On Dec 6, 7:18 pm, Guy Macon http://www.guymacon.com/ wrote:
zdrakec wrote:
Giving some thought to how draws happen over the board
...
the following rule changes strike me as perhaps interesting:

May I suggest starting with a logical argument as to why draws are
undesirable?

I guess I should be clear: I do not feel that draws are undesirable. I
feel that draws which are a result of an unwillingness to risk a
decision are undesirable. The suggestions I offered all flow from the
notion of preventing such chess.

Warm regards,
zdrakec



Draws may not be agreed.
...
that would seem to leave lack of mating material as the sole way
to draw a game

Which means that draws *can* be agreed, simply by trading down until
both sides lack sufficient mating material.

Since the object of the game is to place the opponent's king in a
position from which it cannot avoid being captured, I suggest that
stalemate should be a loss for the stalemated player.

This would completely change endgame strategy -- not a thing to do
lightly without at least playtesting hundreds of games first.

Thoughts?

My opinion is that the game of Chess is OK as is is. I see no
problems that justify anything other than minor tweaks. That's
why I would like discussions like this to start with an argument
as to what is wrong with the current game; most discussions like
this start with an unexamined assumption that something is wrong
with the current game.

--
Guy Macon
http://www.guymacon.com/