Comments/Ratings for a Single Item
Then you agree that draws are not necessarily a negative. As to the statement: 'Though if it is possible to force a draw each and every game, the stated capture goal might be considered inconsequential or at the least merely an influence during the game.' If a game had the goal as the capture of a specific piece(like the King in Chess) and the player by either position or material was able to prevent this from occuring, the capture goal would still have an effect during the play of the game. Then if these subsequent draws were then evaluated by either material or position(creating a new win conditon), this capture goal may be inconsequential(un-attainable) or merely an influence(forcing the players toward the new win condition) during the game.
various remarks concerning draws description- Symmetrical Chess Collection http://www.symmetryperfect.com/shots/descript.pdf relevant excerpts p. 26-28 (first paragraph) ___________________________________________________ Note- Some remarks are admixed in context with the description of a game (Hex Chess SS) while other remarks are directed in a purely general manner.
Hi Rich, While I agree with some of what you say, I dont think chess has a draw issue at all. I took a quick look at all the chess games I played when I was active - very few draws. This seems to happen more in the GM level - the grandmaster draw (less than 20 moves) could easily be banned. And many well contested games that end in draws at proper completeion are actually quite interesting - I say just get rid of the draw offer for major tournaments/matches. Getting rid of Stalemate, 3 move repetition seems like a major step backwards so I would nt call them patches - more like deleting essential components. I am probably in the minority here defending orthodox chess but its probably because I am more interested in chess-like variants than most, and I was not too long ago a chess enthusiast.
Over 60% of chess tournaments are ending in draws on the highest level. That looks like a problem to me.
The 'Grandmaster Draw' is, by definition, a problem for grandmasters. I am not a grandmaster and most of my games are decisive. Therefore I do not have a problem.
I understand that it does - but are you a regular chess player? An insignificant amount of chessplayers: extremely talented, and very closely bunched in skill level, and with a lot of time to research / memorize a large amount of opening theory, play each other under the auspices of an at least somewhat corrupt organization - 60% end in draws . So what? ban the draw offer and motivate them to play fighting chess - that percentage will reduce to at least 45-50%. With that skill level, expertise and knowledge - no serious chess player will have a problem with this result. It would be nice if there was many chess variants close enough to chess that they were accepted by most chess players - then everyone would be playing in a chess variant tournament. I believe if chess is moved to a larger board, it would be difficult for HUMANs to attain the amount of chess theory of the 8x8 game. Chess is 'played out' not because it is flawed but because it became too successful.
Sofia rule, which you wrote of, apparently reduced the number of draws by less than 5%: http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4553 My question is, even if the number of draws ends up being 45-50% why is this still acceptable?
One can avoid draws in chess by playing against much stronger players. And if you do play a much stronger player and get a draw, chances are that you will be happy to have gotten it.
On a related note, I took another look at Navia Dratp recently. With its unbalance armies, and three ways to win it seems that draws are unlikely in that game. Even at the bare king level (Navias only) the two pieces would race towards the opposition's first rank and the one who won the race would win.
I think Chess is fine as is. If someone is disatisfied with it then there are certainly plenty of other variants to play. I still hope Navia Dratp will catch on someday. I think it is a fantastic variant and it should satisy the draw haters.
I am curious here regarding draws. Should we be viewing the solution to draws to be merely another specific game? Or, can we do something with how game conditions are scored over variants in general (start with a baseline) that would end up address possible draw issues with all them. You can have a default starting place, and variants are free to do this. Perhaps we could end up using a different default position than FIDE chess. How about we look to Shatranj for example, and what it had, and use that as the starting point? Maybe extend it some to account for more modern play. Just an idea here.
As a variant inventor, I try to come up with a game that plays as well as chess. Even though I have tried different avenues, my ultimate goal is to come up with a game that plays almost like chess but on a bigger board with a few new pieces. Obviously since its new, opening theory will be a complete restart and it will take a very long time before this game ever gets 'stale'.
With Titan Chess , I added many new pieces but I am very happy with the gameplay though I have to say it is a bit different from orthodox chess! I have tested this game thoroughly, and draws are much less likely in Titan Chess even though you can draw as in std chess.
However, I see no flaws in the original game (orthodox chess) and certainly have no problem with draws.
Perhaps, your see draws in chess as a problem, among other things because you like games with razor's edge win/loss conditions and changing parameters (like Fischer Random but more extreme with random pieces ).
So yes, chess cannot be changed - the game has already been made and too much people care about it. But if another very similar game catches on .. that is another story.
I can guarantee you that draws are not a problem for chess,
And neither are computers - (George! )
The original chess is Shatranj, and it had multiple victory conditions, including barring the king and stalemate as a win, provided only one side had their king barred. These rules were taken out when people thought the changes made to what we have with regular chess, would mean you would almost never draw. You also didn't have castling, which left the king in the middle of the board, vulnerable to being checkmated. I can also, through my playing with Near Chess, see that when you do what you do with the pawns by giving them extra mobility (2 spaces to start instead of one), it results in pawn structures that remain solid all the way through, which reduces the chances of creating uneven pawn structures that help to cause the endgame generating more pawn promotions. Also this, in addition giving the other pieces more mobility means that you have the firepower pieces getting out in front of the pawns, burning off faster, with less firepower left in the end game to bust up pawn structures more. All this leads to more draws. The end result was it was far less likely to have the draw conditions we have today, which are pushing around 60% on the highest levels of play. I would like to hear someone explain why draw rate of 60% or higher is a good thing, particularly people who are into variants and are willing to adopt whatever rules are needed to make an enjoyable game. I will suggest anyone here to download Near Chess and have the Zillions AI try it and see what happens when you move chess back closer to Shatranj than regular chess. I believe you get a lot less draws.
Several of us at CV, myself included, came to believe that it was harder to avoid a draw in Shatranj than it was to avoid a draw in chess due to that lack of fire power. I believe that was one of the reasons Joe Joyce created Modern Shatranj with more fire power than the original, that is, so it would be less drawish.
'... I would like to hear someone explain why draw rate of 60% or higher is a good thing ...'
I don't believe anyone has claimed it to be a good thing.
What I do not comprehend is why some think it to be a bad thing.
Between equally proficient opponents I would expect a high percentage of draws.
THREE DIFFERENT 'STALEMATE/BARE KING' SETS OF RULES!
THREE DIFFERENT 'STALEMATE/BARE KING' SETS OF RULES!!
THREE DIFFERENT 'STALEMATE/BARE KING' SETS OF RULES!!!
ENDGAME POSITION White: King c1, Knight e1 and Black: King a1, Pawn a2, Rook e2.
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
4 | |///| |///| |///| |///|
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
3 |///| |///| |///| |///| |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
2 | p |///| |///| r |///| |///|
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
1 |/k/| |/K/| |/N/| |///| |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
a b c d e f g h
After 1.Nc2 check Rxc2 check, Black has won in Shatranj by the Bare King rule, which has only one stated exception. The Zillions Rule File for Shatranj (correctly) scores this game as a win for Black. Yesterday I posted this example on the Shatranj page, pointing out that 2.Kxc2 stalemate is a draw in two of my chess variants and a White victory in Wildebeest Chess.
Richard, when are you going to grasp the fact that there are no FIDE-approved rules for Shatranj? Our knowledge of Shatranj is based on a few written sources, representing a selection from possibly hundreds of regional variants. Chaturanga was dropped from the list of Recognized Variants here in 2005, because our collective knowledge of the game consisted of: 'We guess it had the same rules as Shatranj, more or less'. We were unable to 'Please comment here' after your [2008-04-14] post, because you apparently used a forbidden symbol in your thread title. We cannot properly evaluate your proposal until you write down your own complete set of rules. Also a few examples would be helpful.
Also you could clearly state where and why you disagree with: David Paulowich, R. Wayne Schmittberg, and Colin Adams, who wrote in 1999: 'If one player is reduced to a bare King (no other pieces), then he loses the game, unless he can immediately reduce his opponent to a bare King also (I would suggest that demonstrating that he can reduce his opponent to a bare King by a forced series of moves should also be allowed ...'
Rich Hutnik Posted: ---------------------------------- Well, the highest level of chess represents chess played at an optimal level, right? If it is drawing at that level, what impact does it have on the game? ---------------------------------- Drawing at that level simply demonstrates that both opponents are almost equally skilled. If a win is desired then it is the scoring that needs to be changed (even though I disagree on that too) . For example consider giving a draw less than 1/2 point . or scoring for the different types of draws. However, stalemate is one of the greatest 'features' in chess. Feature well utilized: even recently in a game between two GMs one player on his way to a loss played a tricky move which if not replied correctly would have led to stalemate. I like to give the boxing analogy of a knockout to checkmate. Most boxing matches between equally skilled opponents are actually draws - the scoring is so subjective you might as well call it that . Now if you want a decisive result between two players. How about this: in the event of a draw - the time control is changed to say something like 5min/12second increment and they play until someone wins. Changes to scoring and tournament rules can be adjusted to produce a winner in all cases if desired. Have you taken a look at Modern Shatranj? I believe it has all the rules you would like implemented. Perhaps a modified version of that game may be a good starting point .
If you want to liken Chess to Boxing, then if boxing were like chess, if there wasn't a knockout, the boxing match would end in a draw. Do you think this would be good for boxing? Can you name any other sport where this is so and why it is good for tournament play? Please present the case that have 60%+ of all chess matches ending in draws is good for chess as a sport. I would like to see the argument how it fosters growth. I would like to see the appeal to soccer and hockey having draws in them be shown how the Stanley Cup and the World Cup end in draws. Are there ANY other sports which end in draws? How about ones where if the entire thing ends in a draw, the defending champion retains their title. Does ANYTHING else besides Chess have this? Anyhow, if you want to declare a draw as a 'non-checkmate' ending to a chess match, then fine. But explain how having it end in 1/2-1/2 for both players resulting in the chess match not reaching a conclusion (except for the defending champ) actually helps chess grow as a game. I am interested hearing the argument how this actually fosters growth of chess. Not that it is 'well, we have bad leadership in the chess world, which is why it isn't growing'. I am asking if it helps chess grow in any way having the 19th century 1/2 to 1/2 for a draw for both sides.
I believe we can change the rules and come up with a truly fantastic variant (like Navia Dratp)... and yet still, it won't be popular (relatively) because it is 'intellectual' in spirit. That is why the late Donald Benge, creater of Conquest, advized me to never try to market a chess variant.
To further the analogy - Each round in boxing is like 1 game of chess. I had no idea that 60% of all chess MATCHES end in draws. How much games are played in each match? The solution to making chess have appeal like other sports has nothing to do with rules for draws . All you have to do is to come up with a match/tournament system that ALWAYS provides a winner. E.g. if a 6 game match is drawn then more games with reduced time controls. Kind of like the extra long tennis matches on tv. Soccer games that end in draws go to overtime. Chess matches/tournaments cant do that? I think you have to explain how two equally skilled players ending a game in a draw is bad for chess in general. At worst, it has no effect. If it is a decisive game you want - then let each 'game' in a tournament be a series of games with differing time controls until a winner is produced. btw - boxing organizations are notoriously corrupt too but it does not mean the rules of boxing needs to be changed just the organization needs to be. Perhaps, chess is not being marketed properly but this does not mean the rules have to be changed. Also by definition if you change the rules you are creating your own game so why not just call it another game and stick with that?
Intellectual games does better in Germany, the low countries, and Asian countries such as Korea, Japan, China. They do terrible in the US. The only new abstract game to make headway here is Blockus. Look at the uptake of GIPF games and the Korean game 'cafes'. Some German bars are stocked with various abstract games. The key seems to be whether a game become a social past time. If games has this social aspect then they will be played much more widely. Go and Xiangqi in china was like that, and still is to a degree.
In regard to the 'intellectual games' aspect, our local mall had a GameKeeper store. Fantastic! I loved it. Strategy games upon strategy games... Donald asked me to see if I could get his Conquest in there... I tried but to no avail. Why? Possibly because the manager knew what I didn't, that GameKeeper was going to be short lived. It is no longer there. The near by Build-a-Bear store continues to thrive... it appears that there is a much bigger market for stuffed animals than there is for games that stimulate our minds.
Our group of CV players is a small group. A group with keen minds. It would be nice if we were larger in number... oh, I still think draws have virtually nothing to do with the relatively low level of interest. After all, Chess was very big in Russia and neighboring countries at a time when it had very little interest over in the U.S. So I think it is a cultural thing. I think the introduction of video games, for example, has robbed us of many potential chess and CV players.
How about having some 'mutator' scoring system or Rules that can be applied on top of just about any group of chess variants, and if the game hardly ever doesn't end in draws, but checkmate, then these extra conditions don't matter. But, if it is more prone to certain conditions, then the scoring system can handle these rare exceptions? It is good to design games that are less drawish and more decisive, but if you have a popular game that is more draw-prone, why not differentiate the quality of the draws and account for them appropriately. In other words, you don't just have set over all conditions that have the same score, but you have more granularity. They do this now in chess anyhow, awarding 1/2 point to each player on a draw, and 1 point for a win. This is two scores. Why do multiple varieties of draws (non-checkmate ends) have to all have the same score? A reason why I am discussing this now is look at normal chess. What you see is that the multiple varieties of draws are all worth the same 1/2 point for BOTH players. Add that to the defending champion retaining title on a tie in score, and you are going to produce draws. Anyhow, this also goes to the person arguing for stalemate staying in the game. I will say that is fine, but why should it score 1/2-1/2 for both players (count as a draw?). What did the player who was stalemated exactly do? They get a draw due to the bungling of the other player, which does nothing to advance the ending of the results? How about awarding the player who stalemated their opponent 1/2 point, but their opponent doesn't get any points? It still hurts to mess up like that, but still respects the stalemate as a gotcha someone can mess up on.
In regards to draws and so on, I am proposing as a starting discussion point the Shatranj Extended Tournament Scoring (SETS) Rules. They are here: http://www.chessvariants.org/index/msdisplay.php?itemid=MSshatranjextend Please comment regarding this. Perhaps this, Braves and whatever else is out there can come together to come up with an effective scoring system, which will deal with the draw issues, and provide a better measure for how people do in a chess tournament.
Draws in Chess would not optimally be expected to be as infrequent as a Deadheat in thoroughbred horse racing, occurring less than 0.5% of the time. Neither should we require several sudden-death ''extended times'' to get an outcome 95% the time. Infrequent Draws are to be tolerated. The right technique, i.e. Rules-set tack-ons, to reduce Draws to acceptable level (usually 1% to 10%) depends on the game. Draws in Rococo might benefit from the following novelty, entailing strict 100-move limit: if no capture of Rococo King by move 100, either player may declare ''DRAW'' precisely at that milestone. It would be brand-new Draw criterion never used before. Many CVs have not determined requisite mating material, especially those CVs never yet played, even by inventors. If no one knows minimum mating material, that standard has to be used with extreme caution.
George, I think your comment here is worth discussing: Many CVs have not determined requisite mating material, especially those CVs never yet played, even by inventors. If no one knows minimum mating material, that standard has to be used with extreme caution. I believe because a bunch of CVs wander into the unknown in regards to what is or is not suitable mating material, I believe this is all the more important why there should be some method in place to make sure that, in event there is a draw, that at least be some way to insure that the end result isn't 1/2 - 1/2 for both players, amounting to nothing. How about, based on the SETS rules, you have it so one player either gets the 1/2 point draw advantage or they pick what side they be? Player can forfeit the decision on what side to play in exchange for 1/2 point, or pick whatever side they choose and their opponent gets the 1/2 point for the draw. Some people may argue, 'But but, there may be a bunch of draws in the game, so this gives the player whomever takes the 1/2 point an unfair advantage.' To this, can I ask, what does this say about a game, if doing this gives a player an unfair advantage for taking the 1/2 point? If this is the case, how about making a win worth 2 points instead? In light of a win being worth 4 times as much as a draw, would someone still want to play for a draw?
25 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.