Making Draws in Chess Very Rare

[Gary Ruben]

Re: Making Draws in Chess Very Rare

One good point. He doesn't want to be a "yes" man.

Why don't you buy a Parrot? When you want the Parrot's opinion you can give him one you will like.

[Lucas Davies]

Re: Making Draws in Chess Very Rare

He (Bindi Cheng) called the idea "retarded" and just left it at that. So for starters, the work "retarded" is inflammatory and insulting. And for a kicker, this is coming from someone who spends probably hours a week playing a fantasy game that has all kinds of rules that someone who doesn't play chess could call "retarded". That's the pot calling the kettle black. It exhibits narrowmindedness, and refusing to back up the claim exhibits an unwillingness or inability to back up the opinion.

And this is just weeks after he (Cheng) apologizes to everyone he's insulted on this board in the past and begs them to hire him. Most employers want people with imagination, creativity, and the ability to make logical assertions that they can back up with logic. Sorry, Bindi doesn't qualify on any of those characteristics. And he would appear to be a troublemaker to boot.

Keep in mind that 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. I guess you failed to notice that. Duh!

All 3 of you are just total jerks. No other way to put it. Canadian chess is in a world of hurt, and we got these 3 amigos showing the general public a face that can only be described as hideous.

Jordan says I'm out of my league. No, I'm out of YOUR league, and I thank my lucky stars for that.

How exactly am I "interjecting venom" here? All I've done is state facts. Have I insulted anyone? All I've said is that nobody agrees with your idea, yet you persist with the notion that people need to debate with you if they want to disagree. You, on the other hand, have insulted people in this thread. So, how is it that I'm at fault here and you're the innocent one?

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Making Draws in Chess Very Rare

How exactly am I "interjecting venom" here? All I've done is state facts. Have I insulted anyone? All I've said is that nobody agrees with your idea, yet you persist with the notion that people need to debate with you if they want to disagree. You, on the other hand, have insulted people in this thread. So, how is it that I'm at fault here and you're the innocent one?

You are not "stating facts". You are twisting facts. You imply that I am calling Bindi narrow-minded and unwilling to support his views only because he disagrees with my idea. FALSE! I can handle anyone disagreeing with my idea(s). But when they use a word like "retarded" and don't offer any basis for it, that's narrowminded and shows an inability or unwillingness to reason logically. I call 'em as I see 'em, and I seriously would not consider hiring Bindi for any position that required creativity or logical reasoning, at least not until he shows us that he has either of those qualities.

You say I'm insulting him, yet if I had Bindi in for an interview and asked him (since he's a chess player) what he thought of BADASS chess and he responded the way he did here, I'd say exactly what I said here. It's not an insult, it's an honest assessment. Bindi better get used to it. It goes on every day in the business world. Maybe this will help him become a better person.

Then you say that no one wants to debate my idea. FALSE! Louis Morin was debating my idea and has been for some time. In doing so, he demonstrates the only open-mindedness I've seen on this site in a long, long time.

Meanwhile: troll, troll, troll, that's all you and Jordan and Bindi know how to do on this site.

[Bindi Cheng]

Re: Making Draws in Chess Very Rare

Lol Paul, you're hopeless. Even if you offered me a job I wouldn't take it from you. All you do is argue endlessly with everybody no matter how awful or wrong your points are. No one agrees with you. The players who actually play chess around here don't agree with you. The only person that agrees with your idea is yourself. You're stubborn, narrow-minded and obtuse. That's not a healthy working relationship. Additionally, I called your idea retarded, because it is. Notice that I didn't insult you but this idea of zombie chess that even George A Romero wouldn't touch. Look at how many posts are attached to this "innovation." I asked you to start a poll to see who actually agrees with you. Why didn't you just do that instead of blabbing on about?

[Lucas Davies]

Re: Making Draws in Chess Very Rare

You are not "stating facts". You are twisting facts. You imply that I am calling Bindi narrow-minded and unwilling to support his views only because he disagrees with my idea. FALSE! I can handle anyone disagreeing with my idea(s). But when they use a word like "retarded" and don't offer any basis for it, that's narrowminded and shows an inability or unwillingness to reason logically. I call 'em as I see 'em, and I seriously would not consider hiring Bindi for any position that required creativity or logical reasoning, at least not until he shows us that he has either of those qualities.

The word used has absolutely nothing to do with being narrow minded or not. In your previous post you call me a total jerk, but don't offer any basis for it. Does that make you narrow minded?

You say I'm insulting him, yet if I had Bindi in for an interview and asked him (since he's a chess player) what he thought of BADASS chess and he responded the way he did here, I'd say exactly what I said here. It's not an insult, it's an honest assessment. Bindi better get used to it. It goes on every day in the business world. Maybe this will help him become a better person.

So you're allowed to insult people and it's "an honest assessment" that'll help him become a better person, but when he calls your idea retarded, he's narrow minded and a jerk? That makes a lot of sense.

Then you say that no one wants to debate my idea. FALSE! Louis Morin was debating my idea and has been for some time. In doing so, he demonstrates the only open-mindedness I've seen on this site in a long, long time.

I never said that. I said that from what I can see, nobody agrees with your idea.

Meanwhile: troll, troll, troll, that's all you and Jordan and Bindi know how to do on this site.

Yeah, we know: you're perfect and can insult others because it'll make them better people, but nobody's allowed to respond negatively to you because that's trolling.

[Jordan S. Berson]

Re: Making Draws in Chess Very Rare

Oh look, Paul, you called me a troll again! Well it takes one to know one :D

Actually, this entire thread is quite comical... Keep it up, Paul, I'm sure you'll gain more notariety for your humour than for your ideas on how to solve a problem that doesn't exist with an entirely absurd idea.

Oh, and check the polls... You're losing badly.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Making Draws in Chess Very Rare

The word used has absolutely nothing to do with being narrow minded or not. In your previous post you call me a total jerk, but don't offer any basis for it. Does that make you narrow minded?

Can you read? I DID give you a basis for calling you a total jerk. "You are not "stating facts". You are twisting facts. You imply that I am calling Bindi narrow-minded and unwilling to support his views only because he disagrees with my idea. FALSE! I can handle anyone disagreeing with my idea(s). But when they use a word like "retarded" and don't offer any basis for it, that's narrowminded and shows an inability or unwillingness to reason logically." Does that look familiar? Did you read it? No, of course not.

If Bindi is insulted by this (which he himself hasn't claimed yet), my advice to him is to learn something from it. You don't go into an interview and when the interviewer says "We're making a software version of BADASS chess", you respond "Well, I think that's retarded."

Bindi has shown himself to type before he thinks, which only makes me wonder what it must be like to hear him TALK. Then he has to look like a fool and apologize to everyone he's insulted and beg them to help him find a job.

His success in life will be limited by that characteristic if he doesn't learn to stop and think before he speaks or writes.

So you're allowed to insult people and it's "an honest assessment" that'll help him become a better person, but when he calls your idea retarded, he's narrow minded and a jerk? That makes a lot of sense.

What you refer to as me insulting Bindi is not me insulting Bindi. It is me giving an assessment of his character weaknesses to show why I wouldn't hire him, those weaknesses being narrowmindedness and inability or unwillingness to back up his own assessments, which are inflammatory and given WITHOUT EXPLANATION. That is the difference, dude, I'm sorry you can't fathom it. I guess I wouldn't hire you either.

I never said that. I said that from what I can see, nobody agrees with your idea.

You said "Maybe people don't want to debate it anymore because it's a waste of their time?". Do you even read what you write? Or maybe Louis Morin, in your mind, doesn't count as "people"? Because Louis Morin WAS debating it, that's the whole reason this thread got revived. BUSTED!

[David Ottosen]

Re: Making Draws in Chess Very Rare

I am writing from the perspective that you want to make draws more rare because this will enhance the spectator appeal of the game. If that's not right, please clarify what the purpose of this rule change is.

I cannot say many games layman spectator appeal is enhanced by making the rules and strategies more complicated and difficult to understand. I do not believe this would be the exception. Adding additional layers to the decision making process (will this piece be resurrected, where will it come back, can I survive until then) will only make the game more difficult for observers to understand what is going on.

The enjoyment in spectator sports is in part taking sides, giving opinions, and being able to "put yourself in their place". This is why poker on TV took off after hole card cams; there can be any amount of money on the table, but if you don't see the cards and can't follow along, it's not interesting and people don't watch it. This is also why ESPN refuses to broadcast any kind of game other than No limit hold'em - your average casual viewer doesn't understand whether or not the guy on the screen should play KKT3 with one suit in Omaha 8, so he doesn't watch.

I can see a chance that experienced players might find this interesting as it does have some ways to change decision points during the earlier part of the game for much longer term reasons.

[Tom O'Donnell]

Re: Making Draws in Chess Very Rare

What you refer to as me insulting Bindi is not me insulting Bindi. It is me giving an assessment of his character weaknesses to show why I wouldn't hire him, those weaknesses being narrowmindedness and inability or unwillingness to back up his own assessments, which are inflammatory and given WITHOUT EXPLANATION. That is the difference, dude, I'm sorry you can't fathom it. I guess I wouldn't hire you either.

I wonder how much you would appreciate a character assessment. I'm thinking you wouldn't like it much.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Making Draws in Chess Very Rare

I wonder how much you would appreciate a character assessment. I'm thinking you wouldn't like it much.

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.

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. So I don't hold out hope that, if you tell me I'm something I'm not and I start debating, that you'll hang in for long. Well, at least not without resorting to the Chesstalk out, which is to just say I'm "retarded".

[Louis Morin]

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

Spectators not liking draws is something we SHOULD pay attention to if we care about the future of organized chess. Or I should say, if we care about the GROWTH of organized chess.

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?

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Making Draws in Chess Very Rare

I am writing from the perspective that you want to make draws more rare because this will enhance the spectator appeal of the game. If that's not right, please clarify what the purpose of this rule change is.

I cannot say many games layman spectator appeal is enhanced by making the rules and strategies more complicated and difficult to understand. I do not believe this would be the exception. Adding additional layers to the decision making process (will this piece be resurrected, where will it come back, can I survive until then) will only make the game more difficult for observers to understand what is going on.

The enjoyment in spectator sports is in part taking sides, giving opinions, and being able to "put yourself in their place". This is why poker on TV took off after hole card cams; there can be any amount of money on the table, but if you don't see the cards and can't follow along, it's not interesting and people don't watch it. This is also why ESPN refuses to broadcast any kind of game other than No limit hold'em - your average casual viewer doesn't understand whether or not the guy on the screen should play KKT3 with one suit in Omaha 8, so he doesn't watch.

I can see a chance that experienced players might find this interesting as it does have some ways to change decision points during the earlier part of the game for much longer term reasons.

Thanks, David, for some very instructive and intuitive points.

The first purpose is of course to make draws in the organized standard chess world rarer -- much rarer. That does envision this as the new standard chess, not a variant. And of course, I do realize that the liklihood of that happening is in the neighborhood of seeing an alien mothership on the White House lawn. I present it as something to think about, not as something I am going to personally push for.

However, the purpose of making draws much rarer is not PRIMARILY to increase spectator appeal, but rather to totally eliminate agreed and non-fighting draws, which is a constant issue in organized standard chess currently, and to do it in a way that adds creativity and dynamism to the game. We could just do as the French are trying and ban agreed draws, but that doesn't stop any 2 players from just trading off all their pieces until no mating material is left.

I do believe less draws is a favorable influence on spectator appeal, but your point about adding complication is well taken. Therefore I have posted repeatedly that this change alone will NOT increase spectator appeal.

As an aside, I have spent almost 7 years studying what exactly WOULD increase spectator appeal to organized standard chess. My early conclusion that I've stuck with is that there is no way to significantly increase spectator appeal to standard chess WITHOUT SIGNIFICANTLY CHANGING STANDARD CHESS. Since this will not happen, standard organized chess is doomed to the status quo at best, or maybe some marginal improvement.

My 7 years of study has produced a new game entirely of my invention that will incorporate standard chess as an element (although not without one major change). This game will come out in 2013, and it will not have the word "chess" in its name. This game will attract standard chessplayers because their skills will be very significant in determining outcomes, but also because there is a random element that makes outcomes less predictable than in chess. This in turn will result in poker-like spectator interest, TV interest, and consequentially, poker-like payoffs. The random element is nothing as simple as rolling dice or spinning a wheel to see which piece you can move. Again, I've spent 7 years going over this and determining all the elements that make up successful spectator games and sports. The rules have been tested, refined, and finalized except for one remaining question.

That's about all I can say on that for now. Getting back to BADASS chess: David, given that we can eliminate for now effects on spectator appeal, do you think this could represent a legitimate and interesting way to achieve the purpose of eliminating agreed and non-fighting draws in a way that adds creativity and dynamism to the game?

Louis Morin made some interesting points too: this would change endgame assessments altogether. If it were ever to be adopted as the new standard chess, then all references to chess history would have to notate which era, pre- or post-BADASS rules, was in effect.

[David Ottosen]

Re: Making Draws in Chess Very Rare

David, given that we can eliminate for now effects on spectator appeal, do you think this could represent a legitimate and interesting way to achieve the purpose of eliminating agreed and non-fighting draws in a way that adds creativity and dynamism to the game?

It's one way to do it, but there are many simpler ways; add a new piece, expand the board size, whatever. I do think, though, that if two players want to have a draw, they will find a way to do so, and if your variant allows for draws in any manner, players who want to prearrange draws will still do so.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Making Draws in Chess Very Rare

It's one way to do it, but there are many simpler ways; add a new piece, expand the board size, whatever. I do think, though, that if two players want to have a draw, they will find a way to do so, and if your variant allows for draws in any manner, players who want to prearrange draws will still do so.

True. I should mention that I've revised the proposal to make stalemate and no mating material also trigger the reinstate pieces rule. So now the ONLY way to draw is to play 120 plies each, and the TD will examine the scoresheets to make sure there isn't any constant repeating of moves. Of course, both players COULD go so far as to prearrange all the moves or prearrange a cycle of moves that the TD might miss as a pattern. But really, if chess players are THAT desperate for a draw, it says something about their mentality and lack of chess machismo. Eventually the players would learn to play to win.

[Lucas Davies]

Re: Making Draws in Chess Very Rare

Can you read? I DID give you a basis for calling you a total jerk. "You are not "stating facts". You are twisting facts. You imply that I am calling Bindi narrow-minded and unwilling to support his views only because he disagrees with my idea. FALSE! I can handle anyone disagreeing with my idea(s). But when they use a word like "retarded" and don't offer any basis for it, that's narrowminded and shows an inability or unwillingness to reason logically." Does that look familiar? Did you read it? No, of course not.

If Bindi is insulted by this (which he himself hasn't claimed yet), my advice to him is to learn something from it. You don't go into an interview and when the interviewer says "We're making a software version of BADASS chess", you respond "Well, I think that's retarded."

Bindi has shown himself to type before he thinks, which only makes me wonder what it must be like to hear him TALK. Then he has to look like a fool and apologize to everyone he's insulted and beg them to help him find a job.

His success in life will be limited by that characteristic if he doesn't learn to stop and think before he speaks or writes.

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?

What you refer to as me insulting Bindi is not me insulting Bindi. It is me giving an assessment of his character weaknesses to show why I wouldn't hire him, those weaknesses being narrowmindedness and inability or unwillingness to back up his own assessments, which are inflammatory and given WITHOUT EXPLANATION. That is the difference, dude, I'm sorry you can't fathom it. I guess I wouldn't hire you either.

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!

You said "Maybe people don't want to debate it anymore because it's a waste of their time?". Do you even read what you write? Or maybe Louis Morin, in your mind, doesn't count as "people"? Because Louis Morin WAS debating it, that's the whole reason this thread got revived. BUSTED!

"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.