In article
, Harold Buck writes

In article ,
banana wrote:

Problem with draws? Just get rid
of them.

So, what exactly happens with a K vs. K endgame? They play it out until
someone dies?

No, Black wins. One way to describe my suggestion would be this:

White wins if he checkmates Black (or Black admits this is
inevitable), otherwise Black wins.

Obviously if checkmate by White is impossible (e.g. inadequate material;
players agree it's not going to happen; stalemate), then Black wins.

Like it or not, this solves the problem of boring play leading to too
many draws, without giving players any incentive to share out the wins.
I don't know of any other suggestion that does this.

The normal rule could be 'White must checkmate Black'. If a player
thought to be stronger wanted to give odds to a player thought to be
weaker, the stronger player could play with the Black pieces and they
could use the rule that 'Black must checkmate White' instead.

--
banana

banana wrote in message ...

Just make what's now a draw a win for black
(or sometimes white). This would change the
way the game is played, but isn't that the idea?

All theses ideas were discussed in the past,
also on rgc*.

Let's say that win = 3,
draw is 1 for white and 2 for black,
defeat = 0.

Then black will play for a draw.

Wlod

In article ,
Wlodzimierz Holsztynski writes

banana wrote in message news:M6BJoJADy1I
...

Just make what's now a draw a win for black
(or sometimes white). This would change the
way the game is played, but isn't that the idea?

All theses ideas were discussed in the past,
also on rgc*.

Have you got a reference to previous discussion of the idea that 'if
white doesn't win (by checkmate or black's resignation), black wins'?

Let's say that win = 3,
draw is 1 for white and 2 for black,
defeat = 0.

Interesting idea. It's another solution to the 'sharing out wins'
problem.


Then black will play for a draw.

It may be impossible to force both players to play for a win (what's now
a win) while avoiding the 'sharing out wins' problem.

With your suggestion, sometimes white would play for a draw, e.g. if 1
point away from victory in a match, with black more than 2 points away
from victory. And sometimes black would have to play for a win, e.g. if
3 points away from victory in the last game of a match.

With my suggestion, things would always be the same in every game -
white would have to play for a win, and black would have to play to stop
him getting what's now a win (either by playing for what's now a draw,
or for what's now a win, depending on the position on the board - not
depending on any consideration of points because they would both be a
win for a black).

--
banana

banana writes:
...
Like it or not, this solves the problem of boring play leading to too
many draws, without giving players any incentive to share out the wins.
I don't know of any other suggestion that does this.
...

Have you considered the possibility that this rule might lead to boring
play leading to draws (which are now "wins" for Black)? Or, suicidal
attacks by White which wash up on the rocky shores of solid Black defenses?

At present, it appears that White has a small edge and can press for a
win with minimal risk (and some promise of a reward when he succeeds);
Black is at a small disadvantage - but is encouraged to take risks
against weaker opponents in order to win.

Under your proposal, there would be ZERO incentive for Black to take any
risks. He does just as well by playing solid, boring defense as he does
by unbalancing the position and trying to play for a win.

Taking away Black's incentive to play for a win is, in my opinion, a mistake.

--
Kenneth Sloan
Computer and Information Sciences (205) 934-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX (205) 934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/

In article , Kenneth Sloan
writes

banana writes:
...
Like it or not, this solves the problem of boring play leading to too
many draws, without giving players any incentive to share out the wins.
I don't know of any other suggestion that does this.
...

Have you considered the possibility that this rule might lead to boring
play leading to draws (which are now "wins" for Black)?

Only when Black is easily able to take the sting out of White's attack.
White would need to be very serious about playing for what's now a win.

Or, suicidal
attacks by White which wash up on the rocky shores of solid Black defenses?

Yes this could happen, and might happen more frequently than it does
now, but nothing wrong with a suicidal attack ending up in a loss
because it's met a solid defence.

At present, it appears that White has a small edge and can press for a
win with minimal risk (and some promise of a reward when he succeeds);
Black is at a small disadvantage - but is encouraged to take risks
against weaker opponents in order to win.

Under your proposal, there would be ZERO incentive for Black to take any
risks. He does just as well by playing solid, boring defense as he does
by unbalancing the position and trying to play for a win.

It could be said that the rules would unbalance the position a lot, from
the outset. Note that in my proposal, black would start with a small
advantage, given current styles of play.

--
banana

"banana" wrote:
.... in my proposal, black would start with a small
advantage, given current styles of play. ....

SMALL ?? This statement convinces me you're rated no higher than 1200.

Bill Smythe

banana writes:


Or, suicidal
attacks by White which wash up on the rocky shores of solid Black defenses?

Yes this could happen, and might happen more frequently than it does
now, but nothing wrong with a suicidal attack ending up in a loss
because it's met a solid defence.

I disagree. I think there's a *lot* wrong with suicidal attacks. This
is not chess.


--
Kenneth Sloan
Computer and Information Sciences (205) 934-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX (205) 934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/

banana wrote in message ...

All theses ideas were discussed in the past,
also on rgc*.

Have you got a reference to previous discussion
of the idea that 'if white doesn't win (by checkmate
or black's resignation), black wins'?

Hm, this one indeed might be new in the
sense that nobody has stated it before
publically (I don't know). If this is the
case it might be because very few people
would agree to it.

Let's say that win = 3,
draw is 1 for white and 2 for black,
defeat = 0.

I had similar ideas in the past but
most likely I didn't state this particular
one, only now.

I should refrain from saying
that certain proposals were posted in the
past without checking it thoroughly. Sorry
for this. (Actually, I myself don't like
it, when people do it--most of the time
it may be based on their lack of understanding
of a topic, while it is so easy to take away
someone's well earned satisfaction
from a new idea by a cheap and irresponsible
denial and by wrongly equating it with an old
but different idea).

Regards,

Wlod

In article , Bill Smythe
writes

"banana" wrote:
.... in my proposal, black would start with a small
advantage, given current styles of play. ....

SMALL ?? This statement convinces me you're rated no higher than 1200.

Between two players of equal strength, black's advantage would be
equivalent to being on the plus side of a rating difference of about 95
points. Currently white's advantage is equivalent to being on the plus
side of a rating difference of about 45 points.

Here's my reasoning... According to Evans [1], percentages in master
play are around +37 -26 =37. If we assume that styles of play would be
the same under the suggested rules as they are now - a false assumption,
of course, but let's make it - this would give 63% of the points to the
player with the black pieces, in games between two players of equal
strength.

Under current rules, white gets about 37% + (0.5*37%) = 56%.

So with two players of equal strength, we'd expect:

existing rules: white 56% (rating diff equiv, about 45 points)
suggested new rules: black 63% (rating diff equiv, about 95 points)

I'd call that a small advantage. It's about twice white's current
advantage, that's all.

I'd hazard a guess that whatever you happen to be rated at, the second
figure here is different from what you'd have guessed.

Obviously the merits and demerits of my idea don't depend on what I'm
rated at or whether I'm rated at all; ditto the merits or demerits of
criticisms of it.


(1) Source:

http://www.worldchessnetwork.com/English/chessNews/evans/040308.php

--
banana

In article , Kenneth Sloan
writes
banana writes:


Or, suicidal
attacks by White which wash up on the rocky shores of solid Black defenses?

Yes this could happen, and might happen more frequently than it does
now, but nothing wrong with a suicidal attack ending up in a loss
because it's met a solid defence.

I disagree. I think there's a *lot* wrong with suicidal attacks. This
is not chess.

Apologies for my choice of syntax here. I meant there was nothing wrong
with a suicidal attack's leading to a loss, having met a solid defence.

--
banana