Chessbase has put up a good article which these newsgroups also researched
this past January.

Here is the URL

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4513

Varieties of adjustment of scoring are considered by Kung-Ming Tiong, who is
a mathematician and logician at School of Science and Technology, Universiti
Malaysia Sabah, Borneo, Malaysia. He is interested in the application of
logical and mathematical-statistical reasoning in aspects of daily life, and
the factor of incentives which are related to personal reasoning decisions.
Kung-Ming is also an avid chess player who has participated in state and
university level competitions.

Meanwhile the Brits are also having at it. Stewart Reuben being publicly
critical of a plan by Ray Keene, [and incidentally, of the system I recently
proposed to Mickey Adams. Adams in fact, didn't think any change necessary].
This system in nominated 'Bilbao'

Some of these conversations cover 'unfought' draws, while others veer into a
more differentiated scoring system, including different scores for draws
with white and black, for example [see 'Mathematical Rule'].

Some ideas for radical, such as the 'Christmas rule', which in effect means
that any draw offer remains open for the rest of the game.

Phil Innes

The Bilbao rule, by giving less credit for a draw than alternating
wins and losses, but more than for a loss, wouldn't eliminate hard-
fought draws.

But while "grandmaster draws" are the biggest problem, defensive,
positional chess might be seen as a second problem as well. The first
problem is hard to solve, since one can't read the minds of
chessplayers, and the second would seem even harder to solve, since
defensive play is clearly rational when the likely result of more open
play is a loss.

Even switching to Capablanca Chess isn't going to bring back the days
of Labourdonnais-McDonnell and Anderssen-Kieseretzky!

The idea of a "half-win" was one of the things discussed. I toyed with
that idea on my web page; besides a concrete proposal.

http://www.quadibloc.com/chess/ch0101.htm

I proposed splitting the point 3/5 - 2/5 when one player forces
stalemate. And then I noted that one might also give even smaller
credit for bare King.

But the result would be players fighting very long drawn-out battles
for smaller advantage; besides being tiring for the players, it could
lead to more defensive chess, or to White having an advantage that now
could be translated into points consistently.

In Checkers, they tried to solve the problem by picking first the
first two moves, and then the first three moves, of the game at
random. If the solution is to forget everything we know about opening
theory, then I've proposed

http://www.quadibloc.com/chess/ch0202.htm

an elaborate variation of this idea:

Instead of switching to Capablanca Chess, for example, why not play on
a 10 by 8 board, but through a random drawing, select whether a
Princess and an Empress (as in Capablanca Chess) or two Men, or two
Camels, or a Cannon and a Zebra, and so on and so forth, will be added
to the board?

Presumably, if there are hundreds of different variations that might
be played, opening theory in each would be less well developed. My
elaborate variation uses a 12 by 8 board, and begins with 45
variations, and tries to proceed to thousands.

But that's not really what people want: while a chess-like game that
favors certain components of Chess skill might have some interest, the
game of Chess has done well over the centuries. They just want to see
more interesting Chess.

With football, it's easy enough to change the rules here and there to
favor the offense over the defense and please the audience. What would
one do with Chess - eliminate Castling?

John Savard

On Mar 16, 1:31 pm, "Chess One" wrote:

Chessbase has put up a good article which these newsgroups also researched
this past January.
Here is the URL
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4513

What a load of twaddle. This whole article can be put in the
dictionary under 'chin music'.

This is a very good post John, and I only write again to say that people
might take note of these scenarios, advised by your comments, and to perhaps
ask you about the reception of your ideas?

I hope you will write here again, since all chess these days seems to be
international, and all sorts of factions and ideas take part in a potential
change to the way chess is scored.

Cordially, Phil Innes

"Quadibloc" wrote in message
...
The Bilbao rule, by giving less credit for a draw than alternating
wins and losses, but more than for a loss, wouldn't eliminate hard-
fought draws.

But while "grandmaster draws" are the biggest problem, defensive,
positional chess might be seen as a second problem as well. The first
problem is hard to solve, since one can't read the minds of
chessplayers, and the second would seem even harder to solve, since
defensive play is clearly rational when the likely result of more open
play is a loss.

Even switching to Capablanca Chess isn't going to bring back the days
of Labourdonnais-McDonnell and Anderssen-Kieseretzky!

The idea of a "half-win" was one of the things discussed. I toyed with
that idea on my web page; besides a concrete proposal.

http://www.quadibloc.com/chess/ch0101.htm

I proposed splitting the point 3/5 - 2/5 when one player forces
stalemate. And then I noted that one might also give even smaller
credit for bare King.

But the result would be players fighting very long drawn-out battles
for smaller advantage; besides being tiring for the players, it could
lead to more defensive chess, or to White having an advantage that now
could be translated into points consistently.

In Checkers, they tried to solve the problem by picking first the
first two moves, and then the first three moves, of the game at
random. If the solution is to forget everything we know about opening
theory, then I've proposed

http://www.quadibloc.com/chess/ch0202.htm

an elaborate variation of this idea:

Instead of switching to Capablanca Chess, for example, why not play on
a 10 by 8 board, but through a random drawing, select whether a
Princess and an Empress (as in Capablanca Chess) or two Men, or two
Camels, or a Cannon and a Zebra, and so on and so forth, will be added
to the board?

Presumably, if there are hundreds of different variations that might
be played, opening theory in each would be less well developed. My
elaborate variation uses a 12 by 8 board, and begins with 45
variations, and tries to proceed to thousands.

But that's not really what people want: while a chess-like game that
favors certain components of Chess skill might have some interest, the
game of Chess has done well over the centuries. They just want to see
more interesting Chess.

With football, it's easy enough to change the rules here and there to
favor the offense over the defense and please the audience. What would
one do with Chess - eliminate Castling?

John Savard