I agree! I makes perfect sense! Also, I am 11 too!
Not true - when you are masters and you know your oponent and you bot know its a draw - then offer one
What if it's rook vs rook? Let's play for 50 more moves? :D
I think draw offers are part of the game.
I prefer to learn how to offer a draw/accept it in the right circunstances rather than limiting myself to play as if the draw offer wouldn't exists.
Ofc offering a draw in a better position against a higher rated opponent is a bad idea in general, but, what if you are in a tournament and you only need a draw to win a prize? Sure Im going to offer it or accept it.
And this is just an example, there are plenty more cases when a draw might be a smart move. Fortunatelly chess is a game wich you can improve your level in your home studying, you dont need to do silly stuff like rejecting a draw in a loosing position.
I prefer to learn how to offer a draw/accept it in the right circunstances rather than limiting myself to play as if the draw offer wouldn't exists.
Ofc offering a draw in a better position against a higher rated opponent is a bad idea in general, but, what if you are in a tournament and you only need a draw to win a prize? Sure Im going to offer it or accept it.
And this is just an example, there are plenty more cases when a draw might be a smart move. Fortunatelly chess is a game wich you can improve your level in your home studying, you dont need to do silly stuff like rejecting a draw in a loosing position.
A draw offer can be used as a weapon. I offer a draw if in a worse position (typically 2 or 3 pts down without good counterplay) in order to rattle my opponent's mentality. It breaks their rythmn and train of thought. It triggers overconfidence, whether conscious or unconscious. Overconfidence (of all varieties) kills. A declined draw offer triggers self-doubt and despair in my opponent upon a later equalization by me, in underlining the previous advantage they have now lost. Chess is a fight. If you, dear reader, have a positive, fighting mentality, you will understand that a draw offer can be a powerful psychological weapon laying the groundwork for your comeback.
A draw offer in a hopeless situation isn't forbidden but is generally considered unfair among experienced players, as one shouldn't intentionally distract the opponent in such a way. (It's well-known to people who regularly play over the board, but some online players might not know that.) I guess that most of your opponents will not be willing to play another game after such offers.
True, there are rare cases when even a titled player does that to another titled player: lichess.org/SIC0Oiwa
Please don't ask me why, I don't know. Perhaps even some titled players see that differently.
{This is a reply to #55}
True, there are rare cases when even a titled player does that to another titled player: lichess.org/SIC0Oiwa
Please don't ask me why, I don't know. Perhaps even some titled players see that differently.
{This is a reply to #55}
This might be good advice for a 11-year-old player, but for a 40+ or 50+ player, this seems to be a "solution" which is too simple for a complex problem. It is almost like saying that "a knight on the a- or h-file is always bad" - it is in most cases correct, but it is still far too simple because there are cases where such a knight can be great, the good chessplayer knows when (and the bad chessplayer sticks to this simple rule).
A draw (especially against a stronger player) is no bad result. In fact it is the perfectly normal outcome of a game between two approximately equally strong players.
Tigran Petrosian was expert in draws against strong players, he concentrated his wins against slightly weaker players (and was extremely hard to beat). Now I am aware that younger players want to play "Fisher-style" - however, there is nothing wrong with "Petrosian-style". Every player has to find his own style.
I remember a game where my opponent had a great winning chance, but he blundered it away so I could escape into an endgame where I was only slightly worse. I offered a draw, he declined (I expected that since he still had chances though the material was equal). I wasn't too worried and my defence was sufficient. However he wanted to win and was over-motivated, he made an "aggressive" king move. But - alas - this was a mistake, I could activate my queenside majority ("overrated concept" according to another GM) and win the endgame.
This kind of over-motivation ("I have to win and I will win, no matter what my opponent does") can be dangerous, it can make you blind for the real dangers on the board. So in hindsight, it was a mistake not to agree to my offer.
"Wanting" is a chess sin (according to GM Rowson), play for a win if your position is won and not when you only "want" to win.
A draw (especially against a stronger player) is no bad result. In fact it is the perfectly normal outcome of a game between two approximately equally strong players.
Tigran Petrosian was expert in draws against strong players, he concentrated his wins against slightly weaker players (and was extremely hard to beat). Now I am aware that younger players want to play "Fisher-style" - however, there is nothing wrong with "Petrosian-style". Every player has to find his own style.
I remember a game where my opponent had a great winning chance, but he blundered it away so I could escape into an endgame where I was only slightly worse. I offered a draw, he declined (I expected that since he still had chances though the material was equal). I wasn't too worried and my defence was sufficient. However he wanted to win and was over-motivated, he made an "aggressive" king move. But - alas - this was a mistake, I could activate my queenside majority ("overrated concept" according to another GM) and win the endgame.
This kind of over-motivation ("I have to win and I will win, no matter what my opponent does") can be dangerous, it can make you blind for the real dangers on the board. So in hindsight, it was a mistake not to agree to my offer.
"Wanting" is a chess sin (according to GM Rowson), play for a win if your position is won and not when you only "want" to win.
@ILikeBlitz said in #56:
> A draw offer in a hopeless situation isn't forbidden but is generally considered unfair among experienced players, as one shouldn't intentionally distract the opponent in such a way. (It's well-known to people who regularly play over the board, but some online players might not know that.) I guess that most of your opponents will not be willing to play another game after such offers.
> True, there are rare cases when even a titled player does that to another titled player: lichess.org/SIC0Oiwa
> Please don't ask me why, I don't know. Perhaps even some titled players see that differently.
> {This is a reply to #55}
My response is that while I greatly respect your achievement as a GM, that title does not convey a moral authority/superiority. "Unfair" is a values judgment you make to deride my view. In making it, you are not arguing only with me, but with Alekhine, "Psychology is the most important factor in chess," and Tal, "I believe most definitely that one must not only grapple with the problems on the board, one must also make every effort to combat the thoughts and will of the opponent."
A draw offer is legal, whether you characterize it as "distracting" or not. If it annoys you, send your objection to the rules of chess. I did not speak of a draw offer in a "hopeless" situation, as you wrongly characterized my post. If my position is hopeless, I resign. Hopelessness of course is relative to the strength of the opposing players. What is hopeless to GMs is not hopeless to the vast, vast majority of players - as a GM, you may lose touch with this. Hopelessness is also relative to time pressure.
And no, I have never experienced any blowback from an opponent to whom I offered a draw from a worse position. Your platitude that a tactical draw offer (and what draw offer is NOT tactical?) is "generally considered unfair among experienced players" is unsupportable nonsense. You seem to come to your senses at the end, admitting that some other titled players don't share your opinion. So, don't patronize me with your moralistic views of chess conduct. While I would never be unsporting or harrassing, the draw offer I described is neither, but is a recognized option and part of the rich psychology of chess.
> A draw offer in a hopeless situation isn't forbidden but is generally considered unfair among experienced players, as one shouldn't intentionally distract the opponent in such a way. (It's well-known to people who regularly play over the board, but some online players might not know that.) I guess that most of your opponents will not be willing to play another game after such offers.
> True, there are rare cases when even a titled player does that to another titled player: lichess.org/SIC0Oiwa
> Please don't ask me why, I don't know. Perhaps even some titled players see that differently.
> {This is a reply to #55}
My response is that while I greatly respect your achievement as a GM, that title does not convey a moral authority/superiority. "Unfair" is a values judgment you make to deride my view. In making it, you are not arguing only with me, but with Alekhine, "Psychology is the most important factor in chess," and Tal, "I believe most definitely that one must not only grapple with the problems on the board, one must also make every effort to combat the thoughts and will of the opponent."
A draw offer is legal, whether you characterize it as "distracting" or not. If it annoys you, send your objection to the rules of chess. I did not speak of a draw offer in a "hopeless" situation, as you wrongly characterized my post. If my position is hopeless, I resign. Hopelessness of course is relative to the strength of the opposing players. What is hopeless to GMs is not hopeless to the vast, vast majority of players - as a GM, you may lose touch with this. Hopelessness is also relative to time pressure.
And no, I have never experienced any blowback from an opponent to whom I offered a draw from a worse position. Your platitude that a tactical draw offer (and what draw offer is NOT tactical?) is "generally considered unfair among experienced players" is unsupportable nonsense. You seem to come to your senses at the end, admitting that some other titled players don't share your opinion. So, don't patronize me with your moralistic views of chess conduct. While I would never be unsporting or harrassing, the draw offer I described is neither, but is a recognized option and part of the rich psychology of chess.
@iHomba
You are one of those who keep offering draws after realising they are worse. I had this happen to me twice in just the 7 otb classical games I played so far in my life. Both times it was pretty pathetic and in the second game at the 4th or so draw offer I just smiled at my opponent. Certainly made my wins more enjoyable :)
I know I would lose my self-respect doing such a thing as using a draw offer for distraction. Also it feels way better coming back from a bad position anyways.
You are one of those who keep offering draws after realising they are worse. I had this happen to me twice in just the 7 otb classical games I played so far in my life. Both times it was pretty pathetic and in the second game at the 4th or so draw offer I just smiled at my opponent. Certainly made my wins more enjoyable :)
I know I would lose my self-respect doing such a thing as using a draw offer for distraction. Also it feels way better coming back from a bad position anyways.
"It is not respectable." Moralizing. Your argument is primarily with the rules, which fully allow a draw offer. You can have your opinion and your way of playing, that's fine. I'm not attacking that. You, however, are attacking my idea, casting aspersions on it (and me) as irreputable. That is patronizing and priggish. For an elaboration, read my post above again, this time for comprehension. You are merely parrotting GMILikeBlitz, who I answered in that post.
Your statement, "Also it feels way better coming back from a bad position anyways," shows that you don't understand that I am not expecting the draw to be accepted, but using it psychologically as an edge to better my chances for a comeback. Also, I don't make a draw offer after every move (to your comment about "the 4th draw offer" - again a straw-man of my idea). I would consider that harrassing and therefor unsporting, but I wouldn't moralize against a player for doing so. If I felt harrassed by that behavior, yes, I might not want to play them again. But the OP did not post about harrassment during a game. The OP posted his thoughts about draw offers. I added my thought on one more conceptualization of a draw offer, in terms of the psychological stuggle that is a competitive game of chess.
Your statement, "Also it feels way better coming back from a bad position anyways," shows that you don't understand that I am not expecting the draw to be accepted, but using it psychologically as an edge to better my chances for a comeback. Also, I don't make a draw offer after every move (to your comment about "the 4th draw offer" - again a straw-man of my idea). I would consider that harrassing and therefor unsporting, but I wouldn't moralize against a player for doing so. If I felt harrassed by that behavior, yes, I might not want to play them again. But the OP did not post about harrassment during a game. The OP posted his thoughts about draw offers. I added my thought on one more conceptualization of a draw offer, in terms of the psychological stuggle that is a competitive game of chess.