The Definition of a 'thrilling draw'

Savielly Tartakower

"Drawn games are sometimes more scintillating than any conclusive contest" - Savielly Tartakower

As I sat watching the fantastic and astonishing drawn match between England and India at the cricket world cup last week I found myself recollecting this famous quote by Tartakower. Of course the key word in the sentence is "sometimes". In chess (as with lots of other competitive sports) we normally assume drawn games to have been dull affairs conducted by risk averse contestants who fear failiure to such an extent that their main aim is to avoid defeat. Certainly football has produced plenty of turgid draws. This seems especially to be the case when the stakes have been at their highest, in World Cups for example.

Cricket is an interesting exception to this rule because (in the limited overs version of the game at least) a genuine draw is a very rare occurrence. I say "genuine" because of course some games are drawn due to bad weather. When games are played in full however a drawn fixture is a collectors item.

Why do we enjoy the "thrilling draw" so much? I think it is because the very best drawn games are the ones in which the outcome is in doubt right until the very end of the contest and the longer the contest has taken to complete the more dramatic the climax becomes. In fact as I watched the cricket coverage one of the commentators summed this all up nicely by saying that "all three results" were still possible in the last over of the game. Indeed, all three results were still possible even on the last ball of the game!

So, if we want to try and define a brilliant draw ( in chess or otherwise) then I think we must say that it must have the following characterisitcs:

1. Both contestants/teams must have strained every sinew and taken some risks in order to try and acheive a victory. It only adds to the drama if the stakes are raised because, owing to the broader context of the game, nothing less than a win will do for either player or team
2. The quality of the play must be of a high standard. Two simpletons can draw a game through sheer incompetance. That doesn't make the contest "thrilling"
3. The balance of power during the game must change hands at least once. If one player or team has been on top all the way through and throws away his/her/their advantage at the end then that's just an error or a swindle
4. The outcome of the contest must be unclear right up until its end. Some games just tail off and it  becomes obvious that a draw will be the result some time before the end with both contestants just going through the motions

Here are a couple of chess games that I hope readers will enjoy for all of the reasons set out above.

Truly a 'thrilling' draw from two of the worlds greatest players.

Now, I would like to offer a draw from my own score book that I hope readers will also enjoy even though it is really unworthy of sharing space alongside the modern classic above.



Opening theory aids digestion



Valeri Salov: "Not a
man who takes his
luncheon seriously."

 In today’s post we welcome back Colonel Walter Polhill (RTD) to our humble blog. The Colonel wrote a series of erudite articles for The Independent on Sunday back in the late 90’s and yours truly has excavated them, dusted them down and now presents once more for your enlightenment. In this article the Colonel tackles the knotty issue of opening theory and reveals the real reason why so many Grand Master games follow the opening books for so many moves.

“The true value of opening theory is not generally understood. Studying the opening to such a degree that one may reel off a dozen or 20 moves by rote is, above all, an aid to digestion. Some tournament organisers, for reasons best known to themselves, insist on starting play in the very early afternoon. This presents a stark choice: forgo lunch, risk indigestion by attempting to think too soon after a meal, or rely on opening theory until the meal is digested.”

Chess Ethics - Retreat and recapture, it's the right thing to do!

Colonel Polhill consulting
a very old edition of ECO

Today I'd like to introduce (or perhaps for some of you who are very well read, reintroduce) Hebden Bridge Chess Club members to a new guest columnist; Colonel Walter Polhill (Retired). The Colonel's editorial was first published in The Independent on Sunday back in the mid to late ninties and he mainly concerned himself with the moral code associated with the game. In today's regergitated post he debates whether or not standards of decency at the board may be on the wane.

"There is an unhealthy mood of bravado laced with machismo running through modern Russian chess. In the old days, captures were met with the politeness of a recapture and any player with pretensions to be considered a gentleman would retreat a piece that his opponent had attacked. Such old formalities, however, are no longer observed, as the following game attests".




I was reminded of Colonel Polhill's articles (and this one in particular) when I played this fun game below on the Chess.com website. If you want to see a game with pieces being placed and left enprise in the most outrageous fashion then there is no better opening line to study than this bloodthirsty line of the Classical Sicilian.

There is just time for me to add that the second round of the Calderdale Individual Championship takes places at the Trades Club tomorrow night. I'm very much looking forward to watching events unfold and will be reporting on proceedings next week.