Guy Macon's suggested changes to USCF/FIDE rules

There have been many suggested changes to he rules for chess,
none of which has gathered any real support. Here are my
suggestions,which I expect to receive an equally warm reception.
grin

ONE: Have the USCF adopt sections 1 through 5 of the FIDE
laws of chess and abandon the present USCF rules that cover
the same areas. Having two sets of rules with different
wording that are almost identical is silly, and the FIDE
rules are better written. There are good reason for
differing rules to run very different kinds of tournaments,
but the basic rules should be the same everywhere.
Optional: adopt the FIDE rules for chess clocks, with the
bits about the arbiter cahnged to reflect USCF practice.)
[ http://www.fide.com/official/handbook.asp?level=EE101 ]

TWO: Assign a draw a score of 4.99 points instead of 5.0
points (or you could make a win 1.01 points or a loss
-0.01 points). This would somewhat discourage playing
for a draw without changing the basic nature of the game.

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

Guy Macon wrote:

Guy Macon's suggested changes to USCF/FIDE rules

There have been many suggested changes to he rules for chess,
none of which has gathered any real support. Here are my
suggestions,which I expect to receive an equally warm reception.
grin

ONE: Have the USCF adopt sections 1 through 5 of the FIDE
laws of chess and abandon the present USCF rules that cover
the same areas. Having two sets of rules with different
wording that are almost identical is silly, and the FIDE
rules are better written. There are good reason for
differing rules to run very different kinds of tournaments,
but the basic rules should be the same everywhere.
Optional: adopt the FIDE rules for chess clocks, with the
bits about the arbiter cahnged to reflect USCF practice.)
[ http://www.fide.com/official/handbook.asp?level=EE101 ]

TWO: Assign a draw a score of 4.99 points instead of 5.0
points (or you could make a win 1.01 points or a loss
-0.01 points). This would somewhat discourage playing
for a draw without changing the basic nature of the game.


These proposed changes are ridiculous.

For instance, handing draw-mongers nearly five points
while winners get about one point is the dumbest idea
I have seen in a long time. Everybody would just agree
to draw on move one, and Swiss tourneys would end up
as ties between every entrant who did not get a bye or a
forfeit win or loss. Duh!


-- help bot

Guy Macon http://www.guymacon.com/ wrote:
TWO: Assign a draw a score of 4.99 points instead of 5.0 points (or
you could make a win 1.01 points or a loss -0.01 points). This
would somewhat discourage playing for a draw without changing the
basic nature of the game.

Assuming you mean 0.49 for a draw...

It would be easier just to introduce a default tie-break rule that the
player with the fewest draws wins the tie. The only problem with this
idea is that if a group of players have the same score, the one who
has drawn the fewest games is the one who has lost the most games (as
well as won the most).


Dave.

--
David Richerby Hungry Chair (TM): it's like a chair
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ but it'll eat you!

TWO: Assign a draw a score of 4.99 points instead of 5.0
points (or you could make a win 1.01 points or a loss
-0.01 points). This would somewhat discourage playing
for a draw without changing the basic nature of the game.

D'oh!

Typo. Should read:

Assign a draw a score of 0.49 points instead of 0.5
points (or you could make a win 1.01 points or a loss
-0.01 points). This would somewhat discourage playing
for a draw without changing the basic nature of the game.

My apologies.

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

David Richerby wrote:

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

TWO: Assign a draw a score of [0.49] points instead of [0.5] points (or
you could make a win 1.01 points or a loss -0.01 points). This
would somewhat discourage playing for a draw without changing the
basic nature of the game.

Assuming you mean 0.49 for a draw...

It would be easier just to introduce a default tie-break rule that the
player with the fewest draws wins the tie.

Good point.

The only problem with this idea is that if a group of players
have the same score, the one who has drawn the fewest games
is the one who has lost the most games (as well as won the most).

Agreed. The real question is whether one loss and one win should
be assigned *exactly * the same score as two draws. It is not
clear to me why they should be exactly the same

Any thoughts on adopting the FIDE rules for actaully playing chess
(as opposed to the rules for running a tournament)?


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

help bot wrote:

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

Guy Macon's suggested changes to USCF/FIDE rules

There have been many suggested changes to he rules for chess,
none of which has gathered any real support. Here are my
suggestions,which I expect to receive an equally warm reception.
grin

Have the USCF adopt sections 1 through 5 of the FIDE
laws of chess and abandon the present USCF rules that cover
the same areas. Having two sets of rules with different
wording that are almost identical is silly, and the FIDE
rules are better written. There are good reason for
differing rules to run very different kinds of tournaments,
but the basic rules should be the same everywhere.
Optional: adopt the FIDE rules for chess clocks, with the
bits about the arbiter cahnged to reflect USCF practice.)
[ http://www.fide.com/official/handbook.asp?level=EE101 ]

These proposed changes are ridiculous.

Care to explain exactly *what* you find "ridiculous" about
the above proposal?


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

I would not call the changes ridiculous, but I am against any changes
that are designed really to "make people who will never appreciate or
understand chess watch it/play it/give money to it."

There are perfectly good chess variants, if you want to play those.
But why change chess just to meet the adoration of the feeble-minded?

Guy Macon http://www.guymacon.com/ wrote:
The real question is whether one loss and one win should be assigned
*exactly * the same score as two draws. It is not clear to me why
they should be exactly the same

The argument that the guy has lost a game suggests he's done worse
than the player who scored two draws by some amount x; the symmetrical
argument that he's won a game suggests that he's done better by some
amount y. If xy then losses are held to be more significant than
wins; if xy then wins are more significant than losses. But how can
that be when every game that is one by one player is also lost by some
other player? This suggests that x=y but then the only way to score
the games is to have two draws be worth the same as a win and a loss.


Any thoughts on adopting the FIDE rules for actaully playing chess
(as opposed to the rules for running a tournament)?

I'm all for it. Different rules for handling time-scrambles (which
is, essentially, the only difference between FIDE and USCF rules, as
far as I'm aware) is the sort of thing that is liable to lead to
confusion just where it is needed least.

I note that the preface to the FIDE Laws states, ``A member federation
is free to introduce more detailed rules provided they [...] do not
conflict in any way with the official FIDE Laws of Chess.'' So I'm
not sure what the USCF is playing at, here, to be frank.

By the way, the FIDE rules (Article 11.1) on scoring only state that
``Unless announced otherwise in advance, a player who wins his game,
or wins by forfeit, scores one point (1), a player who loses his game,
or forfeits scores no points (0) and a player who draws his game
scores a half point (1/2).'' So there's no reason you can't run a
FIDE-rules tournament with any scoring rules you want, as long as you
tell the players in advance.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Artificial Cat (TM): it's like a cat
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ that's made of plastic!

"There must have been a time when men were gods, else they could not
have invented chess." - Dr. Tarrasch

To that I would add that men certainly have fallen far since then,
else they would not try so hard to change chess into their own faulty
image of what it should be. Futzing with classical chess has done
nothing but cheapen the game, and made it *less* popular than it once
was. "But television! But sponsorship!," they exclaim. Blah, blah,
blah. These folks know as much of chess as I do of rope dancing. (to
the obligatory Fischer random comment: an interesting chess *variant*
with its own flaws, worth playing, but it ain't chess, it is a
variant).

To those who think their proposed changes are so great, I say, then go
hold tournaments with your crappy revisions to the rules, and see how
far you get. If you aren't willing to put your money where your mouth
is..... Of course, that is part of the problem, isn't it? You have all
the answers, ala your local barber or taxi driver, but no resources to
implement them.

Chess is great whether or not a millionaire decides to put his/her
money into it.

"David Richerby" wrote in message
...
Guy Macon http://www.guymacon.com/ wrote:
The real question is whether one loss and one win should be assigned
*exactly * the same score as two draws. It is not clear to me why
they should be exactly the same

The argument that the guy has lost a game suggests he's done worse
than the player who scored two draws by some amount x; the symmetrical
argument that he's won a game suggests that he's done better by some
amount y. If xy then losses are held to be more significant than
wins; if xy then wins are more significant than losses. But how can
that be when every game that is one by one player is also lost by some
other player? This suggests that x=y but then the only way to score
the games is to have two draws be worth the same as a win and a loss.


This is based on an unstated and false assumption that a drawn
result has as much information as a decisive result. Empirically
we know that is false at the GM level.

The one-time practice was to simply replay draws and treat
them as non-events. Philosophically, that's the other extreme
(a draw contains zero information). It's not mathematically exact
either, but much closer to reality than the stupid 0.5 idea.