Making Draws in Chess Very Rare

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Making Draws in Chess Very Rare

For people who wish to play chess on an 8x8 board and yet leave much of both standard opening and endgame theory behind, I can suggest the following. Combine Chess960 rules with Throne Chess rules, in that in a game of Chess960 an extra way to win, besides checkmate, would be for one's king to ever reach the home square of the opponent's king (the square would be according to the chosen starting position of the kings for a given game of chess960).

This variant might be known as:

Throne Chess960

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Making Draws in Chess Very Rare

For people who wish to play chess on an 8x8 board and yet leave much of both standard opening and endgame theory behind, I can suggest the following. Combine Chess960 rules with Throne Chess rules, in that in a game of Chess960 an extra way to win, besides checkmate, would be for one's king to ever reach the home square of the opponent's king (the square would be according to the chosen starting position of the kings for a given game of chess960).

This variant might be known as:

Throne Chess960

Kevin, I'm a bit surprised you've revived this thread, and that you're even talking about any new variant is a further surprise.

Personally, I'm getting interested in double-move variants lately. You probably saw my posting a few months ago on Double Move Chess, a name which I found out is already taken by a totally different variant, so I've changed the name to Option Chess (since making a double-move is always an option, and you only have a limited number of such options per game).

I've submitted a double-move variant called Binary Chess to The Chess Variant Pages (www.chessvariants.org/) although don't go looking for it there, it hasn't been put up yet.

But anyway, as to the Throne variants, I think they would tend to lengthen games or at least not shorten games, and the one thing I like about double-move variants is that they shorten games down to around 30 moves average (if you design it right). And I think that would be a very very good thing for organized chess.

On that topic, I saw this today from Jack Nicklaus talking about the latest trends in golf and it is very relevant:

"The (PGA) Tour is very healthy," he [Jack Nicklaus] said. "But the game of golf in itself has lost a lot of players - some five million or so regular golfers have left the game.

"We've lost 27 percent of women, and 36 percent of the kids in the last five years. Part of it is economy, part of it is the expense of the game, part of it is life has changed. People don't want to spend five hours doing something anymore.

"Nothing lasts longer than golf, unless you're playing a five-set tennis match, more than three hours or less. So you really need to play the game in three hours or less, that's what we need to be, and we're not there."

My emphasis added. Do you think this also relates to chess? I think Jack failed to consider chess when he said nothing lasts longer than golf.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Making Draws in Chess Very Rare

Hi Paul

I revived this thread as a low-key way to introduce my idea of Throne Chess (as opposed to starting a new thread just for it), not being sure that it was such a hot or fruitful idea. Also, Throne Chess might well significantly reduce the number of draws in chess, which is the main theme of this thread.

Games of Throne Chess (or Throne Chess960, for that matter) may last no longer than standard chess games on average, in terms of moves, I would speculate, in that many games would be over/resigned before the endgame. The endgame is where the Throne Chess rules way to win would be far more probable to occur (as far as the real time length of any sort of chess being too long, a fast time control, if deemed desirable by organizers, solves that issue, if it is one).

In fact, at least some Throne Chess variant endgames would end very quickly, if one side's king can simply race unopposed to the other player's original king's square.

Like I wrote earlier, many/most endgames would need to be reevaluated under Throne Chess rules. Some/many hopelessly drawn basic standard chess endgames would be won in Throne Chess, easily, even.

What I wonder about is whether some standard chess endgames that might otherwise be interesting might be abandoned as draws, if either side is afraid to let their king wander too far from its home (Throne) square, as the king as far as I can tell would be one of the more effective pieces at stopping the enemy king from reaching its goal.

Also, as you may be alluding to, some Throne Chess endgames might require some delicate/exact maneuvering to bring home a theoretical win, if one exists, and this could take a large number of moves (again this seems unclear to me, if not unlikely). However, on principle, as far as I would guess, adding another way to win a game ought to speed things up or increase the percentage of decisive games. I almost wish there was no way to agree to a draw, but Throne Chess doesn't pretend to solve that. Indeed, if there are several ways a game can be drawn, adding another way to win a game may not be so unfair to the spirit of chess.

Some basic Throne Chess endings I've thought about so far:

K vs. K: normally a draw, as long as one sides's king can guard its home throne square in time.

K & P vs. K: normally decisive (for one side or the other) unless the extra P is a centre or f-pawn and a defending king that can guard its home throne square in time also has the opposition.

K & minor piece vs. K: nearly always decisive (for one side or the other), unless the minor piece is en prise to start with, or the side with the minor piece has to guard its home throne square and has a bishop of the opposite colour to its home throne square.

[edit: I should have added to Throne Chess rules that a King cannot win by going to a Throne square if it puts itself in check, in case anyone wondered.]

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Making Draws in Chess Very Rare

Hi Paul

I revived this thread as a low-key way to introduce my idea of Throne Chess (as opposed to starting a new thread just for it), not being sure that it was such a hot or fruitful idea. Also, Throne Chess might well significantly reduce the number of draws in chess, which is the main theme of this thread.

Games of Throne Chess (or Throne Chess960, for that matter) may last no longer than standard chess games on average, in terms of moves, I would speculate, in that many games would be over/resigned before the endgame. The endgame is where the Throne Chess rules way to win would be far more probable to occur (as far as the real time length of any sort of chess being too long, a fast time control, if deemed desirable by organizers, solves that issue, if it is one).

In fact, at least some Throne Chess variant endgames would end very quickly, if one side's king can simply race unopposed to the other player's original king's square.

Like I wrote earlier, many/most endgames would need to be reevaluated under Throne Chess rules. Some/many hopelessly drawn basic standard chess endgames would be won in Throne Chess, easily, even.

What I wonder about is whether some standard chess endgames that might otherwise be interesting might be abandoned as draws, if either side is afraid to let their king wander too far from its home (Throne) square, as the king as far as I can tell would be one of the more effective pieces at stopping the enemy king from reaching its goal.

Also, as you may be alluding to, some Throne Chess endgames might require some delicate/exact maneuvering to bring home a theoretical win, if one exists, and this could take a large number of moves (again this seems unclear to me, if not unlikely). However, on principle, as far as I would guess, adding another way to win a game ought to speed things up or increase the percentage of decisive games. I almost wish there was no way to agree to a draw, but Throne Chess doesn't pretend to solve that. Indeed, if there are several ways a game can be drawn, adding another way to win a game may not be so unfair to the spirit of chess.

Some basic Throne Chess endings I've thought about so far:

K vs. K: normally a draw, as long as one sides's king can guard its home throne square in time.

K & P vs. K: normally decisive (for one side or the other) unless the extra P is a centre or f-pawn and a defending king that can guard its home throne square in time also has the opposition.

K & minor piece vs. K: nearly always decisive (for one side or the other), unless the minor piece is en prise to start with, or the side with the minor piece has to guard its home throne square and has a bishop of the opposite colour to its home throne square.

[edit: I should have added to Throne Chess rules that a King cannot win by going to a Throne square if it puts itself in check, in case anyone wondered.]

Kevin, I like your Throne Chess ideas, it would definitely add something to at least the endgame stage of standard chess.

Maybe you should submit it to The Chess Variant Page. They have a thing called Game Courier by which anyone interested in trying out a variant can play against like-minded opponents. I'd definitely give Throne Chess a try.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Making Draws in Chess Very Rare

Kevin, I like your Throne Chess ideas, it would definitely add something to at least the endgame stage of standard chess.

Maybe you should submit it to The Chess Variant Page. They have a thing called Game Courier by which anyone interested in trying out a variant can play against like-minded opponents. I'd definitely give Throne Chess a try.

The Chess Variants Pages website looks like it's gone dormant for some years now, judging by the dates I can see on some of its pages that I've checked. There is a more modern looking website that's run by one of the two guys that ran The Chess Variants Pages (i.e. David Howe), but I'm reluctant to submit a description of Throne Chess to it, if, to even send David an email, I'm forced to sign into a strange website I'd probably seldom visit, as I don't have much desire these days to even play standard chess by the Internet. There is also the disconcerting sign that you and I are the only ones so far who may think Throne Chess has any possible merit.

However I don't mind if someone else takes the glory and reports the idea of Throne Chess (or Throne Chess960...) to some such website sooner than I might care to. They could give me a plug as the inventor if they wish, and/or cut and paste appropriate parts of this thread into their report on Throne Chess.

[edit: a correction to my earlier post: a K+N vs. K can be a draw, if the side with the N must guard it's home throne square.]

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Making Draws in Chess Very Rare

Regarding my previous post, I just remembered someone I know who occasionally does Wikipedia entries. I sent them a private message asking if they'd consider writing up an entry for Throne Chess under Chess Variants on Wikipedia. Don't know if they'll agree, as for one thing this variant is totally untested afaik.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Making Draws in Chess Very Rare

Testing new chesstalk FEN diagram capability:



In Throne Chess, White to move wins (by heading his king towards the throne square e8).

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Making Draws in Chess Very Rare

A drawn basic Throne Chess ending:



White to move should only draw, as 1.Ke5?? loses by a tempo after 1...Kxf3 2.Ke6 Ke2 3.Ke7 Ke1 (perhaps this should be called "Thronemate" !?) 0-1.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Making Draws in Chess Very Rare

A won basic K+R vs. K+R Throne Chess ending



Based on some quickie home analysis, I'm guessing many/most Throne Chess endings with this material balance are draws. However, if the defending king is cut off far enough away, the superior side might be able to win, easily enough. In this position:

1.Kd7 wins, as White plans 2.Ke7 followed by 3.Rf1 and 4.Rf8 (or 3.Rd1 and 4.Rd8), when the White king will reach the throne square e8 one way or another.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Making Draws in Chess Very Rare

A won basic K+R vs. K+R Throne Chess ending



Based on some quickie home analysis, I'm guessing many/most Throne Chess endings with this material balance are draws. However, if the defending king is cut off far enough away, the superior side might be able to win, easily enough. In this position:

1.Kd7 wins, as White plans 2.Ke7 followed by 3.Rf1 and 4.Rf8 (or 3.Rd1 and 4.Rd8), when the White king will reach the throne square e8 one way or another.

It's too bad you can't devote some fair amount of time to this variant, because FIDE and the organized chess world need something that could be considered a "baby step" towards reducing the number of draws in top level chess. This is such a simple change, yet it totally expands the realm of possibilities. It almost feels natural too, the idea of taking possession of the enemy King's throne does seem grounds for victory even in the face of having an inferior army.

Anyway, it's good that somebody here is thinking chess variants. Look at how many variants of poker there are, and poker players are very welcoming of the good ones like Omaha, stud, razz, etc. Why do so many chess players think it can only be standard chess and nothing but? Could it be that we shouldn't have chess being taught in schools because it actually stifles creativity, represses tolerance, encourages elitism?

For the kids in chess, I don't think it does any of that, but once they get indoctrinated into the rigors of opening studies, endgame studies, tactical studies, they start thinking "this is the only way chess should be played" and any willingness to study variants goes out the window. But it's worse than that, because they somehow learn to actually ridicule variants and anyone interested in variants. I don't know for sure, maybe because the years of studying standard chess gets them thinking it's an elite game, and their interest in it and investment in it somehow makes them part of an elite. Although as I've said before, they are deluded in this: rather than an elite, organized chess is a cult, with all the trappings and restrictions imposed on and demanded of cult members.

This is why even chess960 cannot get any momentum. It is a threat to the cult. You may temporarily dabble... but make sure you return to the table of standard chess forthwith!

Kevin, I applaud you for somehow breaking away from this kind of thinking even if only to a very small degree, and this despite your long investment in standard chess.

On the other hand, poker players only need to study the math of probabilities, and there is certainly no elitism associated with poker. But poker does have its own issues since its luck aspect can cause a gambling addiction.

I guess people that are prone to addiction will get addicted, whether it is to the (cultism disguised as) elitism of organized chess or to the luck of the draw. The healthiest people are those that can stay outside of addiction even while participating in one or the other or both games.

There are quite a number of such people and they are a market that has not been properly addressed by either game, even to the point where they try both but feel that neither quite makes it as fully satisfying.

Sorry Kevin, didn't mean to divert things. I do love to think on these kinds of points, but all cult members just ignore me and return to the collective.

Bindi Cheng, I have some numbers for you:

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 1,573,144,097,507,348,889,600

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Making Draws in Chess Very Rare

Players of organized chess events might be thought of not so much as cult members, IMO. IMO, what happens to people coming into organized chess is more like a process of being assimilated into the ranks of the lovers of a specific artform, from which some deviation from the norm is common (e.g. many might play gambits, at least now and then [edit: or prefer blitz more often than normal time controls]), but less common for more radical deviation from the norm (e.g. playing variants like double chess).

At novice and class player level the desire for decisive games is quite common (one player not far from beginner level once responded to my suggesting a drawing line in some position with "that's no good"). Typically such newbies have seen books like "The Golden Treasury of Chess" and seek decisive (ideally brilliant/flashy) games. Later on, after someone at this level loses many tournament games, and rating points/cash, the possibility of a draw becomes a sort of comfortable safety net. It's one thing for a baseball team to lose a game, and have each other to comfort (or recriminate against, as the case may be), it's another for an individual to invest so many hours in one or more games of chess playing alone, and have little to show for it, other than additional experience. Plus, we all learn that a well played game of chess should be drawn, and can take comfort in that result as we advance in skill (not to mention gain a handful of rating points/cash at times).

True, this goes against the thirst for decisive results that typical North American sports fans have and expect, e.g. in baseball (where only exhibition games may be drawn), but then you sometimes hear "it's too bad someone had to lose" (plus, a decisive result means at least one mistake must have been made, which is not so artful, though it truly is sporting). I'm not yet sure of Throne Chess's tendency to produce more decisive games, but at least in Shogi (Japanese Chess) I seem to recall draws are supposed to be rare.

[edit: regarding comparing chess to poker, in the way of variants etc., as you point out standard chess requires a big investment of time to study, play and master - I would guess far more time than is the case for poker. Hence poker players are better able to master (and find the time to play) many more poker variants, in terms of time invested, than chess players can afford to do for chess variants, assuming they'd have the desire.]

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Making Draws in Chess Very Rare

It's too bad you can't devote some fair amount of time to this variant... This is such a simple change, yet it totally expands the realm of possibilities. It almost feels natural too, the idea of taking possession of the enemy King's throne does seem grounds for victory even in the face of having an inferior army.
...

What I might do, now that chesstalk seems to have blog capability, like the now similar CFC Discussion Board (though I haven't tested this new chesstalk capability), is to have a chesstalk blog devoted to (basic?) Throne Chess endings (or combos, etc.?) that I might study/play, especially if there seems to be plenty of interest in the idea, say in the way of responses to the chesstalk Throne Chess poll thread that I'm currently running. There's always the chance that at that point interest may snowball, or someone might improve on this proposed variant's rule(s). If someone beats me to creating such a chesstalk blog, good for them. :)

Besides seeing the end of the old Judit Polgar-Anand game I refered to in post #195 on page 10 of this thread, and having a light bulb go on, I must admit there were other, previous, seeds for the idea of Throne Chess. In an old king and pawn endings book I have, there is some discussion of the power of the distant opposition of kings, as far as reaching one square or else another on the enemy's back rank, in an acedemic bare kings setting that made me wish sometimes that a bare king could win, at least at times.

Plus, in the old Canadian chess variant called Bombalot, created (I think) by B.C.'s Bruce Harper and GM Duncan Suttles decades ago (1970s?), there was the winning idea of scoring two pieces of any type into the imaginary squares d9 and e9 (off an 8x8 board) as the victory conditions for White (with a similar idea for Black), but even though standard chess pieces were used, their powers and starting positions were generally very different than in standard chess. Regrettably I was very unclear on some uncommon(?) situations not explicitly covered by the rules for that variant that were published in a CFC Bulletin back in the 1970's, as otherwise it was a great game that even my non-serious chess playing brother enjoyed.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Making Draws in Chess Very Rare

I just posted my first chesstalk blog, as a test. It wasn't about Throne Chess though.

Unlike the CFC Discussion Board, the new chesstalk board doesn't appear to alert viewers to any blogs that may exist on the first page of chesstalk [edit: I mean for, say, the English Forum, which I saved as the way to get directly to one of my Favourite sites]. One needs to click on 'Blogs' near the top of the screen instead, for example.

[Ken Kurkowski]

Re: Suggestion by Susan Polgar regarding draws in chess

Classic example of the ambiguous headline (e.g. "Eats shoots and leaves") that can be interpreted as either:
``Making draws in chess IS extremely rare``
or
``HOW to make draws in chess extremely rare`` (obviously the author`s intended meaning)

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Suggestion by Susan Polgar regarding draws in chess

Classic example of the ambiguous headline (e.g. "Eats shoots and leaves") that can be interpreted as either:
``Making draws in chess IS extremely rare``
or
``HOW to make draws in chess extremely rare`` (obviously the author`s intended meaning)

I believe you mean it's Paul Bonham's suggestion that makes for an ambiguous headline (i.e. "Making draws in chess extremely rare").

P.S.: Kind of glad the spam posts in this otherwise dormant thread have been expunged by a moderator. However, by viewing who's online just now, I can see an obvious spammer (perhaps the same one, with a new, slightly more realistic alias) busy sharpening his/her teeth, e.g. making and modifying a Signature for themselves, in a comical attempt at camoflaging themselves as a genuine poster.