Fans are contemptuous of short draws. Organizers complain about masters disappointing the spectators. Yet successful players still agree to short draws, with varying degrees of embarrassment. What can be done?

First, let’s dismiss pre-arranged draws. They are an illegal act of conspiracy.

But there are several reasons why honest players may seek quick draws after the clock starts. Although I sympathize with the fans who want to see blood, I think that each player’s duty is to maximize his score, and that sometimes means taking a short draw. If a player does not feel 100%, if his opponent scares him, if he’s uncomfortable with the choice of opening, or if he has an appointment elsewhere, let him offer a draw, or accept one.

A friend suggested that a master might draw quickly to conserve energy for later rounds. This strategy would not apply to a weekend Swiss of four or five rounds. If one cannot go all out for a weekend, take up another game.

In a longer tournament (a Swiss of eight or more rounds), some players will benefit from an occasional short draw. I don't do this, but I am getting older and I reserve the right to "save energy" in the future! Frankly, I lower my opinion of players who ask for a respite during a tournament, but I don't want to criticize them too harshly because I don't know how badly they are suffering.

I agree with Eduard Gufeld that short draws among Geller, Keres, and Petrosian in Curacao, 1962, helped the trio stay fresh for games against other rivals. This was a grueling 27-round tournament. Anyone would be tempted to ease his schedule by an occasional short draw in such a marathon. These players went quite a bit further. I consider it unethical behavior, but it worked.

In title tournaments, players sometimes confess that they feel obligated to accept a short draw to help an opponent achieve a norm. I do not approve of this. Again, the player's obligation is to himself. Make every opponent earn his half-point.

The most common scenario for short draws is the last round. In my opinion, these prize-clinching draws often make sense, financially, for professional players. I can imagine justification for a draw in the next-to-last round against a particularly dangerous opponent, but not earlier in a tournament. After a loss midway through a tournament, a player has enough time to make a comeback, especially if his conqueror is prone to offering short draws!

In a heavy-handed attempt to encourage fighting chess, FIDE formerly required players to wait until move 30 before agreeing to a draw. Of course, the rule was unpopular and ineffective. Bobby Fischer, certainly a fighter, once agreed to an early draw and explained that the rule was meant “for Commie cheaters.”

The carrot works better than the stick. I think that organizers can reduce the number of last-round draws by altering the prize fund. If a tournament offers much more money for clear first place than for a two-way or three-way tie, someone is likely to push hard for a win.

I would like to see bonus money added to a clear first prize. Perhaps the amount could be increased if the leader wins his last-round game.

If top board games are shown on demonstration boards, the organizer could announce bonuses for decisive results. Even better, he could encourage the spectators to select the most interesting game and reward the winner with a bonus. This approach would work in earlier rounds, too.

Probably a few masters are too peace loving to respond to these incentives. But I am sure that others will welcome the encouragement to compete against their peers.

I can anticipate an objection to these proposals. If the prize fund dictates a last-round victory, won't unscrupulous opponents throw a game and split the profits? It could happen. However, the obligation to produce a crowd-pleasing game complicates the crime.