As I understand it, part of the raison d’être for the creation of Gothic Chess was to reduce the proportion of draws. Certainly in modern grandmaster chess there are very many draws. But is this necessarily a bad thing? I want to challenge that notion.

It is true that at the highest levels draws are very common. But who does this matter to? Does it matter to the grandmasters? Or, if we are honest, does it really matter more to us, the spectators, the readers of chess journals, the Class A to Class D players that populate the chess clubs throughout the world? We like the action. We like to see a win. But how do the players feel about it?

Here’s my honest opinion. I’m a serious club player, currently restarting chess after a gap of more than a decade, and if I look at the games I’ve played over the years in matches, leagues and tournaments, which games have given me the greatest satisfaction? Very definitely, the games I have enjoyed most have been the hard fought draws. For me there is a much greater satisfaction in the struggle with a worthy opponent where both are really trying to win but that eventually ends in impasse, than my taking advantage of some blunder and getting a slightly hollow victory.

Chess games at the level of the great masses are lost rather than won, and a draw can often show that both players played well. So why would I be interested in a chess variant that claimed to reduce the possibility of my enjoying what for me are the best kind of games? If the game doesn’t stand on its own two feet and instead has to compare itself to its parent to justify its existence then it’s a poor kind of game.