Making Draws in Chess Very Rare

[Bindi Cheng]

Re: Making Draws in Chess Very Rare

I also out of date on it but for grades one to six, I thought it was called Social studies and then in 7 split into history and geography.

Education is provincial so I suppose the provinces can teach what they want in the curriculum for any course.

Maybe they should drop French classes and replace that with chess. It doesn't really matter what people call the pieces because they can always communicate in numeric notation (International notation). :)

http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curricu...dies18curr.pdf

Agree with the french. French class SUCKED. I only hope they don't replace french class with teaching the french opening. That'll be worse for the development of kids.

[Gary Ruben]

Re: Making Draws in Chess Very Rare

Agree with the french. French class SUCKED. I only hope they don't replace french class with teaching the french opening. That'll be worse for the development of kids.

When I took it the teacher did Parisian French. There was a large French speaking section in Winnipeg back then and may still be, (St. Boniface) so it was a reasonable course.

Personally, I think the French Winawer defense should be banned. A 2400 player trying to defeat a 2700 player with the Winawer is like a herring trying to eat a shark. :)

[Louis Morin]

Re : Making Draws in Chess Very Rare

instead of a 3 time repetition (including via perpetual check) giving a player a chance to claim a draw, make it trigger a new rule. The new rule says: upon 3 time repetition having just occurred, the player on the move shall have the right to take any one of his / her captured pieces and place it on the board, on any empty square provided that it does not give check to the opposing King. This shall constitute that player's move. The opposing player, who now is on the move, has the right to respond with the same type of move: taking one of his / her captured pieces and placing it on the board on any empty square provided it does not give check to the opposing King. Once these two moves are completed, play continues as normal

I suggest you take a look at this game. Halprin against Pillsbury. A virtually unknown master against one the very best players of his time.

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1100195

This is a 24-move draw. It ended in perpetual check.

Question #1: Is it really possible that anyone watching such an amazing game would find it dull and boring because it is a short draw?

White sacrificed a pawn. then another pawn. Then a knight. Then the exchange. Then a bishop. And then... :(horror... it is a draw because of perpetual check.

According to your rules, instead of claiming a draw at move 24, White should drop a rook anywhere, then Black should drop any minor piece (my guess is that a knight on f7 would do the trick), and then White should resign because he is 2 pieces and 2 pawns down for nothing.

Question #2: Would it be fair to deny poor Halprin his magical draw against the great Pillsbury?

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Re : Making Draws in Chess Very Rare

I suggest you take a look at this game. Halprin against Pillsbury. A virtually unknown master against one the very best players of his time.

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1100195

This is a 24-move draw. It ended in perpetual check.

Question #1: Is it really possible that anyone watching such an amazing game would find it dull and boring because it is a short draw?

Louis, I thought you had stopped our interesting thread once you found out my proposal was meant to change the rules of chess itself, not merely to have a new variant. Kudos to you for continuing to pursue good lines of questioning about my proposal. You (and only you, it seems) must find something in it that you like?

It's also fascinating that a game from 1900 is being used to bring up these questions. Almost no one plays that kind of chess any more. Chess has become much more technical, much more a game of find-a-mininiscule-advantage-and-go-with-that.

Anyway, it does seem there is still a misinterpretation of some kind. I would agree with you that the game you've submitted would NOT be found dull and boring by any spectator. I never claimed that every short draw is dull and boring.

What I'm arguing is that every game, except a rare few that would just drag on forever even under my proposal, should be decided one way or the other. This is what spectators and followers want. They don't wan't ties or draws. The NHL realized this and went with 5-minute overtimes and followed that with shootouts. Now only the fewest of games end tied. Those changes would not have been made frivolously, they were likely triggered by increasing parity of teams and too many ties (in the view of the paying customers).

The means of deciding what appear to be even or hard-fought games should be exciting to the spectators and players alike. The point is to add dynamism to the game in addition to reducing draws dramatically.

White sacrificed a pawn. then another pawn. Then a knight. Then the exchange. Then a bishop. And then... :(horror... it is a draw because of perpetual check.

According to your rules, instead of claiming a draw at move 24, White should drop a rook anywhere, then Black should drop any minor piece (my guess is that a knight on f7 would do the trick), and then White should resign because he is 2 pieces and 2 pawns down for nothing.

Ok, first of all, let's make sure we both interpret my proposal correctly and find out which side is going to be able to reinstate a piece first, and when. According to the pgn, the position has not yet repeated 3 times. Thus the two players must have agreed on a draw, which my proposal outlaws. Therefore we must actually reach a 3-fold-repetition. This means White, to trigger the reinstatement rule, must play 25. Rf3+ and Black must respond with 25. ... Kg7. This is now the correct position in which pieces can be reinstated, White first.

r1b4r/pp2q1kp/1p6/3pp2Q/8/5R2/1PP2PPP/6K1 w - - 0 26



There are some things to keep in mind. The first is that if White does indeed reinstate a piece, Black is not required to do the same. So if in this position White put a Rook on d7, Black could simply take the Rook with either Queen or Bishop, which would accomplish nothing for White.

The second is that White is not obligated to reinstate a piece in this particular position. White can make a move that breaks the 3-fold repetition, and continue to play on down in material. White can also CONTINUE the 3-time repetition by again playing Rg3+. However, this would give Black the opportunity to be the first to reinstate a piece or pawn, and he might for example put a Knight on g6 (he cannot put a Bishop on g6, his captured Bishop is the dark-square Bishop), which even though it is currently pinned, could pretty much end White's attack. So that would be risky for White.

The White reinstatement options that come to mind would be to either
(A) put a Rook on h4, threatening Qh6+,
(B) put a Rook on f6, threatening Rf7+ or Qh6+, or
(C) put a Bishop on g5, threatening Bxe7 or Bf6+ or Qh6+.

With (A) and (B), White guarantees getting back the sacrificed exchange, because the best piece Black can reinstate is a Bishop or Knight. However, (A) looks somewhat passive. With (B), Black has to defend f7 and h6. Black's best option would probably be reinstating a Knight or Pawn on g6 (he cannot put a Bishop on g6, his captured Bishop is the dark-square Bishop). If Black chooses a Pawn on g6, the resulting position would be:

r1b4r/pp2q1kp/1p3Rp1/3pp2Q/8/5R2/1PP2PPP/6K1 w - - 0 27



According to the Firebird chess engine, White must now play 27. Rf7+ to achieve a line evaluated at 0.00. Any other White move results in an evaluation of at least -3.00 or worse for White.

However, if Black chooses a Knight on g6 instead of a Pawn, Firebird gives White's best line an evaluation of -5.45.

So it does appear that White is hard-pressed to turn all his sacrifices into a win and instead may very well lose. Were you trying to argue that my proposal seals the win for White? It doesn't seem to be the case, and even more pressing, my proposal adds an entire new dimension to chess, a whole new way of calculating and envisioning possibilities. But unlike Shogi, this is ONLY when the game is a draw under current rules.

You might turn around and use this example as the basis of an argument that says sacrificing pieces for an attack will decline under my proposal. Again ,I reply with the simple fact that you can't base such an argument off of one game or one position. Personally, I think sacrificing pieces or the exchange will INCREASE under my proposal, because without my proposal, you never get those pieces back, so you have to rely on your resulting attack alone. But with my proposal, there is the knowledge that you can get that piece or that exchange back if you can achieve either the 20 Move Rule or 3-fold repetition. Even Queen sacrifices should logically increase as a result. Yes, indeed, we might see more chess like they played in 1900!


BTW, with my proposal now modified to also prohibit stalemate draws (i.e. when in stalemate, one must reinstate a piece / pawn and play on rather than claim a draw by stalemate), it can now be given a name. I would prefer that chess itself be changed to incorporate these rules, but given the staid conservatism of the chess world, that's as likely as Paul Beckwith becoming a coal miner. And so a variant it shall be, perhaps one day to become the primary form of chess played around the world and to be documented as the idea that began the downfall of FIDE :

Bonham Anti Draw Anti Stalemate Shogi chess... BADASS chess!

In BADASS chess, the only possible draw occurs once both players have played 120 plies without a checkmate. One of the players must claim this draw in order for it to go in the books as a draw. If they both play on and one or the other wins, that is the result.

Question #2: Would it be fair to deny poor Halprin his magical draw against the great Pillsbury?

Well, now, you are asking a philosopher a question about fairness! Very interesting!

But your question #2 is faulty, because according to your Question #1 analysis, Black (Halprin) is going to WIN! Are you asking if we should deny Halprin a draw and instead replace it with a win, and whether that is fair?

You could be a little mixed up, but in any event, the question about fairness still deserves a response. One could ask, "Is it fair that two NHL teams who fight hard for 65 minutes go to a shootout, and one team, the one that played a little worse than the other, wins because of maybe a lucky bounce off a goalpost?"

Fairness isn't guaranteed in life, and so it should not be guaranteed in chess. If chess were only or chiefly concerned with fairness, then as soon as one side gets up any material at all with equal tempo, it is only fair that the game should end and that side should be declared the winner. Oh, but that would end all gambits and sacrifices. But is it fair that one should accept a gambit, be up a pawn, and eventually lose the game? You can see that the concept of "fairness" can be taken to unpleasant extremes. I'm not against fairness and I'm not even against trying to achieve it to some moderate level; what I am against is making it our primary concern which can only lead to many vexing situations and a stifling of creativity.

To wax even more philosophical, one could even say that the unfairness that does exist is the very basis of our being here. But I'll leave it at that.

My proposal is about one thing only: reducing draws dramatically, in such a way that makes the game more dynamic and exciting and makes draws very distasteful even to the players.

Maybe you subconsciously realize that, and maybe that is what you subconsciously like about my proposal?

I do like your questions, keep them coming.

[Louis Morin]

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

But your question #2 is faulty, because according to your Question #1[/CODE] analysis, Black (Halprin) is going to WIN!

Just to remind you that Halprin was White (not Black) against one of the strongest players of his time. He played a masterpiece, the game of his life, and now you want him to lose because "spectators" (you?) don't like draws.

[Paul Bonham]

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

Just to remind you that Halprin was White against one of the strongest players of the world. He played the game of his life, and now you want him to lose because "spectators don't like draws".

Somehow or other it came up in my browser as Halprin playing Black. I thought it very peculiar so I verified it. Now I can't seem to reproduce it.

But now I see why you posed Question #2.

Well, we could equally ask whether it was fair that Halprin didn't WIN the game, given that he "played the game of his life". Is the rule of perpetual check "fair"? It's a purely subjective question.

As is well known in myriad sports, people can play the game of their life and still lose. Should the rules be changed to accomodate this situation? Should they be changed every time it happens?

On the other hand, 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.

But it seems maybe you are more attuned to fairness than to growing interest among non-chessplayers?

[Lucas Davies]

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

Somehow or other it came up in my browser as Halprin playing Black. I thought it very peculiar so I verified it. Now I can't seem to reproduce it.

But now I see why you posed Question #2.

Well, we could equally ask whether it was fair that Halprin didn't WIN the game, given that he "played the game of his life". Is the rule of perpetual check "fair"? It's a purely subjective question.

As is well known in myriad sports, people can play the game of their life and still lose. Should the rules be changed to accomodate this situation? Should they be changed every time it happens?

On the other hand, 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.

But it seems maybe you are more attuned to fairness than to growing interest among non-chessplayers?

It seems you're more interested in some imaginary scenario where people who don't play chess suddenly flock to watching the game because there aren't so many draws than the fact that nobody who actually plays would want something like this.

[Vlad Drkulec]

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

But it seems maybe you are more attuned to fairness than to growing interest among non-chessplayers?

There is a fair bit of upside potential among chessplayers (ie people who currently only play online or with their friends and are unaware of organized chess in Canada). I would think about attracting them before I worried about non-players. There is also a huge demand among youngsters and their parents. In our situation it makes sense to go after the low hanging fruit.

[Alan Baljeu]

Re: Making Draws in Chess Very Rare

Agree with Vlad. But to answer the debated question:
Unfair is having Halpern play a beautiful game to a draw, and then changing the rules after to make play continue and he loses.

Fair is having the pair agree to the BADASS rules before the game starts, Halpern plays a beautiful game but loses due to the modified rules.

Finally, for every example that the rules make the game result feel "more fair", there is a counter example that makes the result feel "less fair". It doesn't matter though, because courage does not decide results; only the rules.

So then if fairness doesn't have anything to do with it, there is only the question of do people want decisive games and are they willing to change the rules to get there? The overall consensus is yes to decisive games and no to rule changes. Even minor rule changes only get a minority interested. And if you read Kevin's poll, you see most don't care that much about draws.

[Paul Bonham]

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

There is a fair bit of upside potential among chessplayers (ie people who currently only play online or with their friends and are unaware of organized chess in Canada). I would think about attracting them before I worried about non-players. There is also a huge demand among youngsters and their parents. In our situation it makes sense to go after the low hanging fruit.

Vlad, I was not referring to attracting more players, but rather attracting spectators (and especially paying spectators or TV spectators).

But again, and this must be stressed, merely reducing draws, even using the somewhat exciting rule changes in BADASS chess, will not by itself attract any paying spectators. It is a very good first step, but much much more is needed to achieve that.

But the one thing BADASS chess can accomplish if it were adopted right now would be to eliminate the problem of agreed draws / non-fighting draws. Even if both players wanted a draw as the ideal result, will they manage to play error-free chess through 120 plies to get there?

(And remember, even the 120 move draw must be approved by the TD, which means that if the two players reach an equal position at move 8 and just repeat moves for 112 more plies, the TD will examine the scoresheets and determine this is an invalid draw. S/he will reinstate the position where 3-fold repetition is about to first occur and force the player on the move to vary and continue play. Both players will then get the message that skirting the rules in this manner will not be tolerated)

[Bindi Cheng]

Re: Making Draws in Chess Very Rare

Paul, why don't you just make a poll post on who wants to play badass chess and who doesn't? Personally, I think the idea is retarded but maybe other people might disagree.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Making Draws in Chess Very Rare

Paul, why don't you just make a poll post on who wants to play badass chess and who doesn't? Personally, I think the idea is retarded but maybe other people might disagree.

Looks like my hunch not to hire you when you were looking for a job was the right one. I put a checkmark next to "Narrowminded", and for me, that was enough.

Of course, if you came up with good reasons why the idea is retarded, we could debate it, but you don't seem to want to do that. So now I've also put a checkmark next to "Unwilling to support viewpoints".

"And YOU want to be my latex salesman!" - Seinfeld

[Jordan S. Berson]

Re: Making Draws in Chess Very Rare

... Personally, I think the idea is retarded but maybe other people might disagree.

Looks like my hunch not to hire you when you were looking for a job was the right one. I put a checkmark next to "Narrowminded", and for me, that was enough.

Of course, if you came up with good reasons why the idea is retarded, we could debate it, but you don't seem to want to do that. So now I've also put a checkmark next to "Unwilling to support viewpoints".

Paul,

Wow do you know how to be an ass!

You should put three, or maybe 20 checkmarks next to "narrowminded" on your own checklist.

People have been telling you since the start of this absurd thread as to why your idea is absurd, however regardless of what reasons people have given, you don't care. They're either wrong because they don't know all the facts, or they do know all the facts but they're wrong for entirely different reasons.

I, however, would hire Bindi, because he's intelligent, and he speaks his mind. I can only give you marks on the speaking your mind part.

Jordan

P.S. I'm looking forward to the only reply you know how to send me... calling me a troll. I love it when you're so out of your league in a discussion that you have to resort to name-calling since you have no way to refute proper logical statements.

[Lucas Davies]

Re: Making Draws in Chess Very Rare

Looks like my hunch not to hire you when you were looking for a job was the right one. I put a checkmark next to "Narrowminded", and for me, that was enough.

Of course, if you came up with good reasons why the idea is retarded, we could debate it, but you don't seem to want to do that. So now I've also put a checkmark next to "Unwilling to support viewpoints".

"And YOU want to be my latex salesman!" - Seinfeld

Because he doesn't like your idea he's narrow minded and unwilling to support viewpoints? This is absurd. As far as I can see from this thread, nobody agrees with this idea, yet you continue to endlessly debate it. Maybe people don't want to debate it anymore because it's a waste of their time?

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Making Draws in Chess Very Rare

Because he doesn't like your idea he's narrow minded and unwilling to support viewpoints? This is absurd. As far as I can see from this thread, nobody agrees with this idea, yet you continue to endlessly debate it. Maybe people don't want to debate it anymore because it's a waste of their time?

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.