This idea deals with the draw issues with chess, and adds another
element that would be interested to people watching chess who normally
don't play. This game will have you doubling when you think you can
win, and challenge you to go for a win, even if challenged, because
you get more points.

For chess:
1. Players play to an agreed number of points, or a set number of
games (the player with the most points at the end wins the match).
Unless stakes are raised, players get 1 point each if game ends in a
tie. Winner gets 2 points on a win, zero with a loss.
2. Points per game start at 2.
3. If player asks opponent to resign, and opponent agrees, then their
opponent resigns.
4. If opponent doesn't resign, then for game are doubled. The player
who raised the stakes must win the game, in order to get the full
amount of new points. If their opponent wins they game, then the
opponent gets a full amount of points. If game ends in a draw,
opponent gets half the amount of new points (this is done to encourage
players to play for win).
5. Redoubling is permitted. A player is only allowed to double or
redouble once, until their opponent agrees to redouble.

Please let me know what your thoughts might be...
- Rich

Rich Hutnik wrote:
This idea deals with the draw issues with chess, and adds another
element that would be interested to people watching chess who
normally don't play. This game will have you doubling when you
think you can win, and challenge you to go for a win, even if
challenged, because you get more points.

This doesn't work, for a number of reasons.

It works in backgammon because there is no possibility of a game being
drawn. However, draws in chess mean that doubling doesn't work.
Suppose we're in a genuinely drawn position. If you double, I can't
possibly refuse because that means resigning at the current stakes.
But then, having accepted your double, I may as well redouble because
I have no chance of losing. And so on. Thus, the game ends up with
arbitrarily high stakes and, in particular, a match of first to N
points might end up being an immediate draw as a result of the first
game.

Then we have another problem. I suspect (but am not certain) that
there's a much higher possibility for game-losing blunders in chess
than in backgammon. Thus, these very high-stakes draws make the game
extremely sensitive to such mistakes.

I imagine you'd be likely to end up with a match being played as
normal chess until the first win. Then, the player who won that game
would play very hard for a draw in all remaining games and would
double as soon as the position looked drawish.

A further problem is that you very often get to positions where one
player cannot win (assuming no serious mistakes) but can probably hold
on for the draw. The leading player would obviously double in such
circumstances


Dave.

--
David Richerby Addictive Metal Projector (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a 16mm film projector that's
made of steel but you can never put
it down!

"David Richerby" wrote in message
...
Rich Hutnik wrote:
This idea deals with the draw issues with chess, and adds another
element that would be interested to people watching chess who
normally don't play. This game will have you doubling when you
think you can win, and challenge you to go for a win, even if
challenged, because you get more points.

This doesn't work, for a number of reasons.

It works in backgammon because there is no possibility of a game being
drawn. However, draws in chess mean that doubling doesn't work.

The doubling idea makes some sense is if
the person who proposes the double gives draw
odds to his opponent.

On Sep 21, 4:37 pm, "David Kane" wrote:
"David Richerby" wrote in message

...

Rich Hutnik wrote:
This idea deals with the draw issues with chess, and adds another
element that would be interested to people watching chess who
normally don't play. This game will have you doubling when you
think you can win, and challenge you to go for a win, even if
challenged, because you get more points.

This doesn't work, for a number of reasons.

It works in backgammon because there is no possibility of a game being
drawn. However, draws in chess mean that doubling doesn't work.

The doubling idea makes some sense is if
the person who proposes the double gives draw
odds to his opponent.

What you do, is if you double the way I describe it, is that it
pressures you to win or you get no points. If you draw, your opponent
gets half the amount of points they would normally get for a win.
Anyone who has questions about draws and doubling cube, please read
what I wrote in the first thread. I am using the doubling cube as a
way to resolve the draw issue with chess.

There is a good chance doubling won't be used as much as it would in
backgammon, but it does provide an option for the game for players to
use it. If, for example, someone is short on time, their opponent
could end up doubling to get them to resign if their opponent feels
they don't have enough time to get off a win or a draw before the time
runs out.

- Rich

"Rich Hutnik" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Sep 21, 4:37 pm, "David Kane" wrote:
"David Richerby" wrote in message

...

Rich Hutnik wrote:
This idea deals with the draw issues with chess, and adds another
element that would be interested to people watching chess who
normally don't play. This game will have you doubling when you
think you can win, and challenge you to go for a win, even if
challenged, because you get more points.

This doesn't work, for a number of reasons.

It works in backgammon because there is no possibility of a game being
drawn. However, draws in chess mean that doubling doesn't work.

The doubling idea makes some sense is if
the person who proposes the double gives draw
odds to his opponent.

What you do, is if you double the way I describe it, is that it
pressures you to win or you get no points. If you draw, your opponent
gets half the amount of points they would normally get for a win.
Anyone who has questions about draws and doubling cube, please read
what I wrote in the first thread. I am using the doubling cube as a
way to resolve the draw issue with chess.

OK. Apparently both Mr. Richerby and I misunderstood your proposal.
Personally I don't see it as having an influence on drawing as much as a way
to end games more quickly once they become highly unbalanced.

Pwin Pdraw Exp Opp.Exp Exp aft doubling Opp. Exp aft double
0.2 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.4 1.6
0.5 0.5 0.75 0.25 1 1
0.6 0.4 0.8 0.20 1.2 0.8
2/3 1/3 5/6 1/6 4/3 2/3
0.7 0.3 0.85 0.15 1.4 0.6
0.8 0.2 0.90 0.10 1.6 0.4

This suggests that for doubling to benefit the stronger side, he'd need
pretty lopsided position to begin with. (Pwin = 2/3)

There is a good chance doubling won't be used as much as it would in
backgammon, but it does provide an option for the game for players to
use it. If, for example, someone is short on time, their opponent
could end up doubling to get them to resign if their opponent feels
they don't have enough time to get off a win or a draw before the time
runs out.

It's always worth a try.

EVANS ON CHESS, CHESS LIFE, MAY 2005 (PAGE 46)

THE DOUBLING CUBE

Don Meyer
Simi Valley, California

Q. I have an idea that I guarantee would reduce the number of draws
and want to know what you think of it. At the same time it would
increase sportsmanship since the opponent wouldn't dare hang around in
a clearly lost position or annoy you with other stalling tactics.

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.



Rich Hutnik wrote:
On Sep 21, 4:37 pm, "David Kane" wrote:
"David Richerby" wrote in message

...

Rich Hutnik wrote:
This idea deals with the draw issues with chess, and adds another
element that would be interested to people watching chess who
normally don't play. This game will have you doubling when you
think you can win, and challenge you to go for a win, even if
challenged, because you get more points.

This doesn't work, for a number of reasons.

It works in backgammon because there is no possibility of a game being
drawn. However, draws in chess mean that doubling doesn't work.

The doubling idea makes some sense is if
the person who proposes the double gives draw
odds to his opponent.

What you do, is if you double the way I describe it, is that it
pressures you to win or you get no points. If you draw, your opponent
gets half the amount of points they would normally get for a win.
Anyone who has questions about draws and doubling cube, please read
what I wrote in the first thread. I am using the doubling cube as a
way to resolve the draw issue with chess.

There is a good chance doubling won't be used as much as it would in
backgammon, but it does provide an option for the game for players to
use it. If, for example, someone is short on time, their opponent
could end up doubling to get them to resign if their opponent feels
they don't have enough time to get off a win or a draw before the time
runs out.

- Rich

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

On Sep 21, 11:16 pm, Rich Hutnik wrote:
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

I see several advantages of keeping the tie points one, irregardless
of how much doubling goes on.

No matter how much doubling goes on, a tie is worth one point. And the
challenging player would get no points if they tie (only the
challenged player who was doubled against.
1. Players will be more likely to double, because the risk of a tie is
less. This means if you feel you are even or better odds of winning,
you double. If you happen to tie, you only give up one point.
2. The player who was doubled against is more inclined to fight for
the win, instead of playing for the draw. This gets larger the more
doubling going on. For example, you double from 2 to 4 points. A tie
locked in at two means 3 points more if you go for the win. This is
one more point than you get if you go with half the new amount.

- Rich

On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 17:39:17 -0700, "
wrote:

EVANS ON CHESS, CHESS LIFE, MAY 2005 (PAGE 46)

THE DOUBLING CUBE

Don Meyer
Simi Valley, California

Q. I have an idea that I guarantee would reduce the number of draws
and want to know what you think of it. At the same time it would
increase sportsmanship since the opponent wouldn't dare hang around in
a clearly lost position or annoy you with other stalling tactics.

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.


A solution in search of a problem?

Even better: revoke his posting privileges on the USCF Forum.

--
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/

For the forums, an improper post should also result in a penatly in
your chess rating. Clearly, if you post gets deleted, then points
should be deducted from your rating, along with the MENSA model of
Chess.