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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

You are aware that the combination of these two moves means that every
KP vs K endgame is a win for the side with the pawn? That's a major
change to chess as we know it: sacrificing a pawn is now extremely
dangerous.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Sumerian Radio (TM): it's like a radio
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ that's really old!

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.

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.

You are aware that the combination of these two changes means that
every KP vs K endgame is a win for the side with the pawn? That's
a major change to chess as we know it: sacrificing a pawn is now
extremely dangerous.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Simple Transparent Monk (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a man of God but you can see
right through it and it has no moving
parts!

On Dec 4, 6:54 am, David Richerby
wrote:
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.

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.

You are aware that the combination of these two changes means that
every KP vs K endgame is a win for the side with the pawn? That's
a major change to chess as we know it: sacrificing a pawn is now
extremely dangerous.

Mr. Richerby's point is well taken. Your suggestion also eliminates
perpetual check as a defensive measure. A player threatened with mate,
whose only defense is repetitive check, would not be allowed to make
the saving check a second time. This would also apply to endgame play,
for example various R&P endgames use perpetual check as a drawing
defense.
Basically, your suggestions would reward incompetence.They are
contrary to the spirit of the game, and must be rejected.

"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message
ps.com...


On Dec 4, 6:54 am, David Richerby
wrote:
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.

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.

You are aware that the combination of these two changes means that
every KP vs K endgame is a win for the side with the pawn? That's
a major change to chess as we know it: sacrificing a pawn is now
extremely dangerous.

Mr. Richerby's point is well taken. Your suggestion also eliminates
perpetual check as a defensive measure. A player threatened with mate,
whose only defense is repetitive check, would not be allowed to make
the saving check a second time. This would also apply to endgame play,
for example various R&P endgames use perpetual check as a drawing
defense.
Basically, your suggestions would reward incompetence.They are
contrary to the spirit of the game, and must be rejected.

Your last statement is certainly not true. The proposed new rules
would certainly reward the better player, not incompetence.

However, while the proposed game might, objectively, be better
than chess, it wouldn't *be* chess.

On Dec 4, 12:02 pm, "David Kane" wrote:
"Taylor Kingston" wrote in glegroups.com...







On Dec 4, 6:54 am, David Richerby
wrote:
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.

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.

You are aware that the combination of these two changes means that
every KP vs K endgame is a win for the side with the pawn? That's
a major change to chess as we know it: sacrificing a pawn is now
extremely dangerous.

Mr. Richerby's point is well taken. Your suggestion also eliminates
perpetual check as a defensive measure. A player threatened with mate,
whose only defense is repetitive check, would not be allowed to make
the saving check a second time. This would also apply to endgame play,
for example various R&P endgames use perpetual check as a drawing
defense.
Basically, your suggestions would reward incompetence.They are
contrary to the spirit of the game, and must be rejected.

Your last statement is certainly not true. The proposed new rules
would certainly reward the better player, not incompetence.

I respectfully disagree. The stalemated-player-loses and
no-repetition ideas mean that a great deal of current endgame knowledge
would no longer be necessary. No one need bother with learning about
opposition, corresponding squares, Lucena's position, Philidor's
position, Q-vs.-BP drawing technique, or any number of other endgame
fundamentals, because the drawing methods of stalemate and repetition
would not be allowed.
You can't drive the opposing king from the queening square? So what,
just stalemate him and win. Got only a rook pawn extra? Doesn't matter,
stalemate wins. Your bishop's the wrong color to queen your rook pawn?
Who cares, just stalemate him. Your opponent's king is in front of your
6th-rank pawn and his rook is behind it? No problem, just let him check
until the position is about to be repeated, then he can't check any
more and you win.
These rule changes come close to making the win of a pawn tantamount
to winning the game, because any ignoramus who can push a passed pawn
need no longer worry about any of the sophisticated drawing defenses
the current rules allow. That is what I mean by rewarding incompetence.

On 4 Dec 2006 09:44:24 -0800, "Taylor Kingston"
wrote:

I respectfully disagree.

I agree with you. Draws are an inherent part of chess.
--
Replace you know what by j to email

Taylor Kingston wrote:

Your bishop's the wrong color to queen your rook pawn?
Who cares, just stalemate him.

This reminds me of an entertaining hustle I witnessed at the US Open 20
years ago. To pull it off properly, you actually need a thick accent.

You set up a position like:

White: King at b7, pawns at e5 and h3, bishop at a8.
Black: King at e7.

Then you announce in your thick Russian accent, "I bet you ten dollars
I can make queen!"

The mark sees that the e-pawn must fall, and the queening square is the
wrong color, and the h-pawn is not fast enough, so he takes you up on
the bet, volunteering to play the Black side.

After lengthy obscure maneuvers, you finally reach a position like:

White: King at a6, bishop at b1, pawn at h7.
Black: King at h8
Black to move.

Black plays Kg7 --- you play h8(Q)!! with a triumphant flourish and
collect your ten dollars.

Larry T.

On Dec 4, 1:21 pm, "Larry Tapper" wrote:
Taylor Kingston wrote:
Your bishop's the wrong color to queen your rook pawn?
Who cares, just stalemate him.

This reminds me of an entertaining hustle I witnessed at the US Open 20
years ago. To pull it off properly, you actually need a thick accent.

You set up a position like:

White: King at b7, pawns at e5 and h3, bishop at a8.
Black: King at e7.

Then you announce in your thick Russian accent, "I bet you ten dollars
I can make queen!"

The mark sees that the e-pawn must fall, and the queening square is the
wrong color, and the h-pawn is not fast enough, so he takes you up on
the bet, volunteering to play the Black side.

After lengthy obscure maneuvers, you finally reach a position like:

White: King at a6, bishop at b1, pawn at h7.
Black: King at h8
Black to move.

Black plays Kg7 --- you play h8(Q)!! with a triumphant flourish and
collect your ten dollars.

Why would anyone take that bet? IIRC, theory on that position has
never said that White could not queen, only that White could not win
because the queen doesn't survive the next move.

On 4 Dec 2006 02:27:29 -0800, wrote:

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.

That could be either player - even the one that has a theoretical win.
That makes no sense at all to me.
--
Replace you know what by j to email