Talk:Draw (chess)

draw/tied

I think it's more accurate to say that there are three possible outcomes (win for black, win for white, draw) than two (draw or decisive outcome) - next time you win a game, try telling your opponent that a win for white and a win for black are equivalent! Anyway, I've taken numbers out so hopefully there won't be any realy disagreement. I've also removed the "(or tie)" bit, because although it's true in general, of course, that "tie" is a synonym for "draw", in chess I don't think the word "tie" is ever really used - it's always "draw". (I suppose you could say a match that ends 12-12 was a "tie", but that's not what the article is about.) --Camembert

There exists yet one more possibility, namely, a loss for white and a loss for black. Both the FIDE and the USCF rules state that, for certain gross infractions (including failure to appear for the game), both players may be forfeited. (As far as I know, this is unique amongst sports and games: everywhere else the total wins and total losses will be equal in any event, and for all time for that matter.)WHPratt (talk) 17:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes it is possible for both players to forfeit for not showing up, etc. But then there was no real game. However, it is possible for both players to forfeit a game in progress for violating rules (e.g. cheating). But to me, that isn't really a normal conclusion of the game, even though a game can end that way. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 18:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

That is to say that a double forfeit is for reasons external to an actual game. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

But there has been at least one case of this. I think it was in the World Junior Championship in the early 1970s. Two players agreed to a draw beforehand and both were forfeited. Then they played a fictitious (concocted) game. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 18:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Please don't misunderstand. I would not want to put really esoteric stuff in an introductory paragraph (something that I see from time to time in articles here), but rare exceptions to a general definition should be noted further down in the text, in the interest of completeness.WHPratt (talk) 05:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it should be in the article because (1) it is extremely rare, (2) it is not a proper end to the game - it would be for reasons external to an actual game (i.e. something that happens off the board), and (3) I doubt there is a source saying that. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 06:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

BAP System

Melchoir, while it is true that I invented the BAP system and also wrote the snippets on BAP, it does not change the fact that it is true. Please, let's discuss this, I do not want to get into an edit war. Did you read my blog on Slugfest.org? It explains in great detail the why and what of BAP. Also, Slugfest.org is non-commercial, I make no money from this. Not sure if that is a consideration or not.

Clint Ballard

Please read WP:NOT. In particular, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, and Wikipedia is not a soapbox. The merits of your system are irrelevant. Melchoir 14:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I read the WP:NOT, but what part am I violating? BAP is not original thought anymore as it has been on chessninja, which isn't exactly the Harvard Review, but is one of the top chess discussion sites around. BAP is an alternate point system for chess that actually exists. Wikipedia makes many mentions about a win = 1 pt, draw = 1/2 pt, loss = 0 pts without any mention of alternatives. I thought Wikipedia was a place where all the alternatives had a chance to be discovered. What exactly am I doing wrong?

Clint

For coherency, I'll respond to this on your talk page. Melchoir 14:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

what is the best army in chess 41.220.229.250 (talk) 08:57, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Removed R+B vs. R

I removed

King, rook and bishop versus king and rook is known to be drawn, if the defender plays correctly.[1].

from the "impossibility of checkmate" for two reasons. (1) (the main reason) the section is about when checkmate is impossible - no matter how the players play. (2) The combination of R+B vs. R is not always a theoretical draw (I think this is discussed at endgame, under "endings without pawns"). There are a significant number of R+B vs. R positions that are won positions, against the best defense. Reference: Secrets of Pawnless endings, by John Nunn, page 173ff, 186, and 290. See the example at Philidor position for an example that is a forced win, against perfect defense. Bubba73 (talk), 17:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. As an aside, I think that endgame should be referenced somewhere in this article, even if only as See also. Regards, Ben Aveling 16:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I thought that this ending was mentioned at endgame under "Fine's rule", but it isn't there, so I was wrong about that. However, I don't see any reason for the R+B versus R ending to be mentioned in this article just because it is usually (but not always) a theoretical draw. There are quite a few endings that have that same property, and I don't see any reason to single out R+B vs. R. (There are also endings that are usually wins, but have a significant number of drawn positions.) But a seperate article on such positions, including R+B vs. R, would ge good, I think. Bubba73 (talk), 18:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it is mentioned in pawnless chess endgames. Bubba73 (talk), 19:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

10 move rule

I'm tempted to remove the "10 move rule". First, I've never heard of such a rule. If it exists, it is used by only a small number of players, and in no official competition. Second, the rule doesn't make sense - there are plenty of positions with a lone king where it is impossible checkmate in ten moves. Finally, and most importantly, it seems to have no relevance whatsoever to the "grandmaster draw problem". Bubba73 (talk), 23:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

FIFA's 2-1-0 vs 3-1-0

This is also the system that's used in DCI-sanctioned Magic: the Gathering tournaments (and other DCI-sanctioned tournaments as well, if I remember correctly), and it's fairly successful; draws only occur near the top tables when players are trying to ensure themselves top-8 spots. I think this is notable as a demonstration that the 3-1-0 system works, but I'm an avid Magic player, so I'm biased. Does anyone else think this is notable enough to add? 63.163.61.3 19:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Probably not, since it isn't in a chess tournament. Just my opinion. Bubba73 (talk), 19:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

"Interestingly"?

Adopting new point-scoring rules akin to soccer, where FIFA has adopted a system that gives 3 points for a win, 1 point for a draw, and 0 points for a loss. This system discourages draws since they would only be worth ⅔ of their current value. The "3-1-0" system was adopted by FIFA after various soccer leagues around the world had used it to reduce the number of stalling draws - Interestingly, it was the United States that succeeded in getting FIFA to change from the previous "2-1-0" system for the USA94 World Cup.

The last sentence doesn't seem terribly "interesting" to me. Should I remove it, or am I missing something? --Army1987 (talk) 17:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is interesting—in an article about soccer/football history <grin!>. I would agree that is serves no useful purpose in this article. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree - I don't see any point in that sentence being there. Bubba73 (talk), 17:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, useless sentence removed. --Army1987 (talk) 20:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

first move advantage

"first move advantage" section moved to first move advantage in chess. Not much directly to do with a draw. Bubba73 (talk), 03:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Grand Prix rule

Considering that the lead states boldly that "players may agree to a draw any time", would the FIDE Grand Prix 2008–2009 rules be worth a mention here? Of course, the game played in the Grand Prix is not strictly abiding by the laws of chess, which is what this article should primarily be about – but it's still an important, FIDE-sanctioned alteration. -- Jao (talk) 20:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, I forgot about that. Yes that is right. I was trying to fix changes to the lead section. Bubba73 (talk), 20:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Insufficiuent material: King vs King

George Koltanowski had an anecdote about this (as he did for everything in Chess). I read it in his newspaper column many years ago. Paraphrase warning!

Koltanowski is at a local Chess club, and sees two extremely inexperienced players at a board. After a flurry of exchanges and blunders, each man is left with just a King. However, they go on making moves.

"Ahem!" says George. "Not much point in playing on, is there?"

"Oh, I don't know," says one of the novices. "He just might make a mistake."

Some time later, George comes by again and sees the fellow packing up his pieces.

"I guess that you figured out that was a draw," he offers.

"Oh no. I lost."

"You lost! How??"

"He got his King to the eighth rank and made a Queen out of it."

WHPratt (talk) 16:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I think they had more than one misconception about the rules. Bubba73 (the argument clinic), 16:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

technical draw

I removed:

• A "technical draw" is a draw that is not by agreement, i.e. it is a stalemate, threefold repetition, fifty-move rule, or because checkmate is impossible.

from the Terminology section. I thought that was the definition, but at least two editors in the chess project say it means the same as "theoretical draw". On the other hand, Evans on Chess, by Larry Evans, page 12, says that a technical draw is one in which checkmate is impossible, no matter what moves are made, e.g. king and minor piece vs. king. Due to the confusion and the fact that the term isn't used that often, I am removing it, pending some good sources. (I checked several other books and didn't find a definition.) Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 00:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

• • I also would think that it is equivalent to "theoretical draw", e.g. an endgame or position that, with proper technique applied by both sides, will be drawn (the R+B v. R ending, for instance). Evans' definition seems weird to me, as does that previously given in the article. But to my knowledge "technical draw" is not a standard term with a well-established meaning, so your resolution makes sense to me absent some authoritative source for a definition. Krakatoa (talk) 04:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I thought it would be a draw on a technicality, i.e. not a draw by agreement. (I'm the odd man out here.) OTOH, at Draw by agreement there is a quote involving "technical draw" where it is used as "grandmaster draw"! I double-checked that reference the other day, and that is what it says. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 05:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Evans defines it as "impossibility of checkmate" when he is giving the ways that a game can be drawn: (1) technical draw, (2) agreement, (3) 50-move, (4) perpetual check, (5) 3-move [sic] repetition, (6) stalemate. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 05:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

A complaint on draws in chess from 1887

Brooklyn Daily Eagle, Oct 2, 1887, p. 15, has a long bit complaining about draws in what must have been Frankfurt 1887 (won by Captain George Mackenzie). Apparently it was taken from a publication called the Clipper. "It does seem to us that the present system is inherently defective, and places a premium on the first class players of the grades B and C entering tournaments to deliberately attempt the achievement of a position by this means for which they have no possible hope by direct, chivalrous fighting for victory. ... Herr Neustadtl's method was a brave attempt to secure substantial justice in results. Now it might be thought a pretty rough and ready remedy, but we would like to see in some tourney of full lists drawn games treated as absolute nullities. That at least we should think so, would prevent anybody from trying to play for draws, and to the victors, and to them only, would belong the prizes. The other effect, desirable as we believe, would be to eliminate from masters' tournaments those who only play for draws." Later it says, "percentage of won games, the only correct method of awarding prizes in chess tourneys" Quale (talk) 06:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Frequency of draws

Analysis of draw frequency in tournament games: [http: //chess-db.com/public/research/draw_rate.html] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.17.180.12 (talk) 10:57, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

That is some great information. I've wondered for years about this very thing. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:51, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

What - you never read First-move_advantage_in_chess#Winning_percentages? :-) Krakatoa (talk) 09:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Petrosian vs. Fischer

Is that really the best example of a draw by agreement? Fischer had offered the draw without making a move first, and had stated himself in My 60 Memorable Games that he "offered a draw, not realizing it was bad etiquette" (see Draw by agreement). Double sharp (talk) 08:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I probably put that example in both articles. IIRC. I put it in the other article to say something about the etiquette and have a good source. Then I probably copied it over here because it was a well-documented case of a draw by agreement. One more consideration is that it was between famous players. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Rook and bishop versus rook

The article stated that rook and bishop versus rook is usually a theoretical draw, but that the side with the bishop "usually" wins in practice. That is false. The side with the extra piece wins about 42% of the time. http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessending?s=RB&i=R (Once in a blue moon, the inferior side even wins on time. Chessgames.com has one instance that is recorded as a win for the inferior side - presumably on time - and Walter Browne in his autobiography mentions that he once won the inferior side against Andrew Karklins in a sudden death time control.) I've accordingly changed "usually" to "often". Krakatoa (talk) 09:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

OK. The sources cited a large number of wins for the R+B, but that was based on individuals, not on comprehensive statistics. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 18:26, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Overlapping sections

The content of "Draw rules" and "Draws in all games" largely overlaps. These two sections should be merged into one, without the repetition. GregorB (talk) 18:25, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Computer chess draw rate

Quote:

Roughly 36 percent of games between top computer chess programs are draws (more than are won by White or won by Black)

There are a number of reasons why this sentence is problematic. The source is CCRL, accessed in 2007. Today, the same source gives the draw rate of 39.2%. Note this is draw rate of all games that have ever been played by CCRL testers (605 thousand at this moment), not just recent games. Also, there are 246 engines in the list at the moment - that's pretty much all modern chess engines in existence, not just "top computer chess programs". So, the quoted sentence is almost meaningless.

What is interesting about the computer chess draw rate is:

• There is obviously no draw by agreement, which is the most common draw in human play.
• Still, the draw rate is much higher now compared to humans - looking at the top 10 engines in the current CCRL list, it is generally above 50%, and exceeds 60% for some engines. For longer time controls, it is slightly higher still.[2]
• The draw rate seems to be continuously rising. This is likely a consequence of the rising playing strength.

It is an interesting subject, and hopefully the write-up could be formulated along these lines. GregorB (talk) 19:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Also in correspondence chess, largely driven by computers now: "Currently between 80% and 90% of all games in the top tournaments are drawn."[3] GregorB (talk) 19:10, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Just one thing, "meaningless" above is a bit too strong because I haven't explained it properly. What I meant was that in CC, since playing strength depends on hardware, and draw rate depends on playing strength, one cannot ascribe a particular draw rate figure to CC in general. It's just a matter of wording. GregorB (talk) 07:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Frequency of draws - dubious?

This section has been marked as "dubious". I do not find it dubious. It is consistent with other sources. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:11, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Um, Bubba, it's not the entire section, just the last sentence. See the above talk page section... GregorB (talk) 07:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I haven't thought about it much, but there isn't any fixed percentage of draws. All we can say is that X % of the games for a given time period were draws. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 20:32, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Would it be OK then if I tried to rephrase this bit along these lines?

Also, what do you think about the first two sections (see "Overlapping sections" above)? GregorB (talk) 19:33, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Certainly, we appreciate the help. I haven't really had a chance to look at the duplication. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:48, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay then, in the end I haven't written much of substance about computer chess, but I've added a couple of things about the draw rate trend and the correspondence chess. GregorB (talk) 09:30, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Reference for July 1, 2014 changes

The reference for the July 1, 2014 changes are here. It is in there three times, and I don't know how to consolidate that into one reference. (This could be used for other references too, if it isn't already.) Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:24, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Draw (chess). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080609094238/http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chesscollection?cid=1001018 to http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chesscollection?cid=1001018

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)