Draw Controversy at Millionaire Chess 2015

Some technical midnight comment attempt only:
There was a way to legally temporarily and more likely permanently "circumvent" the laws of chess by using the organizer's rule (which is allowed by the laws of chess):
"No game in the Open Section of the Millionaire Chess Open may be agreed drawn by the two players prior to Black having completed his/her 30th move."
How?
Player A wishing to claim a 3x draw summons the arbiter and follows up with his claim. The arriving arbiter immediately rejects the claim "simply" because - it is not allowed by - not only the organizer's rule, but also and maybe more importantly - by the FIDE Laws of Chess, when with such an organizer's rule.
Say again, how come? Didn't you say the laws allow a 3x claim anyway?
Because the Laws of Chess clearly spell out what may have been missed by all parties:
"9.1 ... claim of a draw under Article 9.2 or 9.3 shall be considered to be an offer of a draw."
9.2 and 9.3 are incidentally about the 3x claim.
So, the arbiter is basically rejecting the 3x claim before even checking out if it has happened, because - it is an offer of a draw, which is not allowed.
"Simple" as that. The arbiter then orders the game to continue.
What happens next is anyone's guess, as this above has never happened to my knowledge in the history of the 30 move rule.
Cheers.

IM FSTIMJP - plain english please. I was able to understand what Maurice described. But what you said is completely on top of head. Would you please quote the move numbers from that game and let us know what would you do in that case - step by step?

The plain version would be that there was in my view no "giant loophole" in the laws and rules. The arbiter should not have accepted GM Nakamura's claim for a draw, had he interpreted the laws and rules texts in the way I did.

so there are two possibilities:

1. all parties (including every fide arbiter since introduction of no draw before move 30-rule) were missing your point.

2. you misinterpret the fide rules.

i'd tend to the latter.

Yes, you are correct in general.
The texts are clear.
Law: A 3x claim is a draw offer. The draw offer can be declined or accepted or ignored. If declined or ignored, the arbiter proceeds to the claim details.
Rule: A draw offer is not allowed before move 30.
Conclusion: 3x claim is not allowed before move 30. It is allowed later on.
Any "refutation"?

yes. you are misinterpreting the rule.

http://arbiters.fide.com/images/stories/downloads/2014/Arbiters-Manual-2014.pdf

Read pages 29 and 30

Regarding 9.1.b. (3): If a player claims a draw, the opponent has the possibility to agree immediately to the draw. In this case the arbiter does not need to check the correctness of the claim. If there is a draw restriction (for example: no draw offers are allowed before 30 moves have been completed by both players) and the claim has been submitted before that move (i.e. after 28 moves), then the claim has to be checked by the Arbiter in any case, even if the opponent would agree to a draw.

this pretty much supports my opinion

The FIDE rule reads

9.1 a. The rules of a competition may specify that players cannot agree to a draw, whether in less than a specified number of moves or at all, without the consent of the arbiter.

MC's rule reads

No game in the Open Section of the Millionaire Chess Open may be agreed drawn by the two players prior to Black having completed his/her 30th move.

MC's rule is in conflict with the FIDE rule because it does not contain the phrase "without the consent of the arbiter."  The rules of the competition cannot invalidate FIDE rules.

I wish people would relax a bit more about draws in chess. Introducing artificial rules is bound to lead to bizarre situations. What happens if there is perpetual check or a stalemate before move 30? I guess the latter is not such a big problem.

Also anybody who colluded in one way or another would just go ahead and play a lifeless 32 move game and agree on a draw.

If the organizers are so insistent on reducing the number of short draws they should find other motivational tools, for example: Reduce the price money by 10% for every short draw a player produced. But please, stop messing with the rules.

A tournament organizer can propose any rules that he/she desires, and the players who choose to play in the tournament must follow those rules.  I note, however, that if the rules are sufficiently morphed, the game can no longer be considered "chess" -- perhaps a chess variant, but not "real" chess.  For example, to eliminate draws, one could impose a rule whereby the player who makes a move resulting in 3-fold repetition automatically loses the game.  This certainly would discourage draws, and prevent the "lifeless 32 move game" described by NM axelmuller.

My criticism of the "no draw before move 30 rule" is that it is misconceived.  The motivation behind the rule is to make chess more popular and accessible to the masses, under the theory that the average non-chess-playing John and Jane Q. Public prefers longer games.  Quite the opposite is true.  The average person does not have the patience to sit through hours of chess.  Indeed, the average person probably does not have the patience to sit through 5 minutes of chess!

A friend of mine once proclaimed, "Chess is really boring, and there are too many rules."  This sums up the average person's view of chess.  Perhaps if you added an element of luck (e.g., dice rolls) and had all the pieces move the same way and you reduced the number of pieces, maybe -- just maybe -- one could attract more people to the game of "chess."  Of course, some purists might argue that the game is no longer chess!

The collusion issue is distinct from the short draw issue, although GM Ashley conflates the two issues when discusing what he considers the "scourge" of tournament chess.  Oftentimes, because of how tournaments are structured, two players who are tied for the top score play in the last round.  If the game is drawn, the two players often split the prizes for 1st and 2nd.  However, if one player wins and the other loses, then the loser often ends up in a multi-way tie for 3rd (with much less money) or worse.  I saw one tournament where a player lost in the final round to drop from a tie for first to 6th (because there were 4 players tied for second at 6.5 points) and out of the prize pool.

Because of the prize structure, two players are often motivated to collude and agree to a draw before the game starts.  Since tournaments often frown upon such collusion, the players often pre-agree to a short series of moves that result in a draw.  Of course, it is difficult to prove that the players colluded and hence it is difficult to prevent such collusion.

Requiring players to play 30 moves before a draw is agreed could discourage collusion in theory.  However, at higher levels, the players could simply agree to a series of 30 moves before drawing.  Of course, it is possible that one of the players could deviate before move 30 if it created an advantage to do so.

pt22064

Your introductory sentence is only partially true.  If the organizers want their tournament to be rated by FIDE, USCF, or any other sanctioning organization, the organizers cannot implement rules that conflict with the sanctioning organization's rules.  

Yes. For FIDE, the current Laws text reads:
"A necessary condition for a game to be rated by FIDE is that it shall be played according to the FIDE Laws of Chess."

Previous Laws text (before 1 July 2014) was similar (and longer):
"A member federation is free to introduce more detailed rules provided they:

1. do not conflict in any way with the official FIDE Laws of Chess, and
2. are limited to the territory of the federation concerned, and
3. are not valid for any FIDE match, championship or qualifying event, or for a FIDE title or rating tournament."

Read this...

http://arbiters.fide.com/images/stories/downloads/2014/Arbiters-Manual-2014.pdf

Read pages 29 and 30

I assume that you are pointing out the rule clarification that 9.2, 9.3, and 9.6 are still applicable despite the no-agreed-draw rule.  My point was that the MC no-agreed-draw rule was non-compliant.  Thus, it was probably not enforceable.

What actually happened in the McShane vs Nakamura game, does anyone know?
Did Nakamura claim a draw at all?
Did he like - write his intended move, stop the clock (or not), call the arbiter? If so, what did the arbiter say?
Or did they just agree to a draw after the position repeated the 3rd time and called the arbiter to let him know?

According to the arbiter guidance document, the claim has to be checked by the arbiter if it occurs before the agreed draw move restriction.