On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 15:04:38 -0600, Kenneth Sloan
wrote:

Turns virtually all endgame analysis into trash. KPk is now a certain
win (as long as the P is safe), with nothing left for the weaker side to
play for. The threat to trade down to KPk becomes a monster. Chess
becomes roulette.

Right. And in some cases, one wouldn't even have to know how to
checkmate with a K+Q vs. K. He could just keep from losing his queen
by moving his king until the 50 move rule makes him the winner
(depending on who made the last capture).

And what if he does lose the queen and it gets down to K vs. K - that
isn't a draw!!!
--
Replace you know what by j to email

"Jud McCranie" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 4 Dec 2006 12:15:58 -0800, "David Kane"
wrote:

It does not follow that they somehow favor the weaker
player.

I didn't say that they favor the weaker player in all cases, but there
are cases in which the superior side can't win in 50 moves, and would
thus actually lose under that proposal.

And thus the word "superior" wouldn't apply to the position.

"Kenneth Sloan" wrote in message
...
wrote:
Here's the most "logical" or "canonical" way I can think of to play
non-draw chess based on the FIDE rules.

If a player has no legal move, he loses the game.

Turns virtually all endgame analysis into trash. KPk is now a certain win (as
long as the P is safe), with nothing left for the weaker side to play for.
The threat to trade down to KPk becomes a monster. Chess becomes roulette.

No. Roulette is a game of chance. The proposed game is one of pure
skill.



A position must not appear for a second time (section 9.2 of the
FIDE rules defines equality of positions). Moves that would result
in such repetition are illegal. The arbiter uses a computer to
assist the players in implementing this rule.

oh, lovely. Consider a locked position with K and many P vs K and many P with
no possibility of a breakthrough. A repetition is inevitable - but you truly
will need a computer to determine when it happens, and who loses.

I suspect that it is rather unlikely for most positions like those to have
forced repetitions in 50 moves. And we could work out some
principles covering positions like these and call it something like
"endgame theory".


If each player has made the last 50 consecutive moves without the
movement of any pawn and without any capture, the player to move
loses the game. Therefore the player who has made the most recent
capture or pawn move has an advantage.


And, this advantage is worthy of a full point....why?


It's aribitrary - exactly like the current rules of chess.

I can think of more straightforward rules: flip a coin. Heads I win.


That's not only arbitrary but also doesn't depend on player skill.

David Kane wrote:
"Jud McCranie" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 4 Dec 2006 12:15:58 -0800, "David Kane"
wrote:

It does not follow that they somehow favor the weaker
player.
I didn't say that they favor the weaker player in all cases, but there
are cases in which the superior side can't win in 50 moves, and would
thus actually lose under that proposal.

And thus the word "superior" wouldn't apply to the position.


And thus the word "chess" wouldn't applyl to the game.


--
Kenneth Sloan
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/

David Kane wrote:
"Kenneth Sloan" wrote in message
...
wrote:
Here's the most "logical" or "canonical" way I can think of to play
non-draw chess based on the FIDE rules.

If a player has no legal move, he loses the game.
Turns virtually all endgame analysis into trash. KPk is now a certain win (as
long as the P is safe), with nothing left for the weaker side to play for.
The threat to trade down to KPk becomes a monster. Chess becomes roulette.

No. Roulette is a game of chance. The proposed game is one of pure
skill.

A position must not appear for a second time (section 9.2 of the
FIDE rules defines equality of positions). Moves that would result
in such repetition are illegal. The arbiter uses a computer to
assist the players in implementing this rule.
oh, lovely. Consider a locked position with K and many P vs K and many P with
no possibility of a breakthrough. A repetition is inevitable - but you truly
will need a computer to determine when it happens, and who loses.

I suspect that it is rather unlikely for most positions like those to have
forced repetitions in 50 moves. And we could work out some
principles covering positions like these and call it something like
"endgame theory".

If each player has made the last 50 consecutive moves without the
movement of any pawn and without any capture, the player to move
loses the game. Therefore the player who has made the most recent
capture or pawn move has an advantage.

And, this advantage is worthy of a full point....why?


It's aribitrary - exactly like the current rules of chess.

I can think of more straightforward rules: flip a coin. Heads I win.


That's not only arbitrary but also doesn't depend on player skill.



I thought your goal was "straightforward", without regard to the
violence done to the underlying game.

My mistake.

Carry on.

--
Kenneth Sloan
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/

On Mon, 4 Dec 2006 14:21:37 -0800, "David Kane"
wrote:

I didn't say that they favor the weaker player in all cases, but there
are cases in which the superior side can't win in 50 moves, and would
thus actually lose under that proposal.

And thus the word "superior" wouldn't apply to the position.

Right, it could be superior play, resulting in superior material, but
it could be a losing position.
--
Replace you know what by j to email

"Jud McCranie" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 4 Dec 2006 14:21:37 -0800, "David Kane"
wrote:

I didn't say that they favor the weaker player in all cases, but there
are cases in which the superior side can't win in 50 moves, and would
thus actually lose under that proposal.

And thus the word "superior" wouldn't apply to the position.

Right, it could be superior play, resulting in superior material, but

Wrong. If you get a losing position, it hasn't been superior play.

Period.

On Mon, 4 Dec 2006 15:03:39 -0800, "David Kane"
wrote:

Wrong. If you get a losing position, it hasn't been superior play.

Period.

It would be a losing position having nothing to do with chess per se,
it would be because of a technicality in the strange rules.

Imagine how such rules would affect chess problems and compositions.
The result depends not on the position, but what happened up to 50
moves ago.

--
Replace you know what by j to email

"Kenneth Sloan" wrote in message
...
David Kane wrote:
"Kenneth Sloan" wrote in message
...
wrote:
Here's the most "logical" or "canonical" way I can think of to play
non-draw chess based on the FIDE rules.

If a player has no legal move, he loses the game.
Turns virtually all endgame analysis into trash. KPk is now a certain win
(as long as the P is safe), with nothing left for the weaker side to play
for. The threat to trade down to KPk becomes a monster. Chess becomes
roulette.

No. Roulette is a game of chance. The proposed game is one of pure
skill.

A position must not appear for a second time (section 9.2 of the
FIDE rules defines equality of positions). Moves that would result
in such repetition are illegal. The arbiter uses a computer to
assist the players in implementing this rule.
oh, lovely. Consider a locked position with K and many P vs K and many P
with no possibility of a breakthrough. A repetition is inevitable - but you
truly will need a computer to determine when it happens, and who loses.

I suspect that it is rather unlikely for most positions like those to have
forced repetitions in 50 moves. And we could work out some
principles covering positions like these and call it something like
"endgame theory".

If each player has made the last 50 consecutive moves without the
movement of any pawn and without any capture, the player to move
loses the game. Therefore the player who has made the most recent
capture or pawn move has an advantage.

And, this advantage is worthy of a full point....why?


It's aribitrary - exactly like the current rules of chess.

I can think of more straightforward rules: flip a coin. Heads I win.


That's not only arbitrary but also doesn't depend on player skill.

I thought your goal was "straightforward", without regard to the violence done
to the underlying game.

My mistake.

Carry on.


You seem to have a reading disorder. I did not
propose these rules nor claim that they were
straightforward. I'm simply refuting the obviously
false claims that the resulting game is not one of skill.

In the other thread, I stated (twice) that I thought
the difference was too great for the resulting game
to be called "chess", yet you then make the same
observation as if it is a rebuttal to my statements.

In fact, if I were to develop "non-draw" chess, I would try
to preserve as many characteristics of chess as possible
and I don't think the poster's proposals do that - however
that fact doesn't make your false statements any more
correct. And I think the proposal, derived as it is
from the existing laws of chess, is an interesting
one to consider.

DK

"Jud McCranie" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 4 Dec 2006 15:03:39 -0800, "David Kane"
wrote:

Wrong. If you get a losing position, it hasn't been superior play.

Period.

It would be a losing position having nothing to do with chess per se,
it would be because of a technicality in the strange rules.

Sometimes games are already decided by technicalities
and strange rules that arguably aren't chess per se. Moreover
these rules do change. It's just a matter of degree.


Imagine how such rules would affect chess problems and compositions.
The result depends not on the position, but what happened up to 50
moves ago.


I don't think it would affect chess problems or compositions much at all.
When a problem says White to move and mate in 2, we don't consider the
possiblity that move 1 brings about a three-fold repetition. I don't
see how that would change. I imagine that clever people could come
up with all kinds of interesting new problems taking advantage of the
different rules.