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...

Thoughts?

Regards,
zdrakec

Always good to see ideas here, although I must confess at the outset
that I see nothing wrong with draws per se. In college football, for
an analogy, the tiebreak rules just serve, in my opinion, to exhaust
and injure the players, just to try to get a decisive result, which is
often just due to an error of exhaustion, and ruins a well-played
game.

On Dec 6, 12:54 pm, zdrakec wrote:
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.

Why not?


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.

So you would force him to lose if the only other option(s) loses? This
seems to degrade the game. However, it does seem worthy of discussion.
Of all your suggestions, this one is the most interesting.

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.

It would not do away with perpetual check, since that isn't part of
the rules, but in a perpetual, there is a three-fold.

Without this, a game could go on literally forever.

Thoughts?

Those are mine, for good or bad. But why so many games have to be
decisive is a mystery to me. A well-played draw is a good thing in my
eyes.

On Dec 6, 2:56 pm, SBD wrote:
Always good to see ideas here, although I must confess at the outset
that I see nothing wrong with draws per se. In college football, for
an analogy, the tiebreak rules just serve, in my opinion, to exhaust
and injure the players, just to try to get a decisive result, which is
often just due to an error of exhaustion, and ruins a well-played
game.

On Dec 6, 12:54 pm, zdrakec wrote:

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.

Why not?

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.

So you would force him to lose if the only other option(s) loses? This
seems to degrade the game. However, it does seem worthy of discussion.
Of all your suggestions, this one is the most interesting.

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.

It would not do away with perpetual check, since that isn't part of
the rules, but in a perpetual, there is a three-fold.

Without this, a game could go on literally forever.

Thoughts?

Those are mine, for good or bad. But why so many games have to be
decisive is a mystery to me. A well-played draw is a good thing in my
eyes.

Thanks for the feedback. I also see no problem with draws per se, I
simply think that allowing one to be agreed is arbitrary and
artificial. I guess what I mean is that the draw should be the logical
outcome of the play, not the outcome of the players' possible
unwillingness to risk a decision.

The reason I speculated that perpetual check would go away, if a
player was not allowed to repeat the position three-fold, is that
eventually, in a perpetual, the position would in fact get repeated.
At some point, the player will have to choose a move that does not
bring about a repetition (if we have outlawed the three-fold
repetition). Otherwise, as you say, the game could go on forever!

Cheers,

zdrakec

On Dec 6, 1:54 pm, zdrakec wrote:

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...

Thoughts?

The problem with premature agreements to draw
is already handled by the rules (which however,
are not properly enforced). At the lower levels of
play, draws simply aren't a problem and in fact
they afford the weaker player some hope where
otherwise there would be none.

The real problem is focused at the higher levels
where players deliberately circumvent the rules,
which are not enforced. When not just two, but
many, many grandmasters, for instance, make
a habit of this it destroys the spectator and
sporting value of their games -- on which many
organizers depend financially and otherwise.

In the old days, drawn games were replayed!
Now, the hold-up of a timely schedule makes
that a far from ideal solution. But it is vital not
to lose sight of the big pictu draws are not
inherently bad, nor is there any problem with
too many of them... except among the chess
professionals. So then, why do people keep
coming up with "solutions" which fail to target
the real issue?

When I draw -- which is not very often -- I am
afforded a rare opportunity to see how my own
mistakes and those of my opponent worked to
cancel one another out, yielding a near-zero
sum. It helps me to work harder to play the
very best moves, or to master the techniques
required to convert even a small advantage to
a win. There is nothing wrong with legitimate
draws!


-- help bot

SBD wrote:
Always good to see ideas here

Yes but it helps if they're at least one of (a) new and (b) good.
Knee-jerking against the draw `problem' by banning agreed draws and
making stalemate the same thing as checkmate is neither of these
things.


On Dec 6, 12:54 pm, zdrakec wrote:
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.

It would not do away with perpetual check, since that isn't part of
the rules, but in a perpetual, there is a three-fold.

`Perpetual check' is just an agreement by the players that one player
can keep checking the other one forever, which will necessarily
involve either a threefold repetition or fifty consecutive moves
without a capture or pawn move.

But why so many games have to be decisive is a mystery to me. A
well-played draw is a good thing in my eyes.

Quite.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Hungry Simple Boss (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ middle manager but it has no moving
parts and it'll eat you!

zdrakec wrote:
I also see no problem with draws per se, I simply think that
allowing one to be agreed is arbitrary and artificial.

You're going to need a better justification than that. Chess as a
whole is arbitrary and artificial! Why does the little horsey move in
L-shapes? Why do the players take it in turns to move? Why only one
piece at a time? Why can't pawns move backwards? Why can't rooks
turn corners? Why can't the king be captured? Why is the board eight
by eight? Why are there exactly two players?


I guess what I mean is that the draw should be the logical outcome
of the play, not the outcome of the players' possible unwillingness
to risk a decision.

Don't you think that, after a long, level game, the natural result is
a draw, raher than insisting that play continue until one of the
players makes a blunder due to exhaustion?


The reason I speculated that perpetual check would go away, if a
player was not allowed to repeat the position three-fold, is that
eventually, in a perpetual, the position would in fact get repeated.
At some point, the player will have to choose a move that does not
bring about a repetition (if we have outlawed the three-fold
repetition).

Now, *that* is arbitrary. Perpetual check is a defensive resource:
player A only attempts to put player B in perpetual check to force a
draw. If repetition is outlawed, there are two things that can happen
in any instance of perpetual check: either player A finds he can't
give check again in some position, so he has to play something else
and probably loses (why else was he trying to force a draw?); or
player B finds he can't play the best response to a check and ends up
losing serious material or getting checkmated. Which of these two
things happens is decided by essentially random-looking things that
happened before the perpetual started.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Mouldy Sushi (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ raw fish but it's starting to grow
mushrooms!

help bot wrote:
The problem with premature agreements to draw is already handled by
the rules (which however, are not properly enforced).

Please cite the FIDE Law that prohibits the players from agreeing a
draw in a position that isn't obviously drawn?


Dave.

--
David Richerby Hilarious Nuclear Pants (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a well-tailored pair of trousers
that's made of atoms but it's a bundle
of laughs!

zdrakec wrote:
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.

This is a book-keeping nightmare. As it is, if the players miss an
opportunity to claim a draw by repetition, nothing happens. Under
your proposed rule, if the players don't notice a repetition, one of
them has made an illegal move.

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).

The exceptions aren't esoteric at all. There are two versions of the
ko rule: one says you can't repeat a position, ever, period; the other
says that your move cannot return the board to the state it was in
after your last move.


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.

It become *less* practical than it once was, in an age where
tournaments with multiple rounds in a day are common.

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.

Indeed, it has been suggested many times before. And every time it is
suggested, somebody points out that the proposed change means that
essentially any pawn-up endgame is won, which means that players will
be much less willing to sacrifice pawns and will lead to duller chess.

I am not certain, but that would seem to leave lack of mating
material as the sole way to draw a game.

That is correct.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Hilarious Drink (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ refreshing juice beverage but it's a
bundle of laughs!

David Richerby wrote:
zdrakec wrote:
I also see no problem with draws per se, I simply think that
allowing one to be agreed is arbitrary and artificial.

You're going to need a better justification than that. Chess as a
whole is arbitrary and artificial! Why does the little horsey move in
L-shapes?

the horsey does NOT move in L-shapes. The horsey moves in a straight
line - directly to any square which is closest to the original square
without touching (8-connected) the original square.

Any English schoolboy knows this.


--
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://KennethRSloan.com/

zdrakec wrote:

Giving some thought to how draws happen over the board
....
the following rule changes strike me as perhaps interesting:

May I suggest starting with a logical argument as to why draws are
undesirable?

Draws may not be agreed.
....
that would seem to leave lack of mating material as the sole way
to draw a game

Which means that draws *can* be agreed, simply by trading down until
both sides lack sufficient mating material.

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.

This would completely change endgame strategy -- not a thing to do
lightly without at least playtesting hundreds of games first.

Thoughts?

My opinion is that the game of Chess is OK as is is. I see no
problems that justify anything other than minor tweaks. That's
why I would like discussions like this to start with an argument
as to what is wrong with the current game; most discussions like
this start with an unexamined assumption that something is wrong
with the current game.


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