Are we commenting on a game in progress? If this game has ended and a draw was declared, it was probably due to a threefold repetition of the position. If it is still ongoing, we cannot ethically comment (save, perhaps, to state the obvious--that it is not a theoretical draw).
Why is this game a draw?
Sort:
The game is over. I believe it ended about 150 years ago, so your morals can remain firmly intact. I was looking at it on the database and I myself am far from understanding why it was declared a draw.
Sep 15, 2008
0
#4
the line tonydal gives seems totally won to me, black has onky a check on a1 and after that has nothing left. Perhaps white was almost out of time ofr just needed a draw towin a tnment and the players were friends. Mind you I don't think chess clocks were around 150 years ago! Can you give the players and context from the dbase?
The game appears to be Olland-Teichmann, Karlsbad 1907.
I suspect the draw has something to do with black's three connected passed pawns on the queenside. After Rc8 and the exchange of queens (...Qa1+ followed by ...Qe5+), it's a promotion race. I strongly suspect white would have the better of it, but perhaps neither player was in a mood to find out.
I suspect the draw has something to do with black's three connected passed pawns on the queenside. After Rc8 and the exchange of queens (...Qa1+ followed by ...Qe5+), it's a promotion race. I strongly suspect white would have the better of it, but perhaps neither player was in a mood to find out.
I think you're right except
black has the better of it after the line you describe; white saw this and offered draw and as both players understood that white can force draw with repetition, his opponent accepted the inevitable.
I think you're right Nimzo. White is better there. Went thru it at length manually, and then with the computer. *scratches head* -- so uh, why was this game a draw? Is there something we've missed?
The computers will probably find everything. OTB, it is hard to find a conclusive line for white. Sure he has a few checks, but no solid mate line that I see. Black has too much countreplay for white to allow any tradedowns, which seem forced to me if white wants to try and overpower the rook. White doesn't have the time though, as he needs to attend to, at the very least, the perpetual available on the black squares, and if he solves that problem, he has lost enough tempo for the black pawns to come into play. White can only succeed if he can use his dynamic advantage before Black is able to solidify his position. In 1907, Deep Blue wasn't available for us to weigh all the dynamic factors, so draw ; )
A possible explanation is that the game was drawn because White accidentally allowed a threefold repetition: the positions after 46. ...Qxc3, 50. ...Kf8 and 54. ...Kf8 are identical. It's quite easy to overlook a repetition like this if the intervening moves are not the same each time--I recall Adams doing it a couple of years ago. It does sometimes happen that superior positions are squandered in this way.
What about the Qc1 check? Everyone seems to be looking only at the a1 check. The check on f4 is what keeps black alive i think. The white queen cannot help prevent the perpetual and keep an attack on blacks king going at the same time. I think its just a case of who gets to make the others persons king dance into threefold first.
Sep 16, 2008
0
#11
another possibility is the fact that Teichmann was higher in the world rankings at the time (see chessmetrics) so Olland was very happy to get a draw? I believe white is winning but it would be very hairy OTB to make that call as has been said by previous posters.
Sep 16, 2008
0
#12
Chessroshi wrote:
What about the Qc1 check? Everyone seems to be looking only at the a1 check. The check on f4 is what keeps black alive i think. The white queen cannot help prevent the perpetual and keep an attack on blacks king going at the same time. I think its just a case of who gets to make the others persons king dance into threefold first.
If Qc1+ Kh2 Qf4+ Kh3 black is all out of checks and can't stop white mating.
And the ...Qc1+ leads to a quick loss for black, since it is not a perpetual:
Camembert is right, of course--if we play over the actual game, 55 Qd6+ would be an immediate draw by threefold repetition. Olland's mistake was not playing 49 Rc8, transposing into our various analyzed lines. Or perhaps, after several minutes of shifing wood, Olland saw the opportunity--and then was unable to play it.
camembert wrote:
A possible explanation is that the game was drawn because White accidentally allowed a threefold repetition: the positions after 46. ...Qxc3, 50. ...Kf8 and 54. ...Kf8 are identical. It's quite easy to overlook a repetition like this if the intervening moves are not the same each time--I recall Adams doing it a couple of years ago. It does sometimes happen that superior positions are squandered in this way.
Oh wow, yes -- nicely spotted (I never bothered to play thru those moves leading up to the drawn position... now I feel like an idiot) ... but I wonder if it was accidental... Playing thru Olland's last half dozen moves... it looks like he has no clear idea how to proceed. He doesn't want to give check from the 6th rank for some reason. And the move that seems to have jumped out at most of us: Qe6+ followed by Rc8 -- he had plenty of opportunity to play it but doesn't. I don't think he saw Nimzo's 7.Rg8 line, or didn't see it as winning.
Question:
When can you claim a repetition draw? You must do it on the half-move the draw occurs, right? So Teichman plays Kf8 and claims draw. What if he'd hesitated and Olland had quickly played a move? Would Teichman lose the right to claim the 1/2 point?
"When can you claim a repetition draw?"
You must write the move you want to play, then call a judge and ask for a treefold repetition.
Section 9.2 of the FIDE's Laws of Chess (http://www.fide.com/component/handbook/?id=32&view=category) says, "The game is drawn, upon a correct claim by the player having the move, when the same position, for at least the third time (not necessarily by a repetition of moves) a) is about to appear, if he first writes his move on his scoresheet and declares to the arbiter his intention to make this move, or b) has just appeared, and the player claiming the draw has the move."
Further, Section 9.4 states, "If the player makes a move without having claimed the draw he loses the right to claim, as in Article 9.2 or 9.3, on that move."
Read this way, the rules suggest that Olland could have moved quickly and dodged the draw claim, provided Teichmann didn't stop the clock and summon whoever was the arbiter in 1907. I suspect that 9.2.a, with the statement "is about to appear," is meant to prevent such situations. Of course, these are modern rules, and I'm not sure what was in place at the time.
Black has just moved Kf8.