In what circumstances do you offer or accept a draw in online correspondence chess? I apply a number of tests.

First, I look at the position from the point of view of an experienced OTB player. Is the position simple or complicated? Is it likely to be drawn with correct play? What is my technical knowledge about this particular kind of ending?

Then I check the engine evaluation. If all the lines on all my engines point to 0.00 or close to that, I know the engines don’t think either side is winning. These engines outrate me by over 1000 points. I have to respect that.

Also I take into account my opponent’s play so far. Has he played sensible moves of the kind that a strong human or an engine would play? Does it look as though he is playing with engine support?

If all these boxes are ticked, then I will offer or accept a draw. Notice one test that’s missing – the difference between my rating and my opponent’s rating. I will gain a few points if my opponent is higher-rated and I will lose a few points if my opponent is lower-rated. That’s just how it goes. I am trying to be objective about the position.

In an ideal world, my opponents would take the same approach as me. Many of them do. Unfortunately some of them do not. Let me illustrate that with some examples.

This is from the game Rodney Barking – Player A.

Player A (not his real name) is from England. He has been playing correspondence chess for many years. He is a prominent figure in the world of English correspondence chess but as far as I can tell has never played rated OTB games. At the start of our game, he outrated me by about 150 points.

In this position, I have just played 31.Rbe1. It seemed to me that neither side could make progress. The engine evaluation was 0.00 or slightly better for me across all lines going nearly 50 moves deep. So I offered a draw… which he declined. In correspondence chess you are limited to one draw offer every 10 moves. So I had no choice but to play on.

This is the position after I played 41.Rf4. The position is even more drawish than before. The pawn structure is symmetrical. Neither side has any threats. The engine evaluation is even more firmly 0.00 at over 50 moves ahead. Again I offered a draw, and again my opponent declined.

A few moves later, queens came off leaving a rook and pawn ending that not even Magnus Carlsen could win:

At this point, after his move 49…Rd7, he offered a draw which I accepted.

I have been trying to understand why he turned down the first two draw offers. One possible explanation is that he does not understand the basic principles of chess endings and simply plays whatever move his computer recommends. Maybe he does not know that this type of position is drawn. I think this is unlikely given his high rating and his many years of experience.

A second possible explanation is that he is using a different chess engine that tells him, contrary to the range of engines that I use, that Black is winning these positions and therefore he should play on. Again I think this is unlikely. From what I know of chess engines and how they evaluate positions, none of them would regard this as a winning position. Unless maybe it had become corrupted and had accepted a bribe from Player A in the form of a promise of a processor upgrade.

The only other explanation is that Player A thought his rating advantage of 150 points was sufficient for him to outplay me from a drawn position or that I would make a mistake. In order to think this he would have to set aside the progress of the game so far, in which I (in fact both of us) have played error-free chess. He would also have had to close his mind to the possibility that I might have engine assistance, so that he is not playing a 2200-rated player but a 2200-rated player with the backup of a range of 3500-rated computers.

In short, I think he turned down the draw offers, not because an objective evaluation of the position led him to think he could win, but simply because his rating was higher than mine. That’s rating snobbery and it does him no credit.

Here’s a different example of the same thing.

This is from the game Rodney Barking – Player B (also not his real name). He is an American player who has been playing correspondence chess for less than five years. At the start of this game, he outrated me by over 350 points.

The position is quite different from the other game. It’s unbalanced and tactical in nature. Black has a dangerous advanced b-pawn. I was the exchange up, but have just offered it back by capturing his bishop on e6 (31.Rxe6). He has only one good move (recapturing the rook) – everything else loses – and then my queen and rook combine against his exposed king to force perpetual check resulting in a draw by repetition within a few moves. The engines see this instantly. The lines are forcing, and at all critical points Black’s only choice is between perpetual check or an immediate loss. So I offered a draw… which he declined.

The game continued 31…Rxe6 32.Rc8+ Kf7 (forced since 32…Kh7 33.Qd3+ wins for White) 33.Rc7+ Re7 34.Qd5+ Kg6 (the only other legal move, 34…Kf8, also results in a quick draw after 35.Qd8+ or 35.Rc8+) 35.Qd3+ Kf7 (all other moves allow a forced mate in at most 9 moves) 36.Qd5+ Kg6 and at this point he offered a draw which I accepted.

What made him refuse the initial draw offer? Any engine would have told him that the best he could hope for was a draw by repetition. Was he not using engines and relying on his own natural ability to outplay me in a tactical position?

Or was he simply making the point that chess etiquette requires the draw offer to come from the stronger player? I understand that point, but in online correspondence chess with computer backing, the concept of the “stronger player” no longer means anything. Nor does “higher-rated.” Come on guys, it’s time to join the 21st century.