EVANS ON CHESS, CHESS LIFE, MAY 2005 (PAGE 46)

THE DOUBLING CUBE

Don Meyer
Simi Valley, California

Q. I have an idea that I guarantee would reduce the number of draws
and want to know what you think of it. At the same time it would
increase sportsmanship since the opponent wouldn't dare hang around in
a clearly lost position or annoy you with other stalling tactics.

The idea combines chess and the doubling cube of backgammon. Here's
how it works. When a player feels he is clearly winning, he can
"double" the opponent. However, there's a catch. You'd better be darn
sure when you double because you get a big fat zero if the game is
drawn! That's the price you pay for being rash. And if you lose after
doubling it's even worse. By the way, only one person owns the
doubling cube, and the same person can't double twice in a row (see
backgammon rules for details).

In a seesaw battle, I'd consider allowing doubling up to three times
per game. So what happens is this: whenever there is a double there is
no draw. Therefore, less draws. A player won't double without
justification without paying a steep price if wrong. Another benefit
would be more clear winners in tournaments instead of multiple ties
for first.

Suggested Doubling Summary Chart

A standard win is still 1, a standard loss is still 0, and a draw ½.

1st Double: Winner 1½ Loser -½
Draw (doubler) 0 Draw (non-doubler) 1

2nd Double: Winner 1¾ Loser -¾
Draw (doubler) 0 Draw (non-doubler) 1

3rd Double: Winner 2 Loser -1
Draw (doubler) 0 Draw (non-doubler) 1

A. I'm not too familiar with backgammon, but something like this sort
of gambling on the outcome already is used in informal blitz. The
point system seems confusing enough to cause players to need a slide
rule to figure out standings in a tournament, but I like your idea of
thinking outside the box and wonder what would happen if your
experiment was actually tried in a tournament. One obvious drawback is
that cheaters could manipulate results in the last round with the
doubling cube.



Rich Hutnik wrote:
On Sep 21, 4:37 pm, "David Kane" wrote:
"David Richerby" wrote in message

...

Rich Hutnik wrote:
This idea deals with the draw issues with chess, and adds another
element that would be interested to people watching chess who
normally don't play. This game will have you doubling when you
think you can win, and challenge you to go for a win, even if
challenged, because you get more points.

This doesn't work, for a number of reasons.

It works in backgammon because there is no possibility of a game being
drawn. However, draws in chess mean that doubling doesn't work.

The doubling idea makes some sense is if
the person who proposes the double gives draw
odds to his opponent.

What you do, is if you double the way I describe it, is that it
pressures you to win or you get no points. If you draw, your opponent
gets half the amount of points they would normally get for a win.
Anyone who has questions about draws and doubling cube, please read
what I wrote in the first thread. I am using the doubling cube as a
way to resolve the draw issue with chess.

There is a good chance doubling won't be used as much as it would in
backgammon, but it does provide an option for the game for players to
use it. If, for example, someone is short on time, their opponent
could end up doubling to get them to resign if their opponent feels
they don't have enough time to get off a win or a draw before the time
runs out.

- Rich

On Sep 21, 8:39 pm, " wrote:
EVANS ON CHESS, CHESS LIFE, MAY 2005 (PAGE 46)

THE DOUBLING CUBE
The idea combines chess and the doubling cube of backgammon. Here's
how it works. When a player feels he is clearly winning, he can
"double" the opponent. However, there's a catch. You'd better be darn
sure when you double because you get a big fat zero if the game is
drawn! That's the price you pay for being rash. And if you lose after
doubling it's even worse. By the way, only one person owns the
doubling cube, and the same person can't double twice in a row (see
backgammon rules for details).

In a seesaw battle, I'd consider allowing doubling up to three times
per game. So what happens is this: whenever there is a double there is
no draw. Therefore, less draws. A player won't double without
justification without paying a steep price if wrong. Another benefit
would be more clear winners in tournaments instead of multiple ties
for first.

Suggested Doubling Summary Chart

A standard win is still 1, a standard loss is still 0, and a draw ½.

1st Double: Winner 1½ Loser -½
Draw (doubler) 0 Draw (non-doubler) 1

2nd Double: Winner 1¾ Loser -¾
Draw (doubler) 0 Draw (non-doubler) 1

3rd Double: Winner 2 Loser -1
Draw (doubler) 0 Draw (non-doubler) 1

A. I'm not too familiar with backgammon, but something like this sort
of gambling on the outcome already is used in informal blitz. The
point system seems confusing enough to cause players to need a slide
rule to figure out standings in a tournament, but I like your idea of
thinking outside the box and wonder what would happen if your
experiment was actually tried in a tournament. One obvious drawback is
that cheaters could manipulate results in the last round with the
doubling cube.

What I would do is start it at 2, and then go up by an even amount, to
make the bookkeeping less of a headache with fractions. The idea of
keeping points for a draw the same (1 point) could be a possible
interesting approach to it, which seriously drives people to not do
draws.

What I would do, to prevent there being a final round manipulation, is
to play to a set number of points, and end a match then. There is a
risk of someone doubling when someone is about to win. There is the
Crawford rule in backgammon to prevent it. There are times when you
cannot do doubling if you are about to lose. It is less of an issue
with backgammon, and if you go with the doubler losing on a draw.

The idea I propose is cleaner, although the scoring is larger than in
standard chess tournaments. I personally want to avoid fractions
whenever possible.

- Rich

On Sep 21, 11:16 pm, Rich Hutnik wrote:
On Sep 21, 8:39 pm, " wrote:



EVANS ON CHESS, CHESS LIFE, MAY 2005 (PAGE 46)

THE DOUBLING CUBE
The idea combines chess and the doubling cube of backgammon. Here's
how it works. When a player feels he is clearly winning, he can
"double" the opponent. However, there's a catch. You'd better be darn
sure when you double because you get a big fat zero if the game is
drawn! That's the price you pay for being rash. And if you lose after
doubling it's even worse. By the way, only one person owns the
doubling cube, and the same person can't double twice in a row (see
backgammon rules for details).

In a seesaw battle, I'd consider allowing doubling up to three times
per game. So what happens is this: whenever there is a double there is
no draw. Therefore, less draws. A player won't double without
justification without paying a steep price if wrong. Another benefit
would be more clear winners in tournaments instead of multiple ties
for first.

Suggested Doubling Summary Chart

A standard win is still 1, a standard loss is still 0, and a draw ½.

1st Double: Winner 1½ Loser -½
Draw (doubler) 0 Draw (non-doubler) 1

2nd Double: Winner 1¾ Loser -¾
Draw (doubler) 0 Draw (non-doubler) 1

3rd Double: Winner 2 Loser -1
Draw (doubler) 0 Draw (non-doubler) 1

A. I'm not too familiar with backgammon, but something like this sort
of gambling on the outcome already is used in informal blitz. The
point system seems confusing enough to cause players to need a slide
rule to figure out standings in a tournament, but I like your idea of
thinking outside the box and wonder what would happen if your
experiment was actually tried in a tournament. One obvious drawback is
that cheaters could manipulate results in the last round with the
doubling cube.

What I would do is start it at 2, and then go up by an even amount, to
make the bookkeeping less of a headache with fractions. The idea of
keeping points for a draw the same (1 point) could be a possible
interesting approach to it, which seriously drives people to not do
draws.

What I would do, to prevent there being a final round manipulation, is
to play to a set number of points, and end a match then. There is a
risk of someone doubling when someone is about to win. There is the
Crawford rule in backgammon to prevent it. There are times when you
cannot do doubling if you are about to lose. It is less of an issue
with backgammon, and if you go with the doubler losing on a draw.

The idea I propose is cleaner, although the scoring is larger than in
standard chess tournaments. I personally want to avoid fractions
whenever possible.

- Rich

I see several advantages of keeping the tie points one, irregardless
of how much doubling goes on.

No matter how much doubling goes on, a tie is worth one point. And the
challenging player would get no points if they tie (only the
challenged player who was doubled against.
1. Players will be more likely to double, because the risk of a tie is
less. This means if you feel you are even or better odds of winning,
you double. If you happen to tie, you only give up one point.
2. The player who was doubled against is more inclined to fight for
the win, instead of playing for the draw. This gets larger the more
doubling going on. For example, you double from 2 to 4 points. A tie
locked in at two means 3 points more if you go for the win. This is
one more point than you get if you go with half the new amount.

- Rich

On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 17:39:17 -0700, "
wrote:

EVANS ON CHESS, CHESS LIFE, MAY 2005 (PAGE 46)

THE DOUBLING CUBE

Don Meyer
Simi Valley, California

Q. I have an idea that I guarantee would reduce the number of draws
and want to know what you think of it. At the same time it would
increase sportsmanship since the opponent wouldn't dare hang around in
a clearly lost position or annoy you with other stalling tactics.

The idea combines chess and the doubling cube of backgammon. Here's
how it works. When a player feels he is clearly winning, he can
"double" the opponent. However, there's a catch. You'd better be darn
sure when you double because you get a big fat zero if the game is
drawn! That's the price you pay for being rash. And if you lose after
doubling it's even worse. By the way, only one person owns the
doubling cube, and the same person can't double twice in a row (see
backgammon rules for details).

In a seesaw battle, I'd consider allowing doubling up to three times
per game. So what happens is this: whenever there is a double there is
no draw. Therefore, less draws. A player won't double without
justification without paying a steep price if wrong. Another benefit
would be more clear winners in tournaments instead of multiple ties
for first.

Suggested Doubling Summary Chart

A standard win is still 1, a standard loss is still 0, and a draw ½.

1st Double: Winner 1½ Loser -½
Draw (doubler) 0 Draw (non-doubler) 1

2nd Double: Winner 1¾ Loser -¾
Draw (doubler) 0 Draw (non-doubler) 1

3rd Double: Winner 2 Loser -1
Draw (doubler) 0 Draw (non-doubler) 1

A. I'm not too familiar with backgammon, but something like this sort
of gambling on the outcome already is used in informal blitz. The
point system seems confusing enough to cause players to need a slide
rule to figure out standings in a tournament, but I like your idea of
thinking outside the box and wonder what would happen if your
experiment was actually tried in a tournament. One obvious drawback is
that cheaters could manipulate results in the last round with the
doubling cube.


A solution in search of a problem?

Even better: revoke his posting privileges on the USCF Forum.

--
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://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/

For the forums, an improper post should also result in a penatly in
your chess rating. Clearly, if you post gets deleted, then points
should be deducted from your rating, along with the MENSA model of
Chess.

"Rich Hutnik" wrote in message
ups.com...


I see several advantages of keeping the tie points one, irregardless
of how much doubling goes on.

No matter how much doubling goes on, a tie is worth one point. And the
challenging player would get no points if they tie (only the
challenged player who was doubled against.
1. Players will be more likely to double, because the risk of a tie is
less. This means if you feel you are even or better odds of winning,
you double.

Incorrect. Without doubling, if you have a 50% chance of winning
and a 50% chance of drawing, you expect to gain 1/2 point on your
opponent. With the doubling method you have proposed (doubled
drawer gets 1), you expect to gain 0 points on your opponent.


If you happen to tie, you only give up one point.
2. The player who was doubled against is more inclined to fight for
the win, instead of playing for the draw.

I don't think so. A draw for the person doubled against allows him
to gain a point on his opponent. Draws are currently very common in
high level chess even though they do *not* gain any points on the
opponent. A fact which the players would realize and, of course,
cause them to avoid doubling unless having a completely lopsided
position.

This gets larger the more
doubling going on. For example, you double from 2 to 4 points. A tie
locked in at two means 3 points more if you go for the win. This is
one more point than you get if you go with half the new amount.

The way you have described it, doubling would be rare and redoubling
extremely rare. At high level chess, games rarely swing from one side
having an overwhelming advantage to the other side having an overwhelming
advantage.

It's true that devaluing draws relative to wins would likely reduce draws.
Various alternative scoring methods have been proposed for just that
purpose. But that really doesn't have anything to do with the doubling
cube.

On Sep 22, 11:33 am, "David Kane" wrote:

The way you have described it, doubling would be rare and redoubling
extremely rare. At high level chess, games rarely swing from one side
having an overwhelming advantage to the other side having an overwhelming
advantage.

It's true that devaluing draws relative to wins would likely reduce draws.
Various alternative scoring methods have been proposed for just that
purpose. But that really doesn't have anything to do with the doubling
cube.

Part of the idea for the doubling cube is to resolve the draw issue.
A larger framework issue for the question is one about how do you make
chess more appealing for people to watch over television, so that the
game would grow in popularity. There is currently, I believe, a chess
match that is going for $1.5 million in prize money to the winner.
These stakes should draw more media attention than it is. Are the
games being televised?

You could end up saying, "Run speedchess or Bughouse" as possible
answers, but is this what people want?

Ok, I will start another thread with this more general question. It
is, why should poker get such TV coverage and chess not?

- Rich

"Rich Hutnik" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Sep 22, 11:33 am, "David Kane" wrote:

The way you have described it, doubling would be rare and redoubling
extremely rare. At high level chess, games rarely swing from one side
having an overwhelming advantage to the other side having an overwhelming
advantage.

It's true that devaluing draws relative to wins would likely reduce draws.
Various alternative scoring methods have been proposed for just that
purpose. But that really doesn't have anything to do with the doubling
cube.

Part of the idea for the doubling cube is to resolve the draw issue.

But you've given no persuasive explanation as to how the doubling cube
would help the draw issue at all. With your scheme, it would only come
into play in very lopsided situations. So it addresses the "people
taking too long to resign" issue.

There have been many measures including alternative scoring
proposals that do address the draw issue. A few have been
tried in small experiments.




A larger framework issue for the question is one about how do you make
chess more appealing for people to watch over television, so that the
game would grow in popularity. There is currently, I believe, a chess
match that is going for $1.5 million in prize money to the winner.
These stakes should draw more media attention than it is. Are the
games being televised?

I believe that solving the draw problem is necessary to substantially
increase chess' fan appeal, but doubt that it is sufficient.


You could end up saying, "Run speedchess or Bughouse" as possible
answers, but is this what people want?

Ok, I will start another thread with this more general question. It
is, why should poker get such TV coverage and chess not?

- Rich

Rich Hutnik wrote:
Part of the idea for the doubling cube is to resolve the draw issue.
A larger framework issue for the question is one about how do you
make chess more appealing for people to watch over television, so
that the game would grow in popularity. There is currently, I
believe, a chess match that is going for $1.5 million in prize money
to the winner. These stakes should draw more media attention than
it is. Are the games being televised?

Dude, draws are not the reason that chess is not popular on TV. Chess
is not popular on TV because absolutely nothing happens for fifteen
minutes or more at a time and, then when something does eventually
happen, you need extensive training to understand its significance.


Ok, I will start another thread with this more general question. It
is, why should poker get such TV coverage and chess not?

Because something actually happens in poker.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Surprise Drink (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ refreshing juice beverage but not like
you'd expect!

On Sep 23, 8:33 am, David Richerby
wrote:
Rich Hutnik wrote:
Part of the idea for the doubling cube is to resolve the draw issue.
A larger framework issue for the question is one about how do you
make chess more appealing for people to watch over television, so
that the game would grow in popularity. There is currently, I
believe, a chess match that is going for $1.5 million in prize money
to the winner. These stakes should draw more media attention than
it is. Are the games being televised?

Dude, draws are not the reason that chess is not popular on TV. Chess
is not popular on TV because absolutely nothing happens for fifteen
minutes or more at a time and, then when something does eventually
happen, you need extensive training to understand its significance.

Ok, I will start another thread with this more general question. It
is, why should poker get such TV coverage and chess not?

Because something actually happens in poker.

Have you ever watched prolong poker being played? There is a bunch of
even LESS action that you have with chess. There is more activity,
but less action. It is reality TV editing that is why you get what
appears to be more action than there is. Similar would need to be
done with chess and other abstract strategy games. But, there are
other issues. What poker does have that makes it watchable TV is big,
unexpected things that can happen, which you can show at the right
moments, and do a television show with editing all the bits together.
Poker is not shown live for this reason, but edited and shown later,
as a collection of highlights. Also, poker has a lot of player vs
player, and not just different board positions. Showing it as a
struggle of players against each other makes for drama, something that
could possibly be done with chess. The question is: What do you do?

This is in another thread.

- Rich