On Dec 7, 1:23 pm, zdrakec wrote:
Actually, of all the suggestions I offered, the "stalemate=loss" was
the one I thought the most reasonable. Not because it wouldn't have a
major impact on the praxis of the game - for it surely would, and for
that reason alone I imagine will never be seriously considered - but
because, as I mentioned above, it seems to me that the player who has
stalemated his opponent has satisfied the basic object of the game: to
place his opponent in a situation from which his king cannot avoid
being captured.

Since when is the object of war to prevent somebody from moving?
If a king surrounds another's king's city, but can't actually capture
the
king and seize the town, then all they are going to do is stare at
each
other across the moat, and the king on the ground will be expending
his country's resources forever. Isn't this where the idea of
stalemate
came from in the first place?

"Draw" is just another outcome. "Black to move and draw" is just
as valid a problem as "White to move and win". Since draws are
penalized (you lose half a point), if you keep drawing you will
eventually
be outscored (and out-rated).
E

David Kane wrote:

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

David Kane wrote:

I'd be curious if you could name a single sport that has
gone the other direction -where rules which produced decisive
results were amended in order to produce more "well-played" ties?

Cricket. In July of 2004 the International Cricket Council changed the
rules so that a match where the toss takes place but no ball is bowled
is either a draw or (in the case of a limited-overs match) a no result.

Point taken. Out of curiosity, do you know what the cricket draw
rates before and after the rule change were?

In Test Cricket, roughly 30% of matches are drawn. A toss taking place
with no ball being bowled is fairly rare, so the change would be, I am
guessing, 1% or less.

If chess' draws were strictly a result of the game inherently producing
a draw, then why do computers playing computers draw less frequently
than humans playing humans?

Two possible reasons:

[1] The programmer has a choice of making the program go for wins
or go for draws. I suspect that games that win and lose a lot sell
better than programs that draw a lot.

[2] It is a well known effect that going from, say, a 16-ply search
depth to an 18-ply search depth adds a lot more strength against
computers than against humans, and that this effect is amplified
further when a computer is playing against a copy of itself.

The point is that humans aren't drawing because the game is
inherently a draw, but because they are adopting strategies
based upon drawing.

That's a theory, not a point. It's a plausible theory, but
there may be other explanations.

They are doing so because these strategies are successful.
The success of these strategies does not come from the game
itself but are introduced by external factors (scoring system,
prize allocation etc.)

That certainly makes sense at the high end, but I don't think
it makes sense for the average tournament player who isn't going
to win any prizes unless all the really good players get the flu.

I think that making a draw worth 0.499 points rather than worth
0.500 points is enough to make the top players avoid draws more,
and is already allowed under FIDE rules. That's a small change
that doesn't change the basic nature of the game.

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

David Kane wrote:

Do you dispute that there are people who think like me?

Of course not. Do you dispute that there are people who
think like me -- that chess is just fine as it is?

(My suggestion to score a draw at 0.499 points is my idea
of a good way to reduce draws among top players. That does
not imply that I think that to be a particularly desirable
goal.)

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

"Guy Macon" http://www.guymacon.com/ wrote in message
...



David Kane wrote:

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

David Kane wrote:

I'd be curious if you could name a single sport that has
gone the other direction -where rules which produced decisive
results were amended in order to produce more "well-played" ties?

Cricket. In July of 2004 the International Cricket Council changed the
rules so that a match where the toss takes place but no ball is bowled
is either a draw or (in the case of a limited-overs match) a no result.

Point taken. Out of curiosity, do you know what the cricket draw
rates before and after the rule change were?

In Test Cricket, roughly 30% of matches are drawn. A toss taking place
with no ball being bowled is fairly rare, so the change would be, I am
guessing, 1% or less.

If chess' draws were strictly a result of the game inherently producing
a draw, then why do computers playing computers draw less frequently
than humans playing humans?

Two possible reasons:

[1] The programmer has a choice of making the program go for wins
or go for draws. I suspect that games that win and lose a lot sell
better than programs that draw a lot.

Well those same programs also do astonishingly well against humans,
so they don't appear to be sacrificing strength.

[2] It is a well known effect that going from, say, a 16-ply search
depth to an 18-ply search depth adds a lot more strength against
computers than against humans, and that this effect is amplified
further when a computer is playing against a copy of itself.

I don't quite see this point. If the "truth" of chess is that
when perfectly played it's a draw, then
shouldn't going deeper lead to more draws?


The point is that humans aren't drawing because the game is
inherently a draw, but because they are adopting strategies
based upon drawing.

That's a theory, not a point. It's a plausible theory, but
there may be other explanations.


It's a theory with a lot of evidence behind it. We know
with absolute certainty that it accounts for *some* draws, because
the games are 5 moves long and the players admit to
their behavior. But I'll grant that a detailed, quantitative
assessment of its importance is lacking.

They are doing so because these strategies are successful.
The success of these strategies does not come from the game
itself but are introduced by external factors (scoring system,
prize allocation etc.)

That certainly makes sense at the high end, but I don't think
it makes sense for the average tournament player who isn't going
to win any prizes unless all the really good players get the flu.

The draw rates for class players are much lower than for GMs.
Lately I have been involved with scholastic chess, and I've seen
many tournaments with draw rates at the 5% level. I have never
said that there is a uniform environment for all players.

However, the last round draw to share the class prizes at the local
Swiss is not exactly rare, either.

People are people and they are going to respond to the
incentives that they face. I did something similar myself
not too long ago. At a parent's side event blitz tournament, I had
two draws. Neither game was fully played out.

The first was offered to me by a player who was up a pawn
but pretty far behind on the clock. He didn't have confidence that
he could win, so he (mistakenly IMO) offered me a draw. I took it.

In the other game, I had a lead on the clock and a small
positional advantage. (better pawns, B vs. N) In a slow game I would
definitely have played it out and looked for a win (whether it was there
or whether I would have found it is doubtful) but in the game I offered
a draw, in part because I knew it would clinch 1st place.

Now, obviously, there was no harm done. This was friendly, draws
harmed no one, and the chess world experienced no great loss
that our games weren't played out. But would I/we have behaved
differently with different incentives? You bet!


I think that making a draw worth 0.499 points rather than worth
0.500 points is enough to make the top players avoid draws more,
and is already allowed under FIDE rules. That's a small change
that doesn't change the basic nature of the game.


FYI, this has actually been tried several times. (Linares did it this way
some years) It is tantamount to making the most wins a tiebreak. I don't
think it had any noticeable effect, but you could look at the results more
carefully.

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

David Kane wrote:

I don't quite see this point. If the "truth" of chess is that
when perfectly played it's a draw, then shouldn't going deeper
lead to more draws?

Nobody knows whether a perfectly played game of chess is a draw.

We do know that slight differences in search depth and pruning
make a huge difference in computer vs. computer games, and far
less difference in computer vs. human games. That alone is
enough to explain why computer vs. computer matches have fewer
draws.

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

"Guy Macon" http://www.guymacon.com/ wrote in message
...



David Kane wrote:

I don't quite see this point. If the "truth" of chess is that
when perfectly played it's a draw, then shouldn't going deeper
lead to more draws?

Nobody knows whether a perfectly played game of chess is a draw.

We do know that slight differences in search depth and pruning
make a huge difference in computer vs. computer games, and far
less difference in computer vs. human games.

What is your source?

That alone is
enough to explain why computer vs. computer matches have fewer
draws.


Not even close. You might be able to put together an argument that
it contributes in some way, but you have yet to do so.


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

Den 2007-12-07 07:10:55 skrev David Kane :


"zdrakec" wrote in message
...
Hullo all:

Giving some thought to how draws happen over the board, it occurs to
me that many of the rules in place that allow draws to happen are
quite arbitrary, and have little or nothing to do with the actual
movement of the pieces. With that in mind, the following rule changes
strike me as perhaps interesting:
1. Draws may not be agreed.
2. Three-fold repetition shall be illegal. That is, the player having
the move may not make a move that repeats the position for the third
time. If he has no other legal move, we may regard this as a form of
stalemate, perhaps. I am not completely sure, but I think that this
rule would do away with perpetual check. By analogy, I refer to the ko
rule in Go, which essentially prevents the same position from
appearing on the board more than once (with some rather esoteric
exceptions).
3. There shall be no 50-move limit. This becomes more practical than
it once was, in an age where clocks can have a delay, and can add a
time increment per move.
4. 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. In principal,
the player who has stalemated his opponent has accomplished the
primary goal of the game. Of course, this has been suggested many
times before.

I am not certain, but that would seem to leave lack of mating material
as the sole way to draw a game. Naturally, there can still be abuse,
but it would, I think, tend to be obvious...

Actually, if you disallow the current drawing methods, make repetition
illegal, and define an inability to make a legal move as losing stalemate,
then there would never by *any* draws! (Even K vs. K would be
decisive because positions would eventually repeat.) Of course it wouldn't be
chess exactly since endgame theory would change dramatically, and
it wouldn't objectively be a good game (because it could take quite
a long time to exhaust all possible board positions), but it strikes me
as a very interesting intellectual exercize.

.




You can't be quite serious. An alternative is to change the properties
of the pawn a little, as in "Improved Chess"
http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/improvedchess.htm
or Reformed Chess
http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/reformedchess.htm
or perhaps change the properties of the Rook a little, thus to increase
winning chances
http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/warlockchess.htm

Mats

"M Winther" wrote in message newspt2z7c9hb3bzrao@kalroten...
Den 2007-12-07 07:10:55 skrev David Kane :


"zdrakec" wrote in message
...
Hullo all:

Giving some thought to how draws happen over the board, it occurs to
me that many of the rules in place that allow draws to happen are
quite arbitrary, and have little or nothing to do with the actual
movement of the pieces. With that in mind, the following rule changes
strike me as perhaps interesting:
1. Draws may not be agreed.
2. Three-fold repetition shall be illegal. That is, the player having
the move may not make a move that repeats the position for the third
time. If he has no other legal move, we may regard this as a form of
stalemate, perhaps. I am not completely sure, but I think that this
rule would do away with perpetual check. By analogy, I refer to the ko
rule in Go, which essentially prevents the same position from
appearing on the board more than once (with some rather esoteric
exceptions).
3. There shall be no 50-move limit. This becomes more practical than
it once was, in an age where clocks can have a delay, and can add a
time increment per move.
4. 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. In principal,
the player who has stalemated his opponent has accomplished the
primary goal of the game. Of course, this has been suggested many
times before.

I am not certain, but that would seem to leave lack of mating material
as the sole way to draw a game. Naturally, there can still be abuse,
but it would, I think, tend to be obvious...

Actually, if you disallow the current drawing methods, make repetition
illegal, and define an inability to make a legal move as losing stalemate,
then there would never by *any* draws! (Even K vs. K would be
decisive because positions would eventually repeat.) Of course it wouldn't be
chess exactly since endgame theory would change dramatically, and
it wouldn't objectively be a good game (because it could take quite
a long time to exhaust all possible board positions), but it strikes me
as a very interesting intellectual exercize.

.




You can't be quite serious. An alternative is to change the properties
of the pawn a little, as in "Improved Chess"
http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/improvedchess.htm
or Reformed Chess
http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/reformedchess.htm
or perhaps change the properties of the Rook a little, thus to increase
winning chances
http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/warlockchess.htm


My view is that making statelemate a win and (possibly) disallowing
repetition would be an objectively superior game to chess. But I do not
favor those changes. Chess has a lot of history behind it and changing
the fundamental rules of the game should not be done
lightly. On the other hand, trying different tournament
formats, scoring, etc., that is changing the chess meta-game, *should*
be experimented with - frequently and radically.


Mats

Den 2007-12-08 08:01:42 skrev David Kane :


"M Winther" wrote in message newspt2z7c9hb3bzrao@kalroten...
Den 2007-12-07 07:10:55 skrev David Kane :


"zdrakec" wrote in message
...
Hullo all:

Giving some thought to how draws happen over the board, it occurs to
me that many of the rules in place that allow draws to happen are
quite arbitrary, and have little or nothing to do with the actual
movement of the pieces. With that in mind, the following rule changes
strike me as perhaps interesting:
1. Draws may not be agreed.
2. Three-fold repetition shall be illegal. That is, the player having
the move may not make a move that repeats the position for the third
time. If he has no other legal move, we may regard this as a form of
stalemate, perhaps. I am not completely sure, but I think that this
rule would do away with perpetual check. By analogy, I refer to the ko
rule in Go, which essentially prevents the same position from
appearing on the board more than once (with some rather esoteric
exceptions).
3. There shall be no 50-move limit. This becomes more practical than
it once was, in an age where clocks can have a delay, and can add a
time increment per move.
4. 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. In principal,
the player who has stalemated his opponent has accomplished the
primary goal of the game. Of course, this has been suggested many
times before.

I am not certain, but that would seem to leave lack of mating material
as the sole way to draw a game. Naturally, there can still be abuse,
but it would, I think, tend to be obvious...

Actually, if you disallow the current drawing methods, make repetition
illegal, and define an inability to make a legal move as losing stalemate,
then there would never by *any* draws! (Even K vs. K would be
decisive because positions would eventually repeat.) Of course it wouldn't be
chess exactly since endgame theory would change dramatically, and
it wouldn't objectively be a good game (because it could take quite
a long time to exhaust all possible board positions), but it strikes me
as a very interesting intellectual exercize.

.




You can't be quite serious. An alternative is to change the properties
of the pawn a little, as in "Improved Chess"
http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/improvedchess.htm
or Reformed Chess
http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/reformedchess.htm
or perhaps change the properties of the Rook a little, thus to increase
winning chances
http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/warlockchess.htm


My view is that making statelemate a win and (possibly) disallowing
repetition would be an objectively superior game to chess. But I do not
favor those changes. Chess has a lot of history behind it and changing
the fundamental rules of the game should not be done
lightly. On the other hand, trying different tournament
formats, scoring, etc., that is changing the chess meta-game, *should*
be experimented with - frequently and radically.




My point is that the the referenced variants do *not* change the
fundamental rules of chess much. Strategy and tactics remain largely
the same. A pawn has a little extra capability if (1) it has passed
the middle line and (2) is blocked. This is not such a huge difference
in termes of rules, but it makes a huge difference on the score table.
Draws will be much fewer will endgames will be much less drawish.

A big problem about orthochess is the drawishness of endgames
"All rook endings are drawn", said Tartakower(?). It is not so in
Chinese Chess and Korean Chess. Addressing the drawishness
of orthochess implies reducing drawishness of the endgame.

Mats

On Dec 7, 1:11 pm, "David Kane" wrote:


Fix the product.

It doesn't need fixing.


Attract customers.

No, his would simply dumb down the game.


Grow the game.

Who cares if people can't appreciate chess? They'd rather be watching
America's Top Model, anyway. Maybe chess is for the few.