« The Diving Bell and the Butterfly | Main | The Division of Personality is Limited by the Division of Labor »
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.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on January 11, 2008 at 07:05 AM in Sports | Permalink
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.
Posted by: Cyrus at Jan 11, 2008 8:25:34 AM
I wasn't aware that it was possible to make chess "more boring" for the spectators...
I would argue that most chess fans probably get more value out of studying top level games after the fact instead of live move-by-move. Quick draws may be more efficient to society at large in that they can be easily filtered out under historical analysis. While if players were forced into longer uneventful draws, the results would be jumbled in the chess database.
As far as limiting trades in other markets, in which markets would economists want to limit trades? No legal markets come to mind to me. Certainly economists like liquidity in currency markets?
Posted by: Nate at Jan 11, 2008 9:19:52 AM
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.
Posted by: Scott Wickstein at Jan 11, 2008 11:48:46 AM
It seems to me that this post rises an important question: how much can econ.
analysis contribute to a field if the economist involved does not know the
particular field in depth?
The issue is this: the draws among stronger players have been increasing in
frequency during last several decades, most probably, because the chess
variants (openings, but also positions and endings) have been explored
more and more thoroughly. Grand masters have access to this accumulated
knowledge, and avoid mistakes committed by others in the past. No serious
mistakes on either side, and the result is a draw. If the aim is
simply to avoid draws, we could in principle have a rule where if no player is
check-mated after, say, 60th move, the players switch to a wrestling match! Those
rarely end in a draw : -)
It is bizarre to read in the quoted article that there is "a problem of
people playing on interminably after a draw offer, waiting for their
opponents to blunder or overstep the time". How is either side going to win
without the other committing some kind of "blunder"? Why is it wrong to win
when the opponent oversteps the time - that's why we have the time limits? I
seriously doubt that the sort of proposals mentioned in the original article will
gain much support from professional chess palyers.
Posted by: Bobby F. at Jan 11, 2008 2:07:55 PM
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.
Posted by: JPC at Jan 11, 2008 3:15:28 PM
The reason they draw is so their chess ratings do not go down.
Posted by: Niederriter at Jan 11, 2008 4:48:52 PM
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.
Posted by: BlogReader at Jan 12, 2008 1:40:48 PM
^^ nice blog!! ^@^
Posted by: rd at Mar 17, 2009 11:32:49 PM
