Another way to limit draws in chess

A compromise is that a draw offer should remain valid for some fixed period,
  say ten moves. This will allow the person who has been offered a draw to test
  whether the offer was truly justified, e.g. by trying a daring line which may
  or may not be refuted by the opponent. If it is he can claim the draw on his tenth move, even if his position is losing. The limitation to ten moves avoids the potential problem of people playing on interminably after a draw offer, waiting for their opponents to blunder or overstep the time.

That is John Nunn, here is more.  A draw, of course, is a form of trade, albeit one with some negative social externalities (a quick draw makes chess more boring for the spectators).  If you want to limit trades in some markets, a similar rule could be contemplated.  If you offer to buy a currency at a particular price, you have to keep a similar offer open for one week to some number of other market participants.  Solve for the resulting equilibrium, and see how it matters.

Comments

I suspect the main reason professionals agree to a quick draw in tournament play is that they both have a shortly upcoming game that is more important than this one, and ending this game quickly is a good way to conserve limited mental and emotional resources.

Actually thanks to the magic of the internet, watching chess online, and talking about the game is becoming a popular hobby for spectators, who can use their computer programs to analyze chess positions which would otherwise be too complex for them to understand.

Though it can be a little tedious when a grandmaster goes into a 30 minute think session, I agree.

In the general case, the price offered by the buyer will be discounted from the spot price by the value of the american put option granted to the seller who is able to exercise the option over some fixed time frame. The option value will depend on the usual suspects, volatility, time to expiration, etc.

How bout a draw system with points? The players have to decide between them how to divy up 10 points, if they both have equal positions they each get 5 points. One is slightly ahead the get 4 and the other 6. Wins split 0/10 so that can be included in the ranking as well.
It makes for an interesting thought experiment about how a grand master would offer a tie if he realizes that his weaker opponent has him on the ropes. The GM would be willing to offer a 3/7 split instead of losing and getting 0. The weaker person might not recognize they are ahead and jump at the chance for some points.
This might work better in Go where there's less ability of the players to see who is ahead, and there's more opportunity to turn around mistakes. That's my main beef with chess: make one wrong move and you're pretty much sunk. Doesn't make for interesting games when there's no element of surprise or innovative play.

thank you for this excelent article

Comments for this post are closed