On Sep 21, 8:39 pm, " wrote:
EVANS ON CHESS, CHESS LIFE, MAY 2005 (PAGE 46)

THE DOUBLING CUBE
The idea combines chess and the doubling cube of backgammon. Here's
how it works. When a player feels he is clearly winning, he can
"double" the opponent. However, there's a catch. You'd better be darn
sure when you double because you get a big fat zero if the game is
drawn! That's the price you pay for being rash. And if you lose after
doubling it's even worse. By the way, only one person owns the
doubling cube, and the same person can't double twice in a row (see
backgammon rules for details).

In a seesaw battle, I'd consider allowing doubling up to three times
per game. So what happens is this: whenever there is a double there is
no draw. Therefore, less draws. A player won't double without
justification without paying a steep price if wrong. Another benefit
would be more clear winners in tournaments instead of multiple ties
for first.

Suggested Doubling Summary Chart

A standard win is still 1, a standard loss is still 0, and a draw ½.

1st Double: Winner 1½ Loser -½
Draw (doubler) 0 Draw (non-doubler) 1

2nd Double: Winner 1¾ Loser -¾
Draw (doubler) 0 Draw (non-doubler) 1

3rd Double: Winner 2 Loser -1
Draw (doubler) 0 Draw (non-doubler) 1

A. I'm not too familiar with backgammon, but something like this sort
of gambling on the outcome already is used in informal blitz. The
point system seems confusing enough to cause players to need a slide
rule to figure out standings in a tournament, but I like your idea of
thinking outside the box and wonder what would happen if your
experiment was actually tried in a tournament. One obvious drawback is
that cheaters could manipulate results in the last round with the
doubling cube.

What I would do is start it at 2, and then go up by an even amount, to
make the bookkeeping less of a headache with fractions. The idea of
keeping points for a draw the same (1 point) could be a possible
interesting approach to it, which seriously drives people to not do
draws.

What I would do, to prevent there being a final round manipulation, is
to play to a set number of points, and end a match then. There is a
risk of someone doubling when someone is about to win. There is the
Crawford rule in backgammon to prevent it. There are times when you
cannot do doubling if you are about to lose. It is less of an issue
with backgammon, and if you go with the doubler losing on a draw.

The idea I propose is cleaner, although the scoring is larger than in
standard chess tournaments. I personally want to avoid fractions
whenever possible.

- Rich