Short/Pre-Arranged Draws in Malaysian Chess

As any avid follower of chess is aware of, short draws between players are frowned upon by many others. So much that ChessBase had tons of coverage on the subject last year and 2 years ago, ranging from the tournaments adopting the Bilbao system, the Sofia rule and suggestions from contributors, all of which were meant to deter players from making short draws.

Before we proceed, please be aware that the topic does NOT include the scenario of collusion, i.e. the strategy allegedly used by Soviet players while chess was still dominated by the Soviets around the 1940-1964 World Championship. That adds up to conspiracy for a single nation to be glorious at the end of the road or whatever terms you want to use to call it. Instead, this article covers mainly the subject matter of pre-arranged games in tournaments that do not bear any significant privileges or special title for the winner, where those involved act strictly for the sake of personal (usually monetary) gain and benefit.

Now, let's ask ourselves a simple rhetorical but important question:

Why do the players agree to short/prearranged games?

There are many answers to this, all valid and easy to deduce logically, but I'll give the 2 which are most relevant to the topic I will be discussing:

1. They are tired/unmotivated.
2. It's all that is necessary to become the champion.

Now, another simple one, which is neglected to be asked by the average person who does not understand the situation:

Why is it bad?

Alright, this boils down to 1 simple reason: It kills the entertainment. People expect to see a fighting game, only to find that the game ends prematurely with 1/2-1/2 as the final score.

So alright, now comes the cold question:

Why should the players care?

Now the answer here is that because they have been fully sponsored to fly from their respective country, stay in a luxury hotel and are even given appearance fees! I'd be damned if I were the organizer, only to find the participants of the tournament, which I paid through the nose for, agreeing to almost instantaneous draws! In addition to that, they lose support from fans. It's a more familiar scenario to those who follow other sports involving teams that throw the game. Therefore, they are expected to perform and show some fighting spirit in their game.

Alright, so now it doesn't take any hindsight to know where I'm heading on the matter of this subject.

So let's play spot the difference. What do you think is the difference between draws in world class chess and Malaysian chess? Well, again, I'll answer that for you: Participants are paid at world level; Participants pay at the local scene. Yes, there are sometimes sponsors for the prizes. But at the end of the day, the players still had to fork out the entrance fee which ranges anywhere from RM20 to RM800 (think Malaysian Open), while very few others might have had to spend some money to stay at a hotel. So, anyway, having paid the entrance fee, it's their choice of what they intend to do next to extract the most out of their 'investment', sometimes going to lengths of ending the game decisively with the intention of pooling a larger sum of money to be split when a draw yields less. That, to some, looks unsporting. At a certain level, when a title is concerned perhaps, maybe it would be considered so. But this kind of thing usually occurs only in weekend rapid events so in reality, it's just business. And another thing is that many players just can't play well under pressure in the final round, especially when they are very close to winning first place.

In fact, this is sometimes demonstrated by Malaysian chess bloggers themselves! I have seen blog posts of personally annotated games in non-crucial rounds of small-time tournaments ending in draws when there is plenty of play left in the position, with reasons such as the 'position is about level', 'we were tired/exhausted', etc. I will not specifically mention who because I will definitely miss out a few by accident, and I do not want to label them as hypocrites when I do not even know their stance on short draws. Just to clarify (though unnecessarily), I have nothing against this. Unless those bloggers happen to object to short draws themselves.

Did you know that in poker tournaments at the final table, when the game is down to the last 2 or 3 players, the said players sometimes agree to split the final winnings in proportion to their current chip count? One Malaysian blogger, Norazlin Juarih, went so far to call the idea of prearranging a game cheating. I'd draw the line at lack of sportmanship as a point of debate because a prearranged game is NOT anywhere within the domain of cheating. He goes on to whine that he was once a victim of such 'cheating', how he would have gotten a better placing if the game ended decisively.
Well boo hoo sir, maybe you should try improving your chess next time so you don't have to pin your hopes for a good placing on other players. On a slightly off-topic note, lagging by a day in the topic of my discussion, I found that you condemned Norazman in the Titiwangsa event, and then went on to urge others to read Norazman's side of the story. Make up your mind. Hypocrite.

Sometimes, rating is at stake too. Consider the 2009 Malaysian Masters between Lim Yee Weng and Edward Lee. The first two rounds were draws and the third was a loss for Edward when he blundered. Edward, trailing 1-2 needed to win the last game to force a tiebreak. To the surprise of many, the game was agreed to be a draw after some 10 moves! Personally, I don't think this was a smart decision of risk evaluation by Edward because a loss would only result in a small deficit of rating. But we have to consider the dynamics of the situation: Edward had just lost by a blunder earlier that day. He was lacking the morale to win, and could pocket a few rating points, free of charge, if he took the draw. Furthermore, even if he won the game, he would only force a tiebreak. Forcing a tiebreak and winning the match are 2 different stages of a match. As such, lacking motivation to win 3 games (tiebreak games included) as the underdog, he decided that he should just throw in the towel and take the rating points. In my opinion, I think he should have just played to win, but Edward's decision was not without reason. Please note that this is purely speculation and as far as I know, Edward has not made any statement that I know of regarding this matter. By the way, the discussion of this scenario may seem to contradict my note at the beginning, but this game was not fixed. It's a short draw. Fought out...though for only a short 10 moves or so. But not fixed.

Finally, unlike football teams and world-level chess, 99.9% of Malaysian chess players do not have fans to disappoint, although even if they did it's really up to them. This point is rather irrelevant.

As for myself, I have been involved in, and have also been a 'victim' of such arrangements. I do not enjoy being the losing third party as the result of a pre-arranged game, but I accept it. In life, there is always give and take. It's called karma by some. What goes around comes around. But even things that don't go around sometimes do come around. It's simply the way the world works. Many strong local rapid players play chess as a source of supplementary income, some even as their main source of income (Ian Udani for instance, and yes, I know he's a Filipino but that's besides the point).

Anyway, regardless of whether chess is something a player may consider as a hobby, supplementary or main source of income, the fact of the matter is that we, as human beings, are greedy people, which is what helps us to survive. We do what we can to get the most out of everything. Without breaking the law, of course. Most of us anyway. And as far as I know, a fixed game does not involve the breaking of any laws inside or outside of chess. Those who don't fix their crucial games simply for the sake of sportsmanship or gamesmanship will lose out, if their only aim is to satisfy the spectators. But it's good for them if they do anyway, it's something to enjoy watching!

At the end of the day, the players who reach the top of the tournament rankings get to decide what to do. You can discourage and condemn their actions, but it still stands that they are the ones who are in control. You want to make a change? You be that person at the top. Perhaps you might even change your stance on short draws once you realize that you have made a huge effort to get there, only to risk a lot to get a little.

My apologies if this post goes against the grain of the conventional line of thought regarding the subject in Malaysian chess. If you think I'm wrong, I respect your opinion. Just read the third last paragraph of my welcome note if you don't believe me.

P/S: I think that it's necessary that I point out again that most of the game fixing practiced in Malaysia is done purely for monetary gain, as opposed to the alleged game fixing by the Soviets during the Soviet era, so we can avoid some unnecessary debate. In fact, I do not recall any major events in Malaysia with fixed games. Here the reason people fix games is to yield more money from the prize fund (which is really what everyone plays for. Nobody enters a tournament with zero hopes of winning any prize) , and the hindering of others from winning better prizes is just collateral damage. Sorry people [who have gotten far enough in tournaments to be 'cheated' like this], you were just petty damage. The prizewinners weren't conspiring to stop you from winning a prize.

Now, I understand that this is something that is hotly debated, and I think I am the first Malaysian to admit that there is nothing wrong with this practice as far as it goes in Malaysia, so for just this article, I will entertain arguments. The conditions are simple:

1. Post it on your blog.
2. It has to be based on reasoning. Your own reasoning. Not 'because wikipedia says so'. Include possible scenarios. And your reasoning has to mean something. Do not post references to the Bible/Quran/Rukun Negara/Whatever. With due respect, they are invalid points of reasoning in this topic especially since not everyone shares the same religion. Secondly, it's not necessary to play the religion card unless it's the only one you have left. In fact, don't post references to ANYTHING except examples. If I need to refer to something, I'll do it myself. The only thing you need to talk about is your reasoning.

Heads up though, to those who want to take on the challenge; think about what you want to say, rather than to act on impulse just because I contradict your beliefs. For example, you don't need to mention that I seem like an idiot for grouping the Rukun Negara together with the Quran and Bible. That was just a joke. If your points are worthless and/or off-topic, you will look stupid.

That being said, I will be happy to entertain a logical/reasonable objection to my opinion. Maybe you might even change the way I look at this practice.