The Evolution of Modern Chess Rules: Draws

Interesting! Thanks for writing about this.

This is an excellent article! The reference to stakes in a game played by sophisticates makes me wonder what role it had in honor culture among elites who played. It seems like evolving the custom for drawing stakes would have honor implications. I wonder if the game began to have a different societal meaning as the ideas of draw and stakes changed. Looking forward to more analysis and study from Mr. McCrary!

Wonderful series! This first article points to hard evidence of a fact that has been all but forgotten by modern chess players and fans, and that is just how often chess was a GAMBLING game early in its history. Players routinely bet on the outcome. The original meaning of "draw" in the sense of "withdrawing the stakes" tells us that players neither won nor lost their stakes. A "drawn game" meant that both parties (ALL parties?) simply took back their money, effectively nullifying the wager. Incidentally, there is further evidence of this in Diderot's Encyclopédie, in the article on Echecs (Volume V, 1755), where it says that if you move to checkmate without verbally declaring "checkmate" out loud, you could only claim HALF the stakes. So, in 18th century France at least, there was a monetary penalty for failing to announce checkmate!

This has come up in an argument about Renaissance Art. When did the rule of White on the right come into the game?

Saying that chess historically was a gambling game... is misleading. The law today in most jurisdictions specifically cites chess as a game of skill -- not gambling.

Players bet on THEMSELVES --- the unknown factor was not random luck in the games per se... but having no clearcut way to evaluate player skill.

So the stakes were on the players.

Contrast this with gambling on dice games --- whatever moderate skill exists, here the random element is the gambling attraction. Players become interchangeable.

The stakes in chess were more akin to stakes on a boxing match.

Good comments

On chess as a gambling game: Well, I didn’t think I was saying anything all that controversial, but I do understand that it might offend some players’ sensibilities to think that anyone ever wagered money on a game of chess. Such righteous indignation quickly becomes untenable when we look at the facts, however. I hate to break it to you, but someone, somewhere, is wagering money on chess right now, even as we speak. Chess is now, has always been, and will always be, a gambling game – at least in some contexts. I myself have been known to lose a few bucks to the chess hustlers of New York City. They are still there, last time I looked. College kids have often been known to play for beer and pizza. Even a tournament entry fee is technically a formal wager against the prize money offered. Over the years, Las Vegas has been known to offer odds on important chess matches. Chess betting is common in Europe, and has recently become common in the USA due to the introduction of sports bettings apps that have soared in popularity due to the COVID-19 pandemic. We could go on and on – and on. Historically speaking, if John McCrary’s 17th century references and Diderot’s Encyclopédie from 1755 aren’t enough to convince you, it is also worth pointing out that many scholars argue that some early forms of chess may have incorporated the use of dice. And how do you think Philidor made a living as a chess master, in an age before formal tournaments or world championships? Just by charging for lessons or publishing his book? No, I can assure you that at least some gambling was involved. In fact, the giving of odds at chess, such as “pawn and move” or even removing a minor piece or rook before starting the game, as a handicap to compensate for differences in skill, was done precisely so that the monetary stakes could be made even. Note that I am not arguing that chess was always a gambling game. Just that it often was. And more often than people seem to realize. (For example, refer to H.J.R. Murray’s monumental “A History of Chess” 1913, at pages 652-3, for an interesting discussion of medieval wagering on both chess and chess problems, apparently a fraud-ridden practice.) Today the term “gentlemen’s bet” usually implies a bet for no money, but in fact we know that the gentlemanly and aristocratic classes of old Europe were rapacious gamblers who habitually wagered on absolutely everything. They did not make an exception for chess, any more than they would have for boxing or horse racing. And by the way, that was the weirdest part of the comment, where Chesspride mentions the sport of boxing, and seems to imply that the stakes in boxing are somehow non-monetary. On what planet, exactly? Tom Gallegos, Chess Collectors International

Very interesting Article! Thank you for the knowledge shared..??