Are Grandmaster Draws Legal and Ethical?

(This article originally appeared in the April 1, 2004 issue of Iowa Chess News En Passant.)   In the fifth round of the 2003 U.S. Open, Grandmasters Leonid Yudasin and Jaan Ehlvest played one move and agreed to a draw. After being criticized by International Arbiter Carol Jarecki for ending their game prematurely, Yudasin and Ehlvest played four more moves and agreed on the same result. Both players were monetarily penalized at the end of the tournament. The game between Yudasin and Ehlvest serves as a classic example of a “grandmaster draw,” and chess players have long bemoaned their use in tournament play. Such draws are commonly viewed as being both illegal and unethical, and numerous letters, articles, and websites comment on their abuse. In recent years various proposals have been made in order to limit their occurrence, such as abolishing the draw offer altogether, making draws worth less than a half-point, requiring a minimum number of moves before a draw offer is permissible, or simply enforcing rules already in existence. In this short article I will argue, contrary to popular opinion, that grandmaster draws can be viewed as being both legal and ethical. I must stress that I do not aim to offer a conclusive defense of their legal and ethical use; instead, I simply aim to show how their alleged improper use in tournaments is more open to debate than most realize.   I. Why Grandmaster Draws may be Legally Permissible At the outset it is important to be clear on the distinction between “prearranged” and “grandmaster” draws, since all too often the distinction is blurred in discussions of these topics. I define a “prearranged draw” as a draw that is agreed to by both players prior to the actual game, hence the term prearranged. Such draws are clearly examples of fixing the results of a contest, and are not defended in this article. On the other hand, a “grandmaster” (or “quick”) draw is a draw that is agreed to by both players during the actual game, usually within a brief amount of time or number of moves, as illustrated by the Yudasin-Ehlvest game (assuming, of course, that the result was not actually prearranged). A defense of grandmaster or quick draws is the focus of this short article. Critics of grandmaster draws frequently cite two sections of the U.S. Chess Federation’s Official Rules of Chess (5th ed.) to prove that grandmaster draws are illegal, and all that is needed to prevent their occurrence is enforcement of rules already in existence: 14B6. Premature or prearranged draws. It is unethical and unsporting to agree to a draw before a serious contest has begun. The same is true of all arrangements to prearrange game results. In case of clear violations of the moral principles of the game, penalties should be imposed at the director’s discretion.   20L. Manipulating Results. Collusion to fix or throw games, whether before or during the game, in order to manipulate prize money, title norms, ratings, or for any other purpose is illegal and may result in severe sanctions, including revocation of USCF membership. Such agreements include arrangements to split prize money no matter what the result of the game.   I believe there are at least three ways to criticize the application of these rules to grandmaster draws. First, while these two rules by themselves seem to prohibit the occurrence of grandmaster draws, they must be viewed within the overall context of how all draw offers are covered in the USCF’s rulebook, particularly in light of rule 14B: 14B. Agreement. The game is drawn upon agreement between the two players. This immediately ends the game.   14B is unambiguous in its declaration that a game is drawn by agreement between the players. Other than implying that the game actually began (the clause “ends the game”), no discussion is made concerning a minimum number of moves, amount of elapsed time, or any other requirements.  There seems to be a conflict between 14B and 14B6. While 14B6 is intended as an elaboration on and clarification of 14B, it actually accomplishes the opposite by placing restrictions on the rights of players to agree to a draw as already granted by 14B. Furthermore, 20L does little to help clarify matters, since, for example, it is difficult to see how the Yudasin-Ehlvest game is an example of “collusion to fix or throw games.” My main point is that at least at some level there is an inconsistency between the three rules, and a player accused of a grandmaster draw could have a legal footing to stand on. Second, it is important to note how 14B6 and 20L blur the distinction between what I have classified as prearranged and grandmaster draws. Both types are considered equivalent in 14B6, even though there is an obvious difference between two players fixing the result of a contest prior to its start and two players agreeing to a quick draw during the game due to mutual fatigue. Furthermore, as discussed in the previous paragraph, I fail to see how 20L even applies to grandmaster draws. If two players agree during a game that a half-point is beneficial to both for whatever reason, how is this an example of “collusion to fix or throw” the game? Third, and perhaps most important, are the practical limitations regarding keeping grandmaster draws illegal. The newest edition of the USCF’s rulebook acknowledges this after stating rule 14B6: TD TIP: Trying to enforce this rule is difficult. Forcing two players to continue playing when they are resolute on obtaining a result of a draw will produce a sometimes very quick game with many moves resulting in a draw anyhow. Often last-round games may not be prearranged; however, due to prize fund distribution considerations the result can be easily predicted. In cases involving prearranged [and grandmaster?] draws it is wise to have clear and irrefutable evidence before imposing any penalties. (italics omitted)   Given the inconsistencies and lack of clarity surrounding 14B6 and 20L, and given the practical limitations of enforcing these rules, I believe the illegality of grandmaster draws remains open to debate.   II. Why Grandmaster Draws may be Ethically Permissible Even if the rules are not perfectly consistent and clear, critics of grandmaster draws often make an appeal to the ethical standards that govern chess. Many contend that grandmaster draws damage the integrity of the game. Chess is unique in that at any point both participants can mutually agree to a draw, but quick draws, so their argument goes, undercut the notion of a contest between two players. Others note that fans are negatively impacted by grandmaster draws, particularly in the case of quick draws in the final round of a tournament. While chess is not normally considered a spectator sport, the exact sequence of moves of a game can be reenacted at a later point in time, and quick draws do not allow for this opportunity. This issue revolves around the rights of the individual players to agree to a draw versus the needs of other players and chess as a whole. Admittedly there is no simple answer to this dilemma, but I believe the pendulum should swing back toward protecting the rights of the players. Chess is almost exclusively a contest between individuals; team tournaments have always been the exception rather than the norm. Given this defining individualistic character to the game, why should players be punished for doing something that is in both of their interests? As long as such draws are not prearranged, and given that the players are fully aware of how a half-point will affect their tournament standings, what is wrong with engaging in a practice that is mutually beneficial to both parties? Furthermore, I fail to see how the integrity of the game is called into question by grandmaster draws. Such draws, while relatively common among the top boards in a final round, are still certainly rare when compared to the sum total of all games played in a given tournament. If quick draws occurred in half of all tournament games, then there would be cause for concern. However, given the overall rarity of grandmaster draws, I do not believe that the sporting character of chess is called into question by their use. Indeed, in order to reach the top boards any player must first win the majority of his or her games. Finally, on a more practical note, I believe it is an exaggeration to claim that fans suffer as a result of grandmaster draws. Certainly chess players may be deprived of the opportunity to watch or play through a game in one round, but the option still exists to watch or play through the games from all of the other rounds. For example, I acknowledge that fans were denied the opportunity to see a real contest between GMs Yudasin and Ehlvest, but what about watching or playing through the two players’ games from the other eleven rounds of the tournament? Once again, if grandmaster draws occurred on a consistent basis there would be cause for concern, but such draws will continue to remain relatively rare since a player cannot win a tournament without winning games.   III. Summary   In conclusion, I have attempted to show how arguments against grandmaster draws are more open to debate than most realize. There are inconsistencies and shortcomings in how the rules are currently written, and there are ethical considerations concerning the protection of the rights of players. I do not claim to have constructed an argument that is immune to criticism; I have simply outlined a reasonable case for why grandmaster (but not prearranged) draws may be both legal and ethical.