Making Draws in Chess Very Rare

[Tom O'Donnell]

Re: Making Draws in Chess Very Rare

If you do offer something, at least try and back it up. But I recall that you left off our last conversation without replying to my last and most revealing points, which kind of left you... grasping at air.

Ya, see when it comes to chess you are too ignorant to even realize you are ignorant. This tsunami of people leaving chess in droves for some Paul Bonham inspired chess is just a pipe-dream of yours. You provide absolutely zero proof that your game will even get off of the ground, so what is there to debate?

You will "win" every debate here because you appear to have unlimited time to post. Kinda strange considering you are supposed to be this computer genius and inventor/master strategist behind some new sort of game. I would have thought someone as remarkable as yourself would be spending his time more productively than debating the baboons on here. ;-)

[Bindi Cheng]

Re: Making Draws in Chess Very Rare

Paul,

You sir, are a hilarious and fantastic character. Why would I be offended by any of your remarks? It's like watching your favorite sitcom but with audience participation! I found most of your other posts fascinating and exhilarating. You think of all these fantastic ideas that most people wouldn't even dream of. It's better than the plot in most porn movies! I am kind of intrigued why all of a sudden you make references to me and my job-asking time several weeks ago. I mean I find it kind of odd that I would be asked my opinion of badass chess in an interview question. I don't think ANYONE's asked me that question yet! But if I were to rephrase my response, I would say that I truly and honestly deep down in my heart believe that the idea smells of dog crap. :(

I'm sorry Paul, I really tried to believe in your idea but in the end, I just could not see the logic of zombie chess. Anyways, seeing as you're currently spending a large portion of your adult life on this forum, I welcome a witty and informative response.

[Pierre Denommee]

Re: Making Draws in Chess Very Rare

I say fight draw as much as you can but please ensure that you are still playing Chess. Chess is a game with a list of unofficial champion going back to 1475 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Chess_Championship . There is a book that give a list that goes further back, but the rules were different.

Chess has an history and is the second most played game in the world after soccer. Nobody wants brutal changes to the rules of the game.

In the beginning, a draw was considered an unacceptable result and a second game was played. Only if this second game was drawn was a draw entered on the player pairing card.

Removing the right to get out of a bad situation with a perpetual check is a major change to chess rules, a change that I would not support. Actually, the real problem is when a perpetual check is used deliberately to circumvent any anti-draw mechanism. How to write the rules to clearly differentiate both is quite a challenge.

Do we have a short draw problem at high level? Yes we do. Can it be solved without denaturing the sport of chess? This is an excellent question that will have to wait another 4 years for the next Laws of Chess update.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Making Draws in Chess Very Rare

...
Actually, I don't believe that spectators not liking draws is a problem in chess. Should one randomly choose 1000 persons in the street and ask them if they would like to be spectators to a chess competition, and if not, why, I can imagine some of the frequent answers:

I don't play chess, and would not understand anything of what is going on.

Chess is too slow and boring. How could I possibly find pleasure in watching two guys staring at a board for 20 minutes and not making a single move?

When I watch hockey with friends, I like to talk and shout and applaud and eat hot-dogs and drink beer. This is something you cannot do in chess.
...

I would think the last two possible answers describe how many North American persons on the street (i.e. the many who would know the basic rules of chess) might reply. Or as Fischer once similarly alluded to, I suspect most North Americans still would prefer to sit and watch something light on TV, rather than think quietly about something as complicated and as normally time consuming as chess.

I would also think making the game way more complicated isn't likely to much decrease the large number of presumably excessively pleasure loving North Americans who would rather not play or spectate seriously. Even in the rest of the world, in which playing chess seriously is more popular, greatly increasing the complexity of the game is unlikely to increase its popularity much either, IMO.

My possible answers to popularizing competitive chess (in its current form) more in North America:

1) Try to get more chess education in schools (during and/or after school);
2) Try to come up with well thought out ideas for chess on TV, with gimmicks designed to keep the audience entertained even if they don't fully understand what's going on. If they continue to watch, they may pick up more and more chess rules and strategies. Especially if there is the odd instructional show or segment thrown in.

However, 1) is most likely to happen first, as 2) requires funds and/or personal connections (or else a great sales pitch to receptive ears).

I would throw in:

3) Try to get government funding or approval for 1) and 2)

but again personnal connections are liable to be needed, such as a chess playing/friendly politician.

[Gary Ruben]

Re: Making Draws in Chess Very Rare

Chess variants are like popcorn. There will always be more.

Here's a listing of variants and may or may not include all.

http://www.chessvariants.org/alphabet.html

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Making Draws in Chess Very Rare

...

When I watch hockey with friends, I like to talk and shout and applaud and eat hot-dogs and drink beer. This is something you cannot do in chess.

...

Actually, this or something similar (e.g. even kibitzing) can occur with the spectating of casual chess games, or at post mortems of serious games in skittles rooms, as we all know. :)

Chess club nights or events designed around purely casual chess games, if more common, could be a good way to bring more newbies eventually into the world of serious chess, as Tom O'Donnell has argued similarly in the past.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Making Draws in Chess Very Rare

Chess variants are like popcorn. There will always be more.

Here's a listing of variants and may or may not include all.

http://www.chessvariants.org/alphabet.html

Like Pierre alluded to, the standard game of chess as it currently stands has a long history, complete with its own culture/literature/folklore. Indeed for these reasons, and the fact that standard chess has excellently designed basic rules, it's no wonder no chess variant has yet displaced it.

I just hope FIDE doesn't mess around with standard tournament/playing rules too much, if at all.

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: Making Draws in Chess Very Rare

You're thinking would be totally wrong. Go ahead, give it your best shot. I don't think I'm perfect. I could even tell YOU some of my character weaknesses, I know what they are. But maybe you can surprise me with a new one.

Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Making Draws in Chess Very Rare

Hey, guess what? That's not from the post in which you called me a total jerk. You only said that after I pointed out your hypocrisy. Maybe you shouldn't ask people if they're reading what they're replying to when you can't do the same yourself?

It doesn't matter which post it was in, I still explained why I was calling you a total jerk. And if you want to get so technical, look again at the post where I called you a total jerk. The explanation is all in there. You just can't seem to fathom it.

Ok, so basically this is what you're saying:

Calling someone a total jerk = character assessment
Calling an idea retarded = being narrow minded

Nice double standard you got going on there. Once again: when you called me a total jerk, you gave NO EXPLANATION. Not very cool, dude!

Wrong. Dead wrong. For starters, I never said the "jerk" comment was a character assessment. Don't try those games with me, you will never succeed.

And again, in the post where I called you a jerk, the explanation is present. But since you can't see, here it is: I wrote, "all three of you -- Bindi, Jordan, Lucas -- are interjecting your typical Chesstalk venom into a subthread initiated by Louis Morin, who WAS, Lucas, debating this idea with me."

In other words, there was no call for Bindi to interrupt the discussion between Louis and I with a post in which he comments that the idea is retarded, with no explanation. And when I point that out, there is no call for you to jump in and defend him with (as I further explained in my next post) false, made-up logic.

If this was a moderated forum, all 3 of you would be banned. But Chesstalk is the wild west of forums, and I can live with that. I can take on all of you and defeat you with pure logic. Of course, in the wild west, pure logic is met with total disdain and disregard and that is simply the way it is. I can live with that too. I don't lie awake at night thinking, "Why can't these people see reason?" I know it's because there is no one to educate you.

"Maybe people don't want to debate it anymore because..." does not mean "Not a single person wants to debate it with you". It's a possible explanation as to why some people don't want to.

Wow, that is lame. Bill Clinton tried that tactic years ago by saying "Well, it depends on what the meaning of "is" is." No one was fooled, it became one of the most famous quotes of the decade. If you meant SOME PEOPLE, say SOME PEOPLE.

There is no question in my mind you meant all of the people, not just some of them. Of course, I expect you to protest, but your meaning was perfectly clear to me.

[Aman Hambleton]

Re: Making Draws in Chess Very Rare

I am

a

total jerk

and

my idea

is retarded

Duh!

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Making Draws in Chess Very Rare

Ya, see when it comes to chess you are too ignorant to even realize you are ignorant. This tsunami of people leaving chess in droves for some Paul Bonham inspired chess is just a pipe-dream of yours. You provide absolutely zero proof that your game will even get off of the ground, so what is there to debate?

You will "win" every debate here because you appear to have unlimited time to post. Kinda strange considering you are supposed to be this computer genius and inventor/master strategist behind some new sort of game. I would have thought someone as remarkable as yourself would be spending his time more productively than debating the baboons on here. ;-)

Tom, Tom...

Absolutely anyone can say "you are too ignorant to even realize you are ignorant". That is pure circular logic and holds no weight whatsoever. A debate moderator would call it out of order, and you know it. I know you know it.

You are somehow upset that I gave Bindi an honest character assessment based on his flip comment that my idea was retarded, no explanation needed. He has still provided no explanation.

Why are you upset at this? If you interviewed Bindi for a job and asked him what he thought of your company's product, and he said, "I think it's retarded", you would first of all make a note that he said that without providing an explanation. Then, of course your next question to Bindi would be "Why?" And you would expect a logical, reasonable response. If he didn't give that response, but remained silent, what would you write on your assessment sheet? I am very curious to know this, I hope you will answer it.

As for me having unlimited time for this forum... really? As it turns out, I spend very little time responding here between many other daily tasks, and I am a very fast typist and thinker (although this seems to be limited to putting thought into words, and never translated to chess: my speed chess was never speedy at all).

You are correct in one respect: I shouldn't even bother with these baboons (and nice that you label them as they deserve to be labeled). Maybe that is one of my character weaknesses, getting drawn into exchanges with the very idiots that Jordan erroneously thinks he is above.

Please do recognize that I have never guaranteed that a tsunami of chessplayers will leave standard chess for my game in 2013. The game itself is not a pipe dream, I only wish I could disclose some details to you. The response to it will be what it will be. I believe it will be eventually the vast majority of present chessplayers leaving standard chess, but I could be overly optimistic. It's hard not to be when others are telling you it's the best invention since... well, I won't even say, because I could just make anything up and it means nothing to you.

I never asked anyone to "debate" my new game, since I can't even release details of it. Perhaps you are thinking this BADASS chess is related to it, but it is not the case.

I'm not out to win every debate here, but rather to put out nothing but pure logic. Here on Chesstalk, winning is in the eye of the beholder. There is no definitive winning. Everyone here is a legend in their own mind, but with me its not about being the winner or a legend: it's all about logic. It turns out that logic can be tossed out with the garbage here. That's just the way it is, but still I get drawn into trying to use logic to educate the baboons.

You and I have agreed on many things in the past, and I don't want this little Bindi Cheng nonsense to change what I thought was a mutual respect. So if I've in any way offended you, I apologize.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Making Draws in Chess Very Rare

So that's your REAL girlfriend?

Yeah... skinny nerd chessplayer NBA wannabe...

[Lucas Davies]

Re: Making Draws in Chess Very Rare

[QUOTE=Paul Bonham;57514]It doesn't matter which post it was in, I still explained why I was calling you a total jerk. And if you want to get so technical, look again at the post where I called you a total jerk. The explanation is all in there. You just can't seem to fathom it.[QUOTE]


The explanation isn't there. You talk about Bindi, then randomly accuse me of interjecting venom into Chesstalk and call me a jerk. How is that an explanation?

Wrong. Dead wrong. For starters, I never said the "jerk" comment was a character assessment. Don't try those games with me, you will never succeed.

And again, in the post where I called you a jerk, the explanation is present. But since you can't see, here it is: I wrote, "all three of you -- Bindi, Jordan, Lucas -- are interjecting your typical Chesstalk venom into a subthread initiated by Louis Morin, who WAS, Lucas, debating this idea with me."

In other words, there was no call for Bindi to interrupt the discussion between Louis and I with a post in which he comments that the idea is retarded, with no explanation. And when I point that out, there is no call for you to jump in and defend him with (as I further explained in my next post) false, made-up logic.

If this was a moderated forum, all 3 of you would be banned. But Chesstalk is the wild west of forums, and I can live with that. I can take on all of you and defeat you with pure logic. Of course, in the wild west, pure logic is met with total disdain and disregard and that is simply the way it is. I can live with that too. I don't lie awake at night thinking, "Why can't these people see reason?" I know it's because there is no one to educate you.

Why exactly should I be banned? Have I insulted anyone in these posts? You go on and on about all of us are jerks, can't read, can't use logic, are uneducated, blah blah blah, but it's ME who should be banned? That's sure defeating us with pure logic there.

Wow, that is lame. Bill Clinton tried that tactic years ago by saying "Well, it depends on what the meaning of "is" is." No one was fooled, it became one of the most famous quotes of the decade. If you meant SOME PEOPLE, say SOME PEOPLE.

There is no question in my mind you meant all of the people, not just some of them. Of course, I expect you to protest, but your meaning was perfectly clear to me.

If I meant ALL PEOPLE, I'd say ALL PEOPLE. For your benefit, I Googled "people these days". Here are some results:

"What's wrong with people these days?"
"The problem with young people these days is..."
"Why do young people these days love partying?"

Now, let's examine. Is the first one asking "What's wrong with every single person on the planet these days?" No. Is the second one saying "The problem with every single young person these days is..."? No. Is the third one asking "Why does every single young person these days love partying?" No. I could give a thousand other examples like that.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Making Draws in Chess Very Rare

I like your idea to invent a new game. And your belief that it can become very popular, so popular in fact that many chess players would leave chess to play your game. But is it necessary to change the rules of chess itself? I don't think so.

Actually, I don't believe that spectators not liking draws is a problem in chess. Should one randomly choose 1000 persons in the street and ask them if they would like to be spectators to a chess competition, and if not, why, I can imagine some of the frequent answers:

I don't play chess, and would not understand anything of what is going on.

Chess is too slow and boring. How could I possibly find pleasure in watching two guys staring at a board for 20 minutes and not making a single move?

When I watch hockey with friends, I like to talk and shout and applaud and eat hot-dogs and drink beer. This is something you cannot do in chess.

But how many would say: "I like chess and would like to watch, but professional chess players make too many draws." In my opinion, not one in a thousand.

Concerning draws by stalemate and perpetual check, I really don't know why we should abolish them. After all, many exciting combinations lead to stalemate and perpetual check. Why abolish an exciting part of chess?

Personally, I don't like draw offers. In boxing, for example, even though both players may be afraid to lose and would like to end the match, they will never offer a draw, they need to play it out. I think it should be the same in chess, i.e. players no longer be allowed to offer draws. This alone would significantly reduce the number of draws. Still, I understand that even this very simple proposal would meet a huge resistance. So, imagine when you try to change the rules...

As I said, I hope you will invent your new game, and I hope this new game will meet success. But why not put all your efforts in this new game, instead of trying to change the rules of chess itself?

This is all good stuff, Louis. I have been saying that I'm just putting this out there, I'm not actually going to try and push it and get FIDE to change rules. I'm just putting it out there for people to think about.

You are correct about the spectators, HOWEVER, if you did some change to chess so that the spectators were coming in waves, then after a while, they would start complaining about too many draws. Right now, someone on the street wouldn't even know there are too many draws in chess. But give them a chance to spectate for a while, and they would notice, and most of them wouldn't like it. It's the same in all sports. That's why baseball has always had extra innings, even if it takes 2 days to finish a game. So what I'm saying is that EVENTUALLY, once you do have spectators, you need to reduce draws.

Also, about stalemate and perpetual check: we can still have exciting combinations that lead to those conditions. What my proposal changes is that those conditions end the game. Let's say in the Halprin - Pillsbury game, Halprin realized that he couldn't win with the remaining material on the board. Now he decides to reach the perpetual check condition, not to draw, but instead to be able to reinstate pieces and make the whole game much more unclear. He still might lose in the end, but there's more opportunity for him to win by Black making a mistake.

So stalemate and perp check are still there, but just not as ways to draw. Instead, they trigger the new rule.

Again, good points that you have brought up. Thank you for discussing this intelligently and without resorting to the usual Chesstalk nonsense.

Yes, I am and will continue to put all my efforts into the new game. Changing the rules of standard chess is for others to worry about. But my proposal is just to give people something to think about.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Making Draws in Chess Very Rare

[QUOTE=Lucas Davies;57521]

If I meant ALL PEOPLE, I'd say ALL PEOPLE. For your benefit, I Googled "people these days". Here are some results:

"What's wrong with people these days?"
"The problem with young people these days is..."
"Why do young people these days love partying?"

Now, let's examine. Is the first one asking "What's wrong with every single person on the planet these days?" No. Is the second one saying "The problem with every single young person these days is..."? No. Is the third one asking "Why does every single young person these days love partying?" No. I could give a thousand other examples like that.

You're going to use Google search results to back you up? HAHAHAHAHAHA! That's the Spirit of the Age! The Dumbed Down Age!

All of your examples can be taken as "all people" or "all young people". In fact, that is the way MOST PEOPLE would take it.

SAY WHAT YOU MEAN, MEAN WHAT YOU SAY.