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 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.
Ok, so you have no interest in my variant. I have no problem with that.
But if your sole reason is what you posted above, that it is "not chess", that I have a problem with. Because the history of chess is a history of many rule changes, all of them "artificial" (the word you used in your previous post to denigrate any deviation from standard chess rules). Therefore chess should continue to be open to any and all rule changes that could possibly improve the game under current circumstances. If for you a set of changes doesn't improve the game, that is your opinion and I respect your privilege to have that opinion. But instead of saying it's "not chess", you could give more pertinent reasons that would show you aren't just closed-minded to any changes at all.
As for the "random construction by some guy", well yes, I am just some guy (for now). But it was far from a random construction. Notice that the problems with the Sofia proposal are being addressed. Players are not just being told to play on in drawish postitions. They are given a way to dynamically change those positions, in a way that demands extensive board vision and calculation.
I know, you don't care about any of that. For you, it's just chess as you've known it for most of your life. Then go and play that chess, but no need to insult someone who tries to take that game and improve it based on the current situation of too many draws, even if you personally don't believe in too many draws while many others do. If you must be critical, try and be objectively critical.
BTW, what is your opinion of S-Chess?
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
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?
You must just LOVE lotteries!
Nobody "deserves" to win or lose, so heck, let's just take all the lottery ticket proceeds and distribute them back to the ticket purchasers.
You should want to reduce chess draws because that's what spectators would want to see IF there were any non-chess-playing spectators. As I've said elsewhere, that change alone won't bring the spectators in, but it's a NECCESSARY component to any recipe that would bring spectators in.
If you couldn't care less about spectators, then think about what all serious chessplayers are striving to do. They are striving for chess perfection. And what would be the result if everyone achieved chess perfection? Endless draws. So then don't even record the results, just play chess for the sake of the "art" of chess.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
Ok, so you have no interest in my variant. I have no problem with that.
But if your sole reason is what you posted above, that it is "not chess", that I have a problem with. Because the history of chess is a history of many rule changes, all of them "artificial" (the word you used in your previous post to denigrate any deviation from standard chess rules). Therefore chess should continue to be open to any and all rule changes that could possibly improve the game under current circumstances. If for you a set of changes doesn't improve the game, that is your opinion and I respect your privilege to have that opinion. But instead of saying it's "not chess", you could give more pertinent reasons that would show you aren't just closed-minded to any changes at all.
As for the "random construction by some guy", well yes, I am just some guy (for now). But it was far from a random construction. Notice that the problems with the Sofia proposal are being addressed. Players are not just being told to play on in drawish postitions. They are given a way to dynamically change those positions, in a way that demands extensive board vision and calculation.
I know, you don't care about any of that. For you, it's just chess as you've known it for most of your life. Then go and play that chess, but no need to insult someone who tries to take that game and improve it based on the current situation of too many draws, even if you personally don't believe in too many draws while many others do. If you must be critical, try and be objectively critical.
BTW, what is your opinion of S-Chess?
well, I could point out that your variant, in the position you quoted (B+P vs opposite colored B+P) would take more moves than I can calculate (many 10s of thousands of moves, maybe millions of moves) to finish (and each position has to be checked for repetition...), I could point out that if I wanted to play something with a chess board with pieces that sort of moved like chess pieces with the possiblity of replacing pieces with low draw probability that I would just play Shogi, I could point out that substantive changes to the rules of play of chess renders 600 years or so of chess history and games obsolete and not understandible by players who know only the changed rules.
But fundamentally, I do not accept that there is any problem with too many draws. Part of that is I am only interested in the game as a person playing - I am not interested in making chess a "spectator sport" for the masses or in any aspect of "professionalizing" the game. Most of the people complaining of too many draws are idle spectators or those who feel it is necessary to have blood and gore to attract the uninitiated. Also, chess is a finely balanced game - it is reasonable for both sides to win. Part of that balance is that a draw is possible and is part of the logic of the game. And finally, whatever the issues are at the very top levels, they have absolutely no bearing at the level at which I play.
As with the rest of the world, I also play no attention to S chess.
You should want to reduce chess draws because that's what spectators would want to see
My opinion (for what it is worth) is that spectators want to see real and exciting fighting games. Does it really matter if some of these games are drawn in the end? Of course, spectators do not like short or pre-arranged draws... not because of the drawn result, but because there is no fight in these games.
think about what all serious chessplayers are striving to do. They are striving for chess perfection
Really? In any sports, like tennis, hockey, golf, chess, etc., serious players try to play as well as they can, but they are not striving for perfection, because of course this is completely unrealistic. Nobody can play perfectly. In chess, even the very best computers make big enough mistakes to lose from time to time when playing with each other.
And what would be the result if everyone achieved chess perfection? Endless draws.
In real life, when two chess players draw with each other, this is not because they played perfectly, far from it. This is because even though both players made several mistakes, none of them managed to take full advantage of his opponent's inaccuracies.
Last edited by Louis Morin; Tuesday, 11th September, 2012, 08:36 PM.
Are you saying that a player playing much better than his opponent in any given game does not deserve to win this particular game?
I was talking about lotteries. Go back and read what I wrote. I wrote that you must love lotteries, and then I wrote nobody "deserves" to win or lose (lotteries -- I guess I should have spelled it out for you). And yet, someone wins a lottery while millions lose, all due to the luck of the draw. This is a redistribution of wealth that has nothing to do with hard work or creativity, it has only to do with luck. Yet we all accept it. Therefore, we should be able to accept deciding occassionally deciding chess games by something approaching luck, just as hockey games can be decided by "shootouts".
My opinion (for what it is worth) is that spectators want to see real and exciting fighting games. Does it really matter if some of these games are drawn in the end? Of course, spectators do not like short or pre-arranged draws... not because of the drawn result, but because there is no fight in these games.
Studies have been done that show spectators in North America are not happy with ties or draws in any sport or contest. Hockey went to a shootout after doing some studies. Some people didn't like it, but most people did. That's what counts. In no major sport is a championship shared. There is always some mechanism to determine a winner, and that is what the fans want.
Really? In any sports, like tennis, hockey, golf, chess, etc., serious players try to play as well as they can, but they are not striving for perfection, because of course this is completely unrealistic. Nobody can play perfectly. In chess, even the very best computers make big enough mistakes to lose from time to time when playing with each other.
Serious chess players are striving to win or at least draw. They don't play to lose. In chess, winning or drawing involves pure skill. Therefore, they are striving for perfection. It doesn't matter if it's unrealistic or not, it's what every serious player strives for. If you don't understand that, you are not a serious chess player.
The fact that top computer engines still lose against each other doesn't negate the fact that they are much closer to perfection than humans. It just means that they are up against better competition: other top computer engines. It also exemplifies that the horizon effect has not yet been overcome. I believe that the constant increasing of computer power and speed will eventually result in top engines constantly drawing each other.
In real life, when two chess players draw with each other, this is not because they played perfectly, far from it. This is because even though both players made several mistakes, none of them managed to take full advantage of his opponent's inaccuracies.
Likewise when two hockey teams are tied at the end of 60 minutes. To appease the majority of fans who want to see a winner, they go to shootout, unless it's a playoff game, and then they play until one team wins by an overtime goal.
My proposal is basically a way of taking chess to "overtime". But it isnt' true what Roger Patterson thinks, that it could take thousands or millions of moves to decide a game under my proposal, because he missed that if 120 moves are played by both players, the game is declared a draw. But players won't want to have to play 120 moves to get a draw, so they will strive harder to win than they currently do.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
When two hockey teams are tied at the end of 60 minutes. To appease the majority of fans who want to see a winner, they go to shootout, unless it's a playoff game, and then they play until one team wins by an overtime goal. My proposal is basically a way of taking chess to "overtime".
Did you ever test your proposal in real games with real players? Does the draw ratio really decrease in a significant way? I don't think so.
Montreal Open Championship, section B, round 5 is about to begin. Six players are tied for first with 3½/4. First prize is $725. We are all willing to give our very best to win it. Shortly after the beginning of the round, one player blunders, so his opponent ends up with 4½/5 and at least a share for first prize. The remaining 4 players know that a draw is useless. And we tried, and tried so hard. Both games ended in draws anyway, because all 4 players were so eager to win. At one point I won a pawn in the endgame, but my opponent forced an exchange of rooks to win it back, and we were left in a completely drawish endgame with two pawns on both sides. We called it a draw at move 51. There was nothing to do.
Now let's suppose we play your variant. Rather than offering a draw at move 51, I drop a white queen on some square, and my opponent drops a black queen in such a way that I cannot win any material by force. Now what will happen? Do you know how boring and tedious can be queen endgames? So I check, check, check with my queen until my opponent forces an exchange of queens, and we are back again to this drawish pawn endgame... and I drop a queen, he drops a queen, check, check, check, we exchange queens, we drop queens again, check, check, check, and so on...
So did your proposal change anything? Yes it did. After move 51, the game becomes incredibly boring for the spectators (if any) and the players. And instead of a 51-move draw, we get a 120-move draw... because when a position is completely drawish, dropping a white queen and a black queen on the board is unlikely to change the outcome...
I spotted another weakness in your variant. If both players want a draw, absolutely nothing will stop them. Grandmaster Spraggett explained this very clearly on his blog. Some years ago, organizer Rentero did not want players to make short draws, so he made a special rule: no draws allowed before move 40. Grandmaster Spassky was determined to make draws anyway. So he made a dozen of them... ALL lasting exactly 40 moves!!!
With your proposal, just replace 40 moves with 120 moves. You think it is difficult, but it is not. When both players want a draw, they can play 120 useless moves very fast. But as you said, this is chess overtime... so exciting to watch for yawning spectators.
Last edited by Louis Morin; Wednesday, 12th September, 2012, 02:53 AM.
Did you ever test your proposal in real games with real players? Does the draw ratio really decrease in a significant way? I don't think so.
Montreal Open Championship, section B, round 5 is about to begin. Six players are tied for first with 3½/4. First prize is $725. We are all willing to give our very best to win it. Shortly after the beginning of the round, one player blunders, so his opponent ends up with 4½/5 and at least a share for first prize. The remaining 4 players know that a draw is useless. And we tried, and tried so hard. Both games ended in draws anyway, because all 4 players were so eager to win. At one point I won a pawn in the endgame, but my opponent forced an exchange of rooks to win it back, and we were left in a completely drawish endgame with two pawns on both sides. We called it a draw at move 51. There was nothing to do.
Now let's suppose we play your variant. Rather than offering a draw at move 51, I drop a white queen on some square, and my opponent drops a black queen in such a way that I cannot win any material by force. Now what will happen? Do you know how boring and tedious can be queen endgames? So I check, check, check with my queen until my opponent forces an exchange of queens, and we are back again to this drawish pawn endgame... and I drop a queen, he drops a queen, check, check, check, we exchange queens, we drop queens again, check, check, check, and so on...
So did your proposal change anything? Yes it did. After move 51, the game becomes incredibly boring for the spectators (if any) and the players. And instead of a 51-move draw, we get a 120-move draw... because when a position is completely drawish, dropping a white queen and a black queen on the board is unlikely to change the outcome...
------------------------
First Louis, I appreciate that we are having this discussion. Many people here would just rather not bother, and many of those same people will still post about the sorry financial state of chess and about how hard it is to keep talent playing and so on, ad nauseum. There are also those who just couldn't care about what ails chess, even though they play it and may even organize tournaments. So bravo for continuing to take the time to comment.
Now, to your points:
This is to me like saying that 2 tennis players who are very very good at groundstrokes are just going to hit the ball back and forth right to each other because it's the safest thing to do. The truth is, very quickly one of them goes for a corner or a line, knowing full well that there is a high risk s/he could hit wide or hit long and lose the point.
You are also saying that a drawish position with just King and two pawns on each side is JUST AS DRAWISH if each player could add a Queen, first one player then the other. I totally dispute that claim. The first player that could add the Queen would have a tremendous advantage. S/he will not only get to add the Queen first, s/he will get to move the Queen first.
While what you describe is possible, I believe it would be very very rare, and I'm meaning at the top levels, say Expert and above. In your B class and even in A class play, it becomes more likely beccause the two players could keep blundering away their advantages as you describe above.
But at Expert level and above, I believe this would be rare. With respect to Queen endings, I have a book on Queen endgames and it is about 1000 pages long. What you describe, checking and checking and checking until forcing a Queen exchange, is what 2 players who are ok with a 120-move draw would do. Even then, if one of them moves too quickly thinking s/he just wants to get the game done and over with, the chances for a blunder increase.
Secondly, if the 2 players know in advance that heading for a King and Pawn endgame is likely to lead them into a 120-move draw, then just like the tennis players not wanting to hit 120 strokes each in every point, one of them will at some point take a risk that s/he wouldn't take under the current rules. I don't think you fully understand the effects my proposal would have. Players would want to avoid draws AND DRAWISH MOVES like the plague.
To prove my point:
You wrote above that "And we tried, and tried so hard. Both games ended in draws anyway, because all 4 players were so eager to win."
I want you to post the game moves for at least one of these draws, or both if you like. I will analyze the game(s) and I will repost the moves with comments as to moves that COULD have been made that would have taken the game in a much less clear direction. No matter how risky you thought the moves actually played were, I guarantee I can find even riskier ones that would not be obvious blunders. I'll even put a number to it: I guarantee to find at least 6 such moves for each player. Although they might be losing, the fact they are losing won't be clear for several plys deep. Thus the moves that I suggest would be moves that even Expert level and above would consider playable IF s/he were striving for a win at all costs.
The reason I feel I can guarantee this is because I've been hot on the topic of playing risky chess for several years now. In fact, in my first year on this forum, I got into a good discussion with Hans Jung about this topic, how to bring more creativity into chess. However, only when I started seeing lots of threads here about draws (pre-arranged and otherwise) did I think about actually making a rule change proposal to discourage draws.
Not only will I guarantee those 6 moves per player, but I'll take the final position of each game and analyze it using my proposed rule changes. I guarantee I can find some line that at the very least makes the position much more unclear than the King and Pawn endgame was. I am pretty sure it will go in favor of the player who first can place a Queen. I would expect that 80% to 90% of the time, the first player to resurrect a piece will win, which means neither player will want to be the one to allow the other player to be first in placing a piece. Which means both players will take much higher risks during any phase of the game.
No I have not tried my proposal out, I only wrote it up a few weeks ago. Certainly it could have flaws, however I am firmly convinced what you mention is not one of them, i.e. we would not see lots of 120-move draws at Expert level and above, just like we almost never see a 120-shot tennis rally in an actual tennis match. Nevertheless this will be a good test, and maybe I'll find an improvement.
BTW, in my proposal, I should have made this clear: neither player can place a Pawn on either their 1st rank or their 8th rank. However, if no Queen is available to resurrect, a player with a Pawn available could place it on an empty 7th rank square provided it doesn't give check. Also, if a player already has a Bishop, resurrecting another Bishop must be opposite-colored square to the existing Bishop.
I spotted another weakness in your variant. If both players want a draw, absolutely nothing will stop them. Grandmaster Spraggett explained this very clearly on his blog. Some years ago, organizer Rentero did not want players to make short draws, so he made a special rule: no draws allowed before move 40. Grandmaster Spassky was determined to make draws anyway. So he made a dozen of them... ALL lasting exactly 40 moves!!!
With your proposal, just replace 40 moves with 120 moves. You think it is difficult, but it is not. When both players want a draw, they can play 120 useless moves very fast. But as you said, this is chess overtime... so exciting to watch for yawning spectators.
------------------------
First, I think you are forgetting about my change of the 50 Move Rule to a 20 Move Rule. It only takes 20 moves with no captures or pawn moves to allow one player to place a captured piece / pawn back on the board. So with that rule and the 3-time Repetition rule, there are going to be plenty of opportunities for resurrecting pieces.
Nevertheless you are correct in the respect that IF both player ABSOLUTELY want a draw and nothing but a draw, they can do it. Why would they do this?
It is like saying that there is a weakness in tennis or baseball because in both sports, a game could last theoretically forever. And in fact, two baseball teams who are intent on a tie can also arrange it. They can just decide to never score any runs. Why would they do this?
What you are calling a weakness in my proposal is only a REMAINING weakness -- a remainder of what we have now. I could also propose that stalemate triggers the ability to drop pieces and play on. And I could change 120 moves to 400 moves. Either of these would leave less of a remaining weakness than what I have proposed.
Finally, Louis, I think you need to recognize the competitive spirit. If what you wrote about Boris Spassky is true and he did it deliberately, he is IMO less of a competitor for it.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Suggestion by Susan Polgar regarding draws in chess
Actually, Paul, players need to work more on their drawing techniques. There comes a time in a game where a player realizes that barring an error the winning chances are gone and it's time to find the draw. That too is chess.
Playing teams, it's important for a player to "hold his board". Holding the board is either winning or drawing. If a player draws his game his team mates only have to finish +1 on the other 3 boards.
You are also saying that a drawish position with just King and two pawns on each side is JUST AS DRAWISH if each player could add a Queen, first one player then the other. I totally dispute that claim. The first player that could add the Queen would have a tremendous advantage. S/he will not only get to add the Queen first, s/he will get to move the Queen first.
OK, I dispute your claim. We don't have 8 pieces tablebases to study the situation described above but... we do have 6 pieces tablebases. Just try this:
White to move: king on e3, pawn on f4
Black: king on e6, pawn on f5
Now you can try whatever piece dropping you want for white, but black can ALWAYS drop a queen to secure a draw. I tried, just as an example, to drop a queen on d4, threatening to win the black pawn by Qe5+. Guess what? If you drop a black queen on ANY square where it is not threatened by white (careful with g8 and h6!) then you have a draw with white to move.
Basically, this example shows that it is almost impossible to change the outcome of the game with your variant. Some endgames are really that drawish... And the point is that there's hundreds of these positions where adding one piece on each side changes absolutely nothing, even with perfect play.
So your variant is, at best, a huge waste of our time...
Mathieu
Last edited by Mathieu Cloutier; Wednesday, 12th September, 2012, 03:26 PM.
So your variant is, at best, a huge waste of our time...
The ideal Paul Bonham game where you never have to accept a draw or even accept defeat already exist and he has been playing it for a while. It is called the "message board game". There one never has to draw or acknowledge defeat, and it is always possible to "totally dispute" any claim and make a counter claim, senseless or not.
The ideal Paul Bonham game where you never have to accept a draw or even accept defeat already exist and he has been playing it for a while. It is called the "message board game". There one never has to draw or acknowledge defeat, and it is always possible to "totally dispute" any claim and make a counter claim, senseless or not.
I learned that game from the master... you, Jean!
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
Back to the old grade-two level tactics, are you Paul?
It's hard to imagine how a mere 1700 player like yourself, who has no clue about what Master chess is really all about, has the answer that the entire chess world is supposed to adopt and love.
Thanks for the entertainment, though. If you decide to start a thread about how the moon really is made of green cheese, I'll be happy to be entertained by that too.
Sincerely, Troll (since that's the only thing you can think of to call me, I may as well take the fun away from that too ;))
No matter how big and bad you are, when a two-year-old hands you a toy phone, you answer it.
...how a mere 1700 player like yourself, who has no clue about what Master chess is really all about, has the answer that the entire chess world is supposed to adopt and love.
Yeah, that's right, a chess rating from many years ago is the best clue to whether someone can have a good idea for chess. Like a PhD in Computer Science is the best clue to who is going to build the world's most valuable technology company. Steve Jobs was just an exception to the rule.
Right back at ya, Trollster. :D
See, you can't even ruin my fun. Keep 'em coming!
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
Tweet
Comment