If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Policy / Politique
The fee for tournament organizers advertising on ChessTalk is $20/event or $100/yearly unlimited for the year.
Les frais d'inscription des organisateurs de tournoi sur ChessTalk sont de 20 $/événement ou de 100 $/année illimitée.
You can etransfer to Henry Lam at chesstalkforum at gmail dot com
Transfér à Henry Lam à chesstalkforum@gmail.com
Dark Knight / Le Chevalier Noir
General Guidelines
---- Nous avons besoin d'un traduction français!
Some Basics
1. Under Board "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) there are 3 sections dealing with General Forum Usage, User Profile Features, and Reading and Posting Messages. These deal with everything from Avatars to Your Notifications. Most general technical questions are covered there. Here is a link to the FAQs. https://forum.chesstalk.com/help
2. Consider using the SEARCH button if you are looking for information. You may find your question has already been answered in a previous thread.
3. If you've looked for an answer to a question, and not found one, then you should consider asking your question in a new thread. For example, there have already been questions and discussion regarding: how to do chess diagrams (FENs); crosstables that line up properly; and the numerous little “glitches” that every new site will have.
4. Read pinned or sticky threads, like this one, if they look important. This applies especially to newcomers.
5. Read the thread you're posting in before you post. There are a variety of ways to look at a thread. These are covered under “Display Modes”.
6. Thread titles: please provide some details in your thread title. This is useful for a number of reasons. It helps ChessTalk members to quickly skim the threads. It prevents duplication of threads. And so on.
7. Unnecessary thread proliferation (e.g., deliberately creating a new thread that duplicates existing discussion) is discouraged. Look to see if a thread on your topic may have already been started and, if so, consider adding your contribution to the pre-existing thread. However, starting new threads to explore side-issues that are not relevant to the original subject is strongly encouraged. A single thread on the Canadian Open, with hundreds of posts on multiple sub-topics, is no better than a dozen threads on the Open covering only a few topics. Use your good judgment when starting a new thread.
8. If and/or when sub-forums are created, please make sure to create threads in the proper place.
Debate
9. Give an opinion and back it up with a reason. Throwaway comments such as "Game X pwnz because my friend and I think so!" could be considered pointless at best, and inflammatory at worst.
10. Try to give your own opinions, not simply those copied and pasted from reviews or opinions of your friends.
Unacceptable behavior and warnings
11. In registering here at ChessTalk please note that the same or similar rules apply here as applied at the previous Boardhost message board. In particular, the following content is not permitted to appear in any messages:
* Racism
* Hatred
* Harassment
* Adult content
* Obscene material
* Nudity or pornography
* Material that infringes intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party
* Material the posting of which is tortious or violates a contractual or fiduciary obligation you or we owe to another party
* Piracy, hacking, viruses, worms, or warez
* Spam
* Any illegal content
* unapproved Commercial banner advertisements or revenue-generating links
* Any link to or any images from a site containing any material outlined in these restrictions
* Any material deemed offensive or inappropriate by the Board staff
12. Users are welcome to challenge other points of view and opinions, but should do so respectfully. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Posts and threads with unacceptable content can be closed or deleted altogether. Furthermore, a range of sanctions are possible - from a simple warning to a temporary or even a permanent banning from ChessTalk.
Helping to Moderate
13. 'Report' links (an exclamation mark inside a triangle) can be found in many places throughout the board. These links allow users to alert the board staff to anything which is offensive, objectionable or illegal. Please consider using this feature if the need arises.
Advice for free
14. You should exercise the same caution with Private Messages as you would with any public posting.
I find it funny how it's always the weaker players (sub 2000) who complain about too many draws on the top level, while the top level chess players never say anything about it. Did you see the Onischuk - Karjakin game from today? You think it's fair to ask them to play that position out another 50 moves? Draws happen in chess and if you ban them, good luck attracting Grandmasters to your tournaments. If you've read any serious chess book, the best piece of advice that any self-respecting author gives is to play a position with no or little risk. If you take away draws, say goodbye to 90% of the openings out there.
Bindi, I haven't seen the game you are talking about, but it wouldn't be a case of playing out a drawn position for 50 moves. It would be a case of each player being able to resurrect a captured piece, first one player then the other, to dynamically change the board position. Each player must assess the entire board to try and determine how the game can be changed. It's a whole new train of calculations, and it becomes part of the strategy and tactics of the game.
Keep in mind that chess as it is now is generally a slow reduction of pieces on the board. If no one gains an initiative and turns it into a routine win, eventually the game degenerates into an unwinnable position.
Drawish openings could still be played. Some players would be afraid of this rule and would avoid drawish openings, because they would find out that they aren't very good at calculating the possibilities when pieces can be added back to the board at any time (occurence of 3-time repetition, occurence of 20-move rule which is same as current 50-move rule). But other players would favor playing drawish openings and heading for a drawish endgame because they would consider themselves good at handling the resurrection of chess pieces.
I saw on another thread someone excited about a game in the Olympiad played by Nakamura, I believe, or maybe it was Hansen. The poster commented how exciting it was that the winner even got to play an underpromotion.
The reason I mention this is because underpromotion is quite an esoteric rule. If that rule didn't exist, even the person who was excited at seeing it happen might respond to someone who proposed it as a new rule: "Oh, that's absurd! A pawn should always promote to a Queen!"
Do you see my point? A rule that could be considered absurd can also be a rule that makes for an exciting game!
Yes, I agree with you about Grandmasters. For most of them, drastically reducing draws would make their easy life of playing "positions with no to little risk" above all else more difficult. But if () FIDE were to make such a rule universal in chess, then tough beans for those Grandmasters.
I feel sorry for you, Bindi, it sounds like what lies ahead of you is countless wasted hours playing draw after draw after draw. Get away from that while you're still young!
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
the problem with Sofia rules or just banning draw offers is illustrated by the following game which occurs in my database over 200 times:
GM A vs GM B
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4 Bc6 dc 5. O-O Bg4 6. h3 h5 7. c3 Qd3 8. hg hg 9. Ne5 Bd6 10. Nd3 Bh2+ 1/2-1/2
Many more games of this type can easily be found - not to mention the infamous Huebner-Rogoff game. Moreover, the idea of banning draws before move n has been tried before. My memory is fuzzy on the details but I believe in the early 1970s, this rule was common and eventually abandoned because of games like the one above. (someone who is historically minded can perhaps dig up what period and precise rules were used).
Of course, from my perspective, there is no draw problem to be solved. My only problem is to avoid tournaments where artificial changes to the rules are being imposed.
the problem with Sofia rules or just banning draw offers is illustrated by the following game which occurs in my database over 200 times:
GM A vs GM B
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4 Bc6 dc 5. O-O Bg4 6. h3 h5 7. c3 Qd3 8. hg hg 9. Ne5 Bd6 10. Nd3 Bh2+ 1/2-1/2
Many more games of this type can easily be found - not to mention the infamous Huebner-Rogoff game. Moreover, the idea of banning draws before move n has been tried before. My memory is fuzzy on the details but I believe in the early 1970s, this rule was common and eventually abandoned because of games like the one above. (someone who is historically minded can perhaps dig up what period and precise rules were used).
Of course, from my perspective, there is no draw problem to be solved. My only problem is to avoid tournaments where artificial changes to the rules are being imposed.
Where do you find tournaments where castling and en passant are not being imposed? Aside from the rest of the rules which are all artificial.
In the game you've given or any other with what seems perpetual check, the TC would not allow the draw under my changes. The TD, upon the 3-time repetition having just occurred (which in your game above would be with Black's Bishop on d6 and White's King having just moved back to g1), would force Black to place one of his captured pieces back on the board without giving check. Black could put his captured Queen on h4, threatening immediate mate on h2 or h1. White would have a choice of putting his captured pawn or Bishop on h3 to stop the mate. Black could then play hxg3 and should have a winning advantage. This would all have to be considered by White before allowing this whole variation.
One thing that chess players should think about is that major sports do very often change rules in response to changing conditions. As an example, hockey has moved blue lines and goal lines in an attempt to open up the offensive side, in response to too many low-scoring games. Should chess be completely static? I for one don't believe so.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
When was your last tournament? How many draws did you make?
Did all Olympiad games end in draws on top boards? (Nevermind USA-Russia with 2-0, the game between the top rated players was decisive too.)
One thing that chess players should think about is that major sports do very often change rules in response to changing conditions. As an example, hockey has moved blue lines and goal lines in an attempt to open up the offensive side, in response to too many low-scoring games. Should chess be completely static? I for one don't believe so.
When major sports change or add rules of that nature, it's to increase ticket sales. That's an issue that not a single chess federation in the world has a problem with.
Jordan
No matter how big and bad you are, when a two-year-old hands you a toy phone, you answer it.
In the game you've given or any other with what seems perpetual check, the TC would not allow the draw under my changes. One thing that chess players should think about is that major sports do very often change rules in response to changing conditions.
I just played in the Montreal Open Championship, scoring three wins and two draws in section B. Should I be ashamed of my two draws? I don't think so. The games were very contested and among the last to end. We tried incredibly hard but simply couldn't beat each other. I think this kind of fighting draw amounts for more than 90% of all draws and is very rewarding for both players. When nobody deserves to win or to lose, it's a draw. Why should we want to change that?
In the game you've given or any other with what seems perpetual check, the TC would not allow the draw under my changes. .
I was explicitly referring to the post linking to to Polgar's blog. I have no interest in your variant.
The basic problem with your variant is that it is not chess. If I want another game that doesn't have draws I'll take up Go or Parcheesi, not some random construction by some guy.
Those are the basic rules of chess, which precede all organised chess federations, and are therefore not "artificial".
So exactly what are you saying: that all pre-organised chess federation rules were handed down to us by Gods? You might want to consider some chess history, that both en passant and castling were added by HUMANS in response to flaws with the rules at the time. Or wait... it's so far back in time... maybe they were added by the Obelisk that taught cavemen how to play chess in the first place... if only Stanley Kubrick were still alive, he could tell us...
The point is, for you and Roger and anyone else who complains about "artificial" rules, all rules of all games are artificial and as such should be subject to change. For 2 reasons: because man is not perfect and nothing man concocts is perfect, and because game flaws can be exposed as more people play it and adapt to the current set of rules. If you're going to allow 2 players to agree on a draw at any time during the game, then be prepared for draws after even just 1 move.
When major sports change or add rules of that nature, it's to increase ticket sales. That's an issue that not a single chess federation in the world has a problem with.
Jordan
Ergo... !!!
Closed-minded people....
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
No need to mention your closed-mindedness about draws then, right?
Jordan
If I were close-minded about draws, I wouldn't want to have any at all. But my proposal allows for some draws to occur. I'm not saying eliminate them altogether, I'm saying let's reduce them to a small fraction of the games.
I'm open-minded enough to see that organised chess has problems and needs changes to address those problems. There are plenty of others on this site who post over and over about the problems, and don't come up with any proposals at all except ones that have been tried in the past with little to no result.
And then there are the ones who can't even fathom that there are problems. Chess must remain just as it is!
I'm even open-minded enough to say, ok, for those people, chess can remain as it is. Let them have their "standard classical chess". We'll do the Coke thing and call it "Chess Classic".
But I for one will be taking advantage of an opportunity. Chess is a gold mine for those that can see past the forest of close-minded people.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
Tweet
If they take away draws will they
In Europe the bye is a round zero.
Comment