"banana" wrote:
Here's my reasoning... According to Evans [1], percentages in master
play are around +37 -26 =37. ....

The key phrase here is "in master play".

Draw odds in a game between two masters is a HUGE advantage. Draw odds in a
game between two 1200s is barely significant -- most players in that rating
range don't even know HOW to play for a draw, until they reach an extremely
simple endgame, if then.

Bill Smythe

banana writes:

...
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...

Why?

--
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
...

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.

Surely the problem at the moment is not that white plays for a draw, since
he has a good chance of winning, but that black forces a draw because he
believes he has little chance of winning. Rewarding black for forcing a draw
would make the problem even worse, with satisfying checkmates getting even
rarer, and chess becoming a game where the score sheet always said that
somebody one but the spectators always went home feeling there had been no
drama.

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes

In article , Bill Smythe
writes

"banana" wrote:
Here's my reasoning... According to Evans [1], percentages in master
play are around +37 -26 =37. ....

The key phrase here is "in master play".

Draw odds in a game between two masters is a HUGE advantage. Draw odds in a
game between two 1200s is barely significant -- most players in that rating
range don't even know HOW to play for a draw, until they reach an extremely
simple endgame, if then.

The figures show that in master play draw odds would be equivalent to a
ratings advantage of about 95 points, which is about twice as large as
the advantage white normally gets under normal rules (about 45 points).

If an advantage equivalent to 95 points is "HUGE", then presumably
white's normal advantage would be describable as "BIG" or "VERY BIG"?

If Evans's statistics include games where masters took easy draws (and
there's no reason to suppose they don't), black's advantage under my
suggested rules might possibly be even less than twice white's normal
advantage.

Off the chess board, it's common, in battles where forces are equal, for
the defender to have the advantage - usually a very big advantage in
fact.

--
banana

In article , Kenneth Sloan
writes
banana writes:

...
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...

Why?

If you mean 'why make it?': because it allows a first-order 'smell test'
to be done quite easily.

If you mean 'why's it false?': because white would *have* to play for a
win in every game, which isn't so under normal rules.

--
banana

In article , John Rowland
writes

"banana" wrote in message
...

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.

Surely the problem at the moment is not that white plays for a draw, since
he has a good chance of winning, but that black forces a draw because he
believes he has little chance of winning. Rewarding black for forcing a draw
would make the problem even worse, with satisfying checkmates getting even
rarer, and chess becoming a game where the score sheet always said that
somebody one but the spectators always went home feeling there had been no
drama.

I see the point but white would have to play for checkmate, so the onus
would be on white to stop black taking the sting out of the white
attack. From Black's point of view, counter-attack would remain just as
available as a form of 'defence'.

--
banana

"Harold Buck" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Bill Smythe" wrote:

Draw odds in a game between two masters is a HUGE
advantage. Draw odds in a game between two 1200s
is barely significant -- most players in that rating range
don't even know HOW to play for a draw, until they reach
an extremely simple endgame, if then.

Wait, you can actually TRY to get a draw?!

I always try to get a draw. Until I can draw at least one game, what chance
do I have of winning one?

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes

In order to eliminate a lot of draws why not have both opponents play
White once and Black once. This is done in draughts or checkers in
tournaments. Of course the time control would have to be modified
somewhat but I think it would produce enterprising chess since a loss
in the first game would mean the next game would be hard fought .
If there is a tie after both games, then a tie-break blitz game as is
done in Rapid Chess events would be played.
Also playing two games with the same opponent would help to prevent
some fluke results as occurs at times usually when a lower rated
opponent with White plays boringly and unambitiously, in order to
provoke Black into gambling to win.