 minutes of
thought, and then a move.  I've never, personally, had anyone contest my
acceptance of the draw after going through all of this.  But I'm sure it
happens.  I never (*never*) verbally decline; I simply make my next
move.  No one has ever acted insulted by this. 

>  Ljubojevic: "But if I make
>a move the draw offer does not stand!"

Wrong (by today's rules - I haven't researched the rules in effect at
that time).


>  Acrimonious discussion ensued, at the
>end of which Kavalek declined the offer (and went on to win a brilliancy).    
>Occurrences like this are frequent in tournaments, and they may or may not 
>suggest unethical behavior on the part of the person making the offer.

In my experience, 90% of these "occurrences" are simply ignorance.  90%
of these are straightened out amicably.  There are, of course, the rare
bozos who try things like A: "Do you want a draw?" B: "I accept", A:
"no, no - I didn't offer one - I merely asked if you wanted one".
Sadly, there is no defense against such behavior.

The exchange credited to Reshevsky above is *almost* in this class, but
not quite, in my view.

>
>Sometimes I wonder why high-level chess hasn't adopted a signaling system for
>reducing draw-offer shenanigans -- something like the bidding cards used in
>tournament bridge or backgammon's doubling cube.

I prefer the more moderate idea from bridge: you are supposed to limit
utterances at the table to a prescribed vocabulary and syntax.  Anything
not in the "language" is ipso facto improper and subject to penalty.
For chess, (especially where players may have different native
languages) I would rule that virtually any utterance including the word
"draw" constitutes a draw offer, which stands until the opponent makes a
move on the board.  I do my part for precision by always using the
phrase, "I offer a draw".

The doubling cube idea is a bit more radical.  I've thought about it a
bit, and finally concluded that any reasonable scheme would lead to even
shorter and less interesting "grandmaster draws".

In general, I would prefer to promote civility rather than try to
legislate, or try for a "technical" solution.  A good arbiter will steer
events toward the correct result, no matter what the technicalities.

>...  One hears enough bizarre
>stories involving draw offers that it might be worth some prophylaxis.

And, you haven't even begun to discuss *team* events!  Much more fun;
much more bizarre...

Almost as much fun is Postal(oops, correspondence) chess.  "This game
looks like a draw",  "It's beginning to look drawish", etc.  
Again, given my druthers, I would rule that any card containing the word
"draw" constituted a draw offer (or acceptance).

-- 
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