Making Draws in Chess Very Rare

[Louis Morin]

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

sorry... same message sent twice

[Louis Morin]

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

Indeed... not if you can accept losing again and again IN THE OPENING. Those thousand of variations your opponent (who might be 1/3 your age or less) has learned are all in just a few major openings, and the opponent is going to guide you into those lines, and when YOU go out of book... you lose. Unless you are some kind of middlegame wizard who can turn every game around despite being down materially and / or positionally.

What can I say? Of course I would NOT accept losing again and again in the opening. It just does not happen that way. Usually I am out of book before move 10,,, and my opponent too, because I am the one who goes out of book. So book memorization is of no use for him, it is only me against my opponent, and the best player wins.

More relevant was the link I posted to the views of Kramnik and Grischuk.

No I did not try Fischerandom. I simply do not feel the need to do so.
Maybe this would be good for Kramnik or Grischuk who seem unable or unwilling to go out of book to avoid opening preparation, but chess as it is is good enough for me.

[Lucas Davies]

Re: Re : Making Draws in Chess Very Rare

"I am at this point torn about whether I should really push this new invention. I know for sure it can and will sweep the chess world off its feet if it is introduced. What I don't know for sure is whether that is the right thing to do. It will make me a ton of money, but is it the right thing to do?"

This is incredible.

[Zeljko Kitich]

Re: Re : Making Draws in Chess Very Rare

You will have to ask Bob Gillanders exactly what he meant, that at the MCC the difference is "letting the kids have fun". I'm sure they are competing to some degree, but if that's the ONLY thing they are doing, then it's no different from any other club and so Bob's comment wouldn't seem to have any weight. From the sounds of this thread, a match between SCC and MCC would be a slaughter in favor of the SCC. Why go to all the trouble to take dozens of MCC kids into Toronto only to have them get slaughtered and maybe start losing the fun aspect of chess? Yes, chess is about competition, but it's also about the beauty and the science and the creativity of the game. Let the kids learn to really appreciate that before immersing them totally into competition. Then it's more likely that the less gifted will still stay with the game, for the love of the game more than for the love of competition.

So you see, I'm not against competition -- I'm living in America, Zeljko, I've learned a thing or two about competition. What I'm saying is when kids are involved, let them have a few years of appreciating the fun of chess, and it sounds like this is what Bob Gillanders is doing.




It would be wonderful if we could all work 30 hour workweeks, take a siesta in the middle of the day, and have many weeks of paid vacations per year. That is the European lifestyle, and with all that extra time, they get to think about chess and the other hobbies you mention. But in Asia and in North America, things are more competition-driven.

Ironic, isn't it? You regal competition, yet you also regal the world's least competitive people. And where is their lifestyle getting them? It is leading them by the nose into a dark future of what will be sudden and extreme economic hardship. First Portugal and Ireland and Greece, now Spain and Italy, and now even talk of France and Germany going into severe contraction.

This was another factor in my self-debate as to whether I should even introduce a more fun and lucrative way to play chess. Do I really want to be a factor in giving a class of people a way to devote their lives to fun and games, when I know what kind of a dark future is already facing them when the free money runs out? But that future is coming no matter what I do. Those who would play my game would still do something equally less productive if my game didn't exist. Nobody is going to be rerouted from becoming an engineer or a scientist just because a new way to play chess and make a living at it appears on the scene. Well, at least that's what I like to think. And all those people in Europe who are playing chess and losing money (which would be what, 90% of the regular chess players?) will now be given a way to actually make some money once in a while. So... I feel good.

It's rather like the current American political fight. Republicans want to keep the wealth at the top, and reinstate trickle-down economics. Democrats want to redistribute wealth to the middle class, the real workers. My changes to chess are designed to have the same effect on the chess world as the Democratic plan, to redistribute chess winnings more to the middle class players and give them an economic reason to play which they don't currently have. As a consequence, the overall participation will increase dramatically and the wealth to be distributed becomes much greater, so that even the top players gain. The extra money comes at the expense of other leisure activities, because suddenly chess becomes as interesting both to watch and to play as those other activities.

I hope most of all the money comes from professional bowling. :D The least strategic, least appealing sport of all time, and yet it is STILL on TV.

Why don't you ask Bob what he means since you are the one making claims based on a simple statement by him. Instead of merely claiming that it 'sounds' like this or that. Having been part of such a program for children I have an idea what Bob means. In general it does not refer to removing competition from chess. It refers to running the program in a way to keep the kids engaged and enjoying it. With a level of discipline a step down from that you would find in a class room.

You really think Bob does not want to play SCC because it will be a 'slaughter'? A bizzare word to use and puzzling since I don't believe you have any experience with the kids at either club. It's interesting that kids don't have any issues with competition. They naturally play each other in these programs. They don't seem to lose interest when someone beats them. Kids at the same club will play each other and they will win, lose or draw. They have no problem forming friendships and having fun despite your dread of what competition will do to them.

I regal European non-competetiveness? Where exactly did I say that? I said that chess is not a dead horse and you have decided to twist that around to my defending the European economic system. So since I am in Europe studying at the #2 business school in France I guess I will take your bait. Firstly Europe involves many countries, 27 that are part of the EU and more that are not. You describe what you assume is happening in some of them (30 hour work week?) and then label them all as being the same. There is no issue with competetiveness with the UK, Germany, Switzerland and most of the rest. What I regal is European culture and European chess. Your self serving predictions of doom and gloom are derisable. I am familiar with the labour market changes that are happening in Europe from my European economics class and you are out of date to say the least.

Yes I know some Americans like to feel they have the corner on competition. I didn't realize you were one of those. Simply living in America does not make you an expert on competition, sorry to have to tell you that. Bowling being on tv in America tells me more about American tastes than it does about bowling's innate superiority over chess.

Would you like a reminder of where the 2008 financial crisis started? You do know that Lehman brothers was an American firm? You do realize that the bailouts were very un-American according to the gospel of American competition and risk-reward paradigm. Lehman for example was leveraged twice as much as other investment banks. It was competition American style on steroids and look at where it got them.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Re : Making Draws in Chess Very Rare

Why don't you ask Bob what he means since you are the one making claims based on a simple statement by him. Instead of merely claiming that it 'sounds' like this or that. Having been part of such a program for children I have an idea what Bob means. In general it does not refer to removing competition from chess. It refers to running the program in a way to keep the kids engaged and enjoying it. With a level of discipline a step down from that you would find in a class room.

The quote from Bob Gillanders that I was referring to:

"IMHO, too many organizers/politicians/activists/critics are focused exclusively on developing strong players. Some rely on the belief that, if we can just produce the next Fischer or Carlsen, then we will be flooded with new members and sponsors.

I take a different approach. I believe our salvation is in bringing chess to mainstream Canada. At the Mississauga Junior club we are bringing a positive enjoyable experience to as many kids as we can. Hopefully this will translate into more adult players of all strengths later on."

from
http://www.chesstalk.info/forum/show...7699#post57699

I think it's pretty easy to interpret not focusing on developing strong players as meaning a de-emphasis on competition. YOU are the one who disagrees, so YOU ask Bob what he meant.

It's interesting that kids don't have any issues with competition. They naturally play each other in these programs. They don't seem to lose interest when someone beats them. Kids at the same club will play each other and they will win, lose or draw. They have no problem forming friendships and having fun despite your dread of what competition will do to them.

Are you denying a simple fact of organized chess in North America, that a huge percentage of new club members eventually drop out? This has been going on for decades.

Maybe they don't lose interest the first time they get beat, or the second, or the third, but once they are old enough to realize that they are nothing special and the environment they are in is all about competition and searching for / catering to the very best, THE MAJORITY OF THEM WILL LOSE INTEREST.

The way to fight this is to give them a very early impression that their presence at that club is NOT just about the competition, but about the beauty and creativity of the game. The whole idea of limiting everything to standard chess and rated tournaments is IMO the biggest detriment we have to the goal of growing chess membership. There are only so many people who want that! If you want to grow membership, you offer more options. Nobody opens a delicatessen and offers only chicken noodle soup and grilled cheese sandwich. There's a lesson in competition for you.

But of course, club organizers aren't running a business. They are simply offering standard rated or unrated chess. They have no incentive to do more. Perhaps if they were being rewarded as membership went up and more funds flowed into chess... but it's the old chicken-and-egg problem.

And that's all that needs to be said on that whole discussion. Organized chess in North America IS a dead horse, and even though you claim it's not the case in Europe, you have yet to provide any figures showing overall chess participation growing faster than the growth in population. Maybe it is, but until you can prove it, I am skeptical.

I regal European non-competetiveness? Where exactly did I say that? I said that chess is not a dead horse and you have decided to twist that around to my defending the European economic system. So since I am in Europe studying at the #2 business school in France I guess I will take your bait. Firstly Europe involves many countries, 27 that are part of the EU and more that are not. You describe what you assume is happening in some of them (30 hour work week?) and then label them all as being the same. There is no issue with competetiveness with the UK, Germany, Switzerland and most of the rest. What I regal is European culture and European chess. Your self serving predictions of doom and gloom are derisable. I am familiar with the labour market changes that are happening in Europe from my European economics class and you are out of date to say the least.

You regal European culture and European chess, and I explained to you exactly why the difference from America exists. It's because of a totally different outlook on competitiveness. Americans don't want 2 months vacation per year. They want to find what they love and WORK at it! But since you regal the European culture and chess, you therefore choose their attitude on competitiveness over the American attitude, because you can't have their greater level of culture and chess without granting the citizenry a lot more free time. Not a twisting of words, but a simple and valid deduction.

The only country you mention that should be excepted from the European stereotype is Germany. And as you well know, Germany is trying to walk a tightrope of being the paymaster for the vastly more inefficient (many would say lazy) nations of Europe that are basically bankrupt while still remaining as competitive as Asia and America. There's a growing number of German citizens who want no part of rescuing Greece and Spain. And the bills keep growing. Out of date? Oh, that's right, the number 2 business school in France. I wonder if the number 1 school is any better? Hey, maybe Greece's finance minister went to your school! That would explain a lot.

Or should I expect a resolving of the European crisis to come out of your European economics class?

Or are you even denying there is a crisis? Go ahead, make a fool of yourself.

Would you like a reminder of where the 2008 financial crisis started? You do know that Lehman brothers was an American firm? You do realize that the bailouts were very un-American according to the gospel of American competition and risk-reward paradigm. Lehman for example was leveraged twice as much as other investment banks. It was competition American style on steroids and look at where it got them.

You are showing an embarrassing lack of understanding. You actually confuse competition with the true cause of the 2008 crisis: deregulation. You do know they are not the same thing? You can still have competition in a highly regulated economy or industry. Take that gem of wisdom into your next "economics class".

And yes, the bailouts were very un-American. But I give you this extract from
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/pelo...my-depths-hell


"(Nancy Pelosi) then described the meeting she had as House speaker with Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson in September 2008, “Four years ago on September 18 – read it, I won’t go into all the details, except to bottom-line it -- we had a meeting in the Speaker’s office in the Capitol -- bipartisan, bicameral -- at which the secretary of the Treasury described a situation of our economy and our financial institutions that was so dire. He took us to the depths of Hell, a place so low that even Dante couldn’t find it -- make a circle down there, it was so low.”

Pelosi continued, “I then asked the chairman of the Fed Ben Bernanke what he thought of it -- Ben Bernanke is an expert on the Great Depression, that’s his area of expertise. So I said, Mr. Chairman, what do you have to say about what the secretary said? And Chairman Bernanke said, ‘If we do not act immediately -- this is a Thursday night, I looked at the time on my watch, a Thursday night, September 18. And the chairman of the Fed said, ‘If we do not act immediately, we will not have an economy by Monday.’”

Emphasis mine. This all speaks to the deregulation of the Dubya era, not to American competitiveness.

Hey, maybe I can be a prof at that vaunted school you go to! I wouldn't mind an easy life in France...

[Aman Hambleton]

Re: Re : Making Draws in Chess Very Rare

The quote from Bob Gillanders that I was referring to:

"IMHO, too many organizers/politicians/activists/critics are focused exclusively on developing strong players. Some rely on the belief that, if we can just produce the next Fischer or Carlsen, then we will be flooded with new members and sponsors.

I take a different approach. I believe our salvation is in bringing chess to mainstream Canada. At the Mississauga Junior club we are bringing a positive enjoyable experience to as many kids as we can. Hopefully this will translate into more adult players of all strengths later on."

from
http://www.chesstalk.info/forum/show...7699#post57699

I think it's pretty easy to interpret not focusing on developing strong players as meaning a de-emphasis on competition. YOU are the one who disagrees, so YOU ask Bob what he meant.







Are you denying a simple fact of organized chess in North America, that a huge percentage of new club members eventually drop out? This has been going on for decades.

Maybe they don't lose interest the first time they get beat, or the second, or the third, but once they are old enough to realize that they are nothing special and the environment they are in is all about competition and searching for / catering to the very best, THE MAJORITY OF THEM WILL LOSE INTEREST.

The way to fight this is to give them a very early impression that their presence at that club is NOT just about the competition, but about the beauty and creativity of the game. The whole idea of limiting everything to standard chess and rated tournaments is IMO the biggest detriment we have to the goal of growing chess membership. There are only so many people who want that! If you want to grow membership, you offer more options. Nobody opens a delicatessen and offers only chicken noodle soup and grilled cheese sandwich. There's a lesson in competition for you.

But of course, club organizers aren't running a business. They are simply offering standard rated or unrated chess. They have no incentive to do more. Perhaps if they were being rewarded as membership went up and more funds flowed into chess... but it's the old chicken-and-egg problem.

And that's all that needs to be said on that whole discussion. Organized chess in North America IS a dead horse, and even though you claim it's not the case in Europe, you have yet to provide any figures showing overall chess participation growing faster than the growth in population. Maybe it is, but until you can prove it, I am skeptical.





You regal European culture and European chess, and I explained to you exactly why the difference from America exists. It's because of a totally different outlook on competitiveness. Americans don't want 2 months vacation per year. They want to find what they love and WORK at it! But since you regal the European culture and chess, you therefore choose their attitude on competitiveness over the American attitude, because you can't have their greater level of culture and chess without granting the citizenry a lot more free time. Not a twisting of words, but a simple and valid deduction.

The only country you mention that should be excepted from the European stereotype is Germany. And as you well know, Germany is trying to walk a tightrope of being the paymaster for the vastly more inefficient (many would say lazy) nations of Europe that are basically bankrupt while still remaining as competitive as Asia and America. There's a growing number of German citizens who want no part of rescuing Greece and Spain. And the bills keep growing. Out of date? Oh, that's right, the number 2 business school in France. I wonder if the number 1 school is any better? Hey, maybe Greece's finance minister went to your school! That would explain a lot.

Or should I expect a resolving of the European crisis to come out of your European economics class?

Or are you even denying there is a crisis? Go ahead, make a fool of yourself.




You are showing an embarrassing lack of understanding. You actually confuse competition with the true cause of the 2008 crisis: deregulation. You do know they are not the same thing? You can still have competition in a highly regulated economy or industry. Take that gem of wisdom into your next "economics class".

And yes, the bailouts were very un-American. But I give you this extract from
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/pelo...my-depths-hell


"(Nancy Pelosi) then described the meeting she had as House speaker with Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson in September 2008, “Four years ago on September 18 – read it, I won’t go into all the details, except to bottom-line it -- we had a meeting in the Speaker’s office in the Capitol -- bipartisan, bicameral -- at which the secretary of the Treasury described a situation of our economy and our financial institutions that was so dire. He took us to the depths of Hell, a place so low that even Dante couldn’t find it -- make a circle down there, it was so low.”

Pelosi continued, “I then asked the chairman of the Fed Ben Bernanke what he thought of it -- Ben Bernanke is an expert on the Great Depression, that’s his area of expertise. So I said, Mr. Chairman, what do you have to say about what the secretary said? And Chairman Bernanke said, ‘If we do not act immediately -- this is a Thursday night, I looked at the time on my watch, a Thursday night, September 18. And the chairman of the Fed said, ‘If we do not act immediately, we will not have an economy by Monday.’”

Emphasis mine. This all speaks to the deregulation of the Dubya era, not to American competitiveness.

Hey, maybe I can be a prof at that vaunted school you go to! I wouldn't mind an easy life in France...

[Paul Bonham]

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

What can I say? Of course I would NOT accept losing again and again in the opening.

I highly recommend you never play a multi-game match against someone rated 200 or more points above you.

[Zeljko Kitich]

Re: Re : Making Draws in Chess Very Rare

The quote from Bob Gillanders that I was referring to:

"IMHO, too many organizers/politicians/activists/critics are focused exclusively on developing strong players. Some rely on the belief that, if we can just produce the next Fischer or Carlsen, then we will be flooded with new members and sponsors.

I take a different approach. I believe our salvation is in bringing chess to mainstream Canada. At the Mississauga Junior club we are bringing a positive enjoyable experience to as many kids as we can. Hopefully this will translate into more adult players of all strengths later on."

from
http://www.chesstalk.info/forum/show...7699#post57699

I think it's pretty easy to interpret not focusing on developing strong players as meaning a de-emphasis on competition. YOU are the one who disagrees, so YOU ask Bob what he meant.







Are you denying a simple fact of organized chess in North America, that a huge percentage of new club members eventually drop out? This has been going on for decades.

Maybe they don't lose interest the first time they get beat, or the second, or the third, but once they are old enough to realize that they are nothing special and the environment they are in is all about competition and searching for / catering to the very best, THE MAJORITY OF THEM WILL LOSE INTEREST.

The way to fight this is to give them a very early impression that their presence at that club is NOT just about the competition, but about the beauty and creativity of the game. The whole idea of limiting everything to standard chess and rated tournaments is IMO the biggest detriment we have to the goal of growing chess membership. There are only so many people who want that! If you want to grow membership, you offer more options. Nobody opens a delicatessen and offers only chicken noodle soup and grilled cheese sandwich. There's a lesson in competition for you.

But of course, club organizers aren't running a business. They are simply offering standard rated or unrated chess. They have no incentive to do more. Perhaps if they were being rewarded as membership went up and more funds flowed into chess... but it's the old chicken-and-egg problem.

And that's all that needs to be said on that whole discussion. Organized chess in North America IS a dead horse, and even though you claim it's not the case in Europe, you have yet to provide any figures showing overall chess participation growing faster than the growth in population. Maybe it is, but until you can prove it, I am skeptical.





You regal European culture and European chess, and I explained to you exactly why the difference from America exists. It's because of a totally different outlook on competitiveness. Americans don't want 2 months vacation per year. They want to find what they love and WORK at it! But since you regal the European culture and chess, you therefore choose their attitude on competitiveness over the American attitude, because you can't have their greater level of culture and chess without granting the citizenry a lot more free time. Not a twisting of words, but a simple and valid deduction.

The only country you mention that should be excepted from the European stereotype is Germany. And as you well know, Germany is trying to walk a tightrope of being the paymaster for the vastly more inefficient (many would say lazy) nations of Europe that are basically bankrupt while still remaining as competitive as Asia and America. There's a growing number of German citizens who want no part of rescuing Greece and Spain. And the bills keep growing. Out of date? Oh, that's right, the number 2 business school in France. I wonder if the number 1 school is any better? Hey, maybe Greece's finance minister went to your school! That would explain a lot.

Or should I expect a resolving of the European crisis to come out of your European economics class?

Or are you even denying there is a crisis? Go ahead, make a fool of yourself.




You are showing an embarrassing lack of understanding. You actually confuse competition with the true cause of the 2008 crisis: deregulation. You do know they are not the same thing? You can still have competition in a highly regulated economy or industry. Take that gem of wisdom into your next "economics class".

And yes, the bailouts were very un-American. But I give you this extract from
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/pelo...my-depths-hell


"(Nancy Pelosi) then described the meeting she had as House speaker with Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson in September 2008, “Four years ago on September 18 – read it, I won’t go into all the details, except to bottom-line it -- we had a meeting in the Speaker’s office in the Capitol -- bipartisan, bicameral -- at which the secretary of the Treasury described a situation of our economy and our financial institutions that was so dire. He took us to the depths of Hell, a place so low that even Dante couldn’t find it -- make a circle down there, it was so low.”

Pelosi continued, “I then asked the chairman of the Fed Ben Bernanke what he thought of it -- Ben Bernanke is an expert on the Great Depression, that’s his area of expertise. So I said, Mr. Chairman, what do you have to say about what the secretary said? And Chairman Bernanke said, ‘If we do not act immediately -- this is a Thursday night, I looked at the time on my watch, a Thursday night, September 18. And the chairman of the Fed said, ‘If we do not act immediately, we will not have an economy by Monday.’”

Emphasis mine. This all speaks to the deregulation of the Dubya era, not to American competitiveness.

Hey, maybe I can be a prof at that vaunted school you go to! I wouldn't mind an easy life in France...

Deregulation was done in the name of increasing competition. That's how it was sold. Straight from the American credo of competition and free of government regulation markets. Don`t hamper business competition with excess government regulation. Sound vaguely familiar to your I live in America ears. I really would like to debate finance with someone who knows nothing but then it feels too much like I should charge you tuition. So adios Americano... if you do not understand the connection between deregulation and competition then I suggest you not make any important financial decisions without parental guidance.

To be precise I said there are 27 countries in the EU and several nonEU. None of them I pointed out have 30 hour work weeks. I am assuming you mean those where you work 30 but are paid for 40. I myself was on a 35 hour work week in Canada. Apparently you can`t count and want me to type out the names of every European country. Sorry can`t be bothered doing that. I suggest you google it. Did you miss the part where I mentioned the UK and Switwerland and most of the rest. Let me be the first to explain to you that Switzerland is in Europe and that UK stands for the United Kingdom and that it too is in Europe. Yes I like European culture - so sue me and I am by no means the only one.

You have no qualifications to be a prof and you have shown time and again that you tend to strongly alienate people rather than convince them your ideas are sound. Not someone fit to stand in front of a classroom. Maybe try a street corner. This school is well ranked in the world rankings. Should I apologize for that? Surely you understand that as being in the nature of competition with other schools? The easy life in France? Sure you are welcome to come and try. Far be it from me to try to spoil your fantasies. Nobody in general here has 2 months vacation per year. If there are those that do it is the same groups that do in America such as teachers. I had 5 weeks myself in Canada just as they do here in Europe. I was due to shortly receive 6 weeks and to top out at 8 weeks in Canada. However, since many Canadians manage to play chess without more than the customary minimum 2 weeks in Canada then I don`t buy your argument that the difference in vacation time is why Europeans play chess instead of bowling. It certainly does not explain the difference in youth chess since kids are off school for the same amounts of time on both sides of the pond.

I am still shaking my head at the sage advise you urged Bob to take from you based on your interpretation of his comments. As usuaul your opinion is based on nothing. There are plenty of us who play chess who are not the next Fischer but we still see ourselves as being competetive chess players. If not we woudn`t be playing chess to begin with. It is quite possible and in fact desireable to not pressure a child to achieve Fischer like performance without trying to lie to them that chess is not competetive. Kids are a whole lot smarter than that. It is a game for two and the point is to checkmate the other king to win the game. What part of that do you think kids don`t naturally realize is competetive. Do you suggest not telling a child they have won a game because then they might figure out their opponent has lost? Oh, my...

[Louis Morin]

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

I highly recommend you never play a multi-game match against someone rated 200 or more points above you.

Actually, over the years I have played countless games against opponents rated 300, 400, 500 or even 600 points above me... of course my overall result is not particularly good, but I still managed to get quite several wins and draws against national masters and FIDE titled players, including one win and 2 draws against IMs... only GMs have beaten me all the time... so when I play with opponents rated "only" 200 points above me (and it does happen pretty often), I really believe in my chances...

You seem to think that standard chess is mostly about the opening... of course from time to time one can be completely lost after the opening... losing material for nothing, or be at a distinct positional disadvantage... but actually the opening is only a small part of the game... most of the time, there is a real fight up to the middlegame and the endgame, even between players of unequal strengths... and the game is often decided after several mistakes by both players... at least, this is what my own experience suggests...

True, I lose more often than I win against higher rated players... but what I don't understand is why another variant such as Fischerandom would help me... if my opponent is strong enough to beat me let's say 75% of the time at standard chess, I am confident that he would get at least as much success at Fischerandom.

[Paul Bonham]

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

Actually, over the years I have played countless games against opponents rated 300, 400, 500 or even 600 points above me... of course my overall result is not particularly good, but I still managed to get quite several wins and draws against national masters and FIDE titled players, including one win and 2 draws against IMs... only GMs have beaten me all the time... so when I play with opponents rated "only" 200 points above me (and it does happen pretty often), I really believe in my chances...

You seem to think that standard chess is mostly about the opening... of course from time to time one can be completely lost after the opening... losing material for nothing, or be at a distinct positional disadvantage... but actually the opening is only a small part of the game... most of the time, there is a real fight up to the middlegame and the endgame, even between players of unequal strengths... and the game is often decided after several mistakes by both players... at least, this is what my own experience suggests...

True, I lose more often than I win against higher rated players... but what I don't understand is why another variant such as Fischerandom would help me... if my opponent is strong enough to beat me let's say 75% of the time at standard chess, I am confident that he would get at least as much success at Fischerandom.

It's the "distinct positional disadvantage" that is the usual culprit after the opening phase in games between players whose ratings differ by a certain large number. I just chose 200 points off the top, but maybe it's more, say 300 points.

How usual are we talking about? I will get back to you on that after I do some research. I'm pretty busy these days, but I'll try and get back to this in a few weeks.

With respect to chess960, what would block you from playing a chess960 match against someone who beats you 75% of the time at standard chess and seeing if the results match? Aren't you curious about it? Why would you just assume if you could actually try it out? Maybe there is something about chess960 you don't like, because it's so easy to change from standard chess to chess960. I can see you're happy with standard chess, and that's fine, but if you could try the chess960 experiment, why wouldn't you say to yourself, "Hmmm, what if there is something to this and I could even things up more by playing chess960?"

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Re : Making Draws in Chess Very Rare

Deregulation was done in the name of increasing competition. That's how it was sold. Straight from the American credo of competition and free of government regulation markets. Don`t hamper business competition with excess government regulation. Blah blah blah...it feels too much like I should charge you tuition...

Here's what you said, exact words, about the 2008 financial crisis:
"It was competition American style on steroids and look where it got them."

Here's what I say about the same thing:
"It was deregulation American style on steroids and look where it got them."

I also said deregulation and competition are two different things.

The pre-crisis deregulation having been sold as increasing competition doesn't change anything. They are still two different things. Banks were allowed to do something they had never done before: sell mortgage-backed securities, with no regulation on the ratings of the mortgages to boot. Whether or not this temporarily increased competition doesn't matter except for the post-game analysis. It is the deregulation itself that caused the crisis. The post-game analysis tells us that, hey, maybe there is this notion of EXCESS deregulation, and maybe excess deregulation is not good for competition because it causes side effects that can bring down the industry that was deregulated. If that industry happens to be too big to fail, its downfall can bring down a nation's economy or even the world economy. Perhaps if we want to increase competition, we can look at other methods... such as a labor force that WORKS HARDER AND HAS MUCH GREATER PRODUCTIVITY.

I submit that my summary of what caused the crisis is more accurate than yours. So, how would you like to pay me your tuition? :D

To be precise I said there are 27 countries in the EU and several nonEU. None of them I pointed out have 30 hour work weeks. I am assuming you mean those where you work 30 but are paid for 40. I myself was on a 35 hour work week in Canada. Apparently you can`t count and want me to type out the names of every European country. Sorry can`t be bothered doing that. I suggest you google it. Did you miss the part where I mentioned the UK and Switwerland and most of the rest. Let me be the first to explain to you that Switzerland is in Europe and that UK stands for the United Kingdom and that it too is in Europe. Yes I like European culture - so sue me and I am by no means the only one.

I don't know what you are rambling about. I didn't ask you to name European countries at all, where is that coming from? Are you imitating your profs, by going off into incoherent diatribes that no one but you understands?

Since you are so enamored of Switzerland and you seem to think there is no European crisis, I give you this which is not out of date, but is hot off the press:

Switzerland Prepares Army for Euro Zone Fallout
By CNBC | CNBC – 5 hours ago.. .

With anti-austerity protests across Europe resulting in civil unrest on the streets of Athens and Madrid, the European country famed for its neutrality is taking unusual precautions. Switzerland launched the military exercise "Stabilo Due" in September to respond to the current instability in Europe and to test the speed at which its army can be dispatched. The country is not a member of the union or among the 17 countries that share the euro.

Swiss newspaper Der Sonntag reported recently that the exercise centered around a risk map created in 2010, where army staff detailed the threat of internal unrest between warring factions as well as the possibility of refugees from Greece, Spain, Italy, France, and Portugal.

The Swiss defense ministry told CNBC that it does not rule out having to deploy troops in the coming years. "It's not excluded that the consequences of the financial crisis in Switzerland can lead to protests and violence," a spokesperson told CNBC.com. "The army must be ready when the police in such cases requests for subsidiary help."

Some 2,000 troops were part of the drill exercise in eight different towns across the country. Infantry soldiers were used as well as the Air Force and special forces personnel in an assignment that took years to organize.

Quoted in a Schweizer Soldat magazine, Defense Minister Ueli Maurer warned of an escalation of violence in Europe. "I can't exclude that in the coming years we may need the army," he said.

According to the minister, under pressure to save, some European countries didn't renew their armies as they could no longer afford the upkeep of modern systems. He said that the situation could amplify dramatically, with countries that couldn't defend themselves facing the possibility of "blackmail." In the paper, he also asked how long the crisis could be calmed with money alone.

Der Sonntag newspaper also reported that army chief André Blattmann is set to submit a proposal in December to utilize four battalions of military police. This will consist of 1,600 soldiers guarding strategic points in the country including the airport, industrial plants, and the international organizations in Geneva.

The military is a hot topic in Switzerland, which has mandatory military service. Under Swiss law, all able-bodied men at age 19 have to undergo five months of training, followed by refresher courses of several weeks over the next decade. A referendum is likely to take place next year to decide the fate of this conscription policy. The current number of recruits stands at 200,000 -- the biggest army in Europe relative to population size.


Gee, maybe you should come down from your ivory tower of learning and get some street sense? There are things happening you don't seem to know about or attach significance to.

You have no qualifications to be a prof and you have shown time and again that you tend to strongly alienate people rather than convince them your ideas are sound. Not someone fit to stand in front of a classroom. Maybe try a street corner. ... since many Canadians manage to play chess without more than the customary minimum 2 weeks in Canada then I don`t buy your argument that the difference in vacation time is why Europeans play chess instead of bowling. It certainly does not explain the difference in youth chess since kids are off school for the same amounts of time on both sides of the pond.

You wouldn't know my qualifications at all, so I can just dismiss that as emotional hyperbole. Or maybe you're going to Google me and find another Paul Beckwith... er, I mean Paul Bonham. THAT WAS HILARIOUS, DUDE! Way to enhance your credibility!

You don't have to buy my argument, which had nothing to do with Europeans playing bowling -- you can't say anything without exaggeration and fabrication. Nevertheless, you have the privilege of holding your own opinion.

The fact that I alienate everyone on Chesstalk proves that the Universe is unfolding as it should.

I am still shaking my head at the sage advise you urged Bob to take from you based on your interpretation of his comments. As usuaul your opinion is based on nothing. There are plenty of us who play chess who are not the next Fischer but we still see ourselves as being competetive chess players. If not we woudn`t be playing chess to begin with. It is quite possible and in fact desireable to not pressure a child to achieve Fischer like performance without trying to lie to them that chess is not competetive. Kids are a whole lot smarter than that. It is a game for two and the point is to checkmate the other king to win the game. What part of that do you think kids don`t naturally realize is competetive. Do you suggest not telling a child they have won a game because then they might figure out their opponent has lost? Oh, my...

I said nothing about telling kids chess is not competitive. I said de-emphasize the competition. Big difference. You and almost everyone else here, you just make stuff up. Those last 3 or 4 sentences of yours are totally irrelevant. I don't think Bob is lying to the kids, telling them "Nobody wins and nobody loses." As Joe Biden would say, that's just a bunch of malarkey.

No wonder I love to alienate everyone here.

It has been said many times that the only way to lose at chess is to make one or more mistakes. So if you emphasize competitiveness and you have a group of kids that are losing constantly, they are at some point going to deduce that they are making lots of mistakes. If no one is there to de-emphasize the mistakes and show these kids that they are still coming up with creative ideas, some of them may develop psychological problems. This is a constant concern of (most) child educators who teach math and science and even the arts and phys ed, so why shouldn't it be a concern for those who are teaching kids chess? You even admit to being one of those educators, although no mention of what ages you were educating. If you taught kids, did you ever stop to consider whether a particular kid was having self-esteem problems?

What you can personally handle is not up for discussion. We don't care about you. But we should all care about the mental health and well-being of kids, and when teaching kids chess, because it is a game of mistakes, mental health and self-esteem is something to be wary of.

And that's not even to mention that de-emphasizing results means emphasizing the fun and creativity of chess. If a kid quits because s/he realizes s/he has no talent, s/he still might remember later in life how much fun it was to learn, and might come back.

Therefore my advice to Bob Gillanders should not have you, of all people, shaking your head. Unless, of course, you just don't care.

[Zeljko Kitich]

Re: Re : Making Draws in Chess Very Rare

Here's what you said, exact words, about the 2008 financial crisis:
"It was competition American style on steroids and look where it got them."

Here's what I say about the same thing:
"It was deregulation American style on steroids and look where it got them."

I also said deregulation and competition are two different things.

The pre-crisis deregulation having been sold as increasing competition doesn't change anything. They are still two different things. Banks were allowed to do something they had never done before: sell mortgage-backed securities, with no regulation on the ratings of the mortgages to boot. Whether or not this temporarily increased competition doesn't matter except for the post-game analysis. It is the deregulation itself that caused the crisis. The post-game analysis tells us that, hey, maybe there is this notion of EXCESS deregulation, and maybe excess deregulation is not good for competition because it causes side effects that can bring down the industry that was deregulated. If that industry happens to be too big to fail, its downfall can bring down a nation's economy or even the world economy. Perhaps if we want to increase competition, we can look at other methods... such as a labor force that WORKS HARDER AND HAS MUCH GREATER PRODUCTIVITY.

I submit that my summary of what caused the crisis is more accurate than yours. So, how would you like to pay me your tuition? :D





I don't know what you are rambling about. I didn't ask you to name European countries at all, where is that coming from? Are you imitating your profs, by going off into incoherent diatribes that no one but you understands?

Since you are so enamored of Switzerland and you seem to think there is no European crisis, I give you this which is not out of date, but is hot off the press:

Switzerland Prepares Army for Euro Zone Fallout
By CNBC | CNBC – 5 hours ago.. .

With anti-austerity protests across Europe resulting in civil unrest on the streets of Athens and Madrid, the European country famed for its neutrality is taking unusual precautions. Switzerland launched the military exercise "Stabilo Due" in September to respond to the current instability in Europe and to test the speed at which its army can be dispatched. The country is not a member of the union or among the 17 countries that share the euro.

Swiss newspaper Der Sonntag reported recently that the exercise centered around a risk map created in 2010, where army staff detailed the threat of internal unrest between warring factions as well as the possibility of refugees from Greece, Spain, Italy, France, and Portugal.

The Swiss defense ministry told CNBC that it does not rule out having to deploy troops in the coming years. "It's not excluded that the consequences of the financial crisis in Switzerland can lead to protests and violence," a spokesperson told CNBC.com. "The army must be ready when the police in such cases requests for subsidiary help."

Some 2,000 troops were part of the drill exercise in eight different towns across the country. Infantry soldiers were used as well as the Air Force and special forces personnel in an assignment that took years to organize.

Quoted in a Schweizer Soldat magazine, Defense Minister Ueli Maurer warned of an escalation of violence in Europe. "I can't exclude that in the coming years we may need the army," he said.

According to the minister, under pressure to save, some European countries didn't renew their armies as they could no longer afford the upkeep of modern systems. He said that the situation could amplify dramatically, with countries that couldn't defend themselves facing the possibility of "blackmail." In the paper, he also asked how long the crisis could be calmed with money alone.

Der Sonntag newspaper also reported that army chief André Blattmann is set to submit a proposal in December to utilize four battalions of military police. This will consist of 1,600 soldiers guarding strategic points in the country including the airport, industrial plants, and the international organizations in Geneva.

The military is a hot topic in Switzerland, which has mandatory military service. Under Swiss law, all able-bodied men at age 19 have to undergo five months of training, followed by refresher courses of several weeks over the next decade. A referendum is likely to take place next year to decide the fate of this conscription policy. The current number of recruits stands at 200,000 -- the biggest army in Europe relative to population size.


Gee, maybe you should come down from your ivory tower of learning and get some street sense? There are things happening you don't seem to know about or attach significance to.





You wouldn't know my qualifications at all, so I can just dismiss that as emotional hyperbole. Or maybe you're going to Google me and find another Paul Beckwith... er, I mean Paul Bonham. THAT WAS HILARIOUS, DUDE! Way to enhance your credibility!

You don't have to buy my argument, which had nothing to do with Europeans playing bowling -- you can't say anything without exaggeration and fabrication. Nevertheless, you have the privilege of holding your own opinion.

The fact that I alienate everyone on Chesstalk proves that the Universe is unfolding as it should.





I said nothing about telling kids chess is not competitive. I said de-emphasize the competition. Big difference. You and almost everyone else here, you just make stuff up. Those last 3 or 4 sentences of yours are totally irrelevant. I don't think Bob is lying to the kids, telling them "Nobody wins and nobody loses." As Joe Biden would say, that's just a bunch of malarkey.

No wonder I love to alienate everyone here.

It has been said many times that the only way to lose at chess is to make one or more mistakes. So if you emphasize competitiveness and you have a group of kids that are losing constantly, they are at some point going to deduce that they are making lots of mistakes. If no one is there to de-emphasize the mistakes and show these kids that they are still coming up with creative ideas, some of them may develop psychological problems. This is a constant concern of (most) child educators who teach math and science and even the arts and phys ed, so why shouldn't it be a concern for those who are teaching kids chess? You even admit to being one of those educators, although no mention of what ages you were educating. If you taught kids, did you ever stop to consider whether a particular kid was having self-esteem problems?

What you can personally handle is not up for discussion. We don't care about you. But we should all care about the mental health and well-being of kids, and when teaching kids chess, because it is a game of mistakes, mental health and self-esteem is something to be wary of.

And that's not even to mention that de-emphasizing results means emphasizing the fun and creativity of chess. If a kid quits because s/he realizes s/he has no talent, s/he still might remember later in life how much fun it was to learn, and might come back.

Therefore my advice to Bob Gillanders should not have you, of all people, shaking your head. Unless, of course, you just don't care.

You sir are no Paul Beckwith. At least Paul knows what he is talkng about. He may or may not be right at the end of the day but he's not totally absurd. Your attempts to constantly weasel out of what you said and the corners you paint yourself into are very amusing. I think your new knickname should be Twister. Whatever your qualifications are I would suggest a career move into spin doctoring. Perhaps there is a an American political candidate that could really use your help. You make the mistake of saying I only refer to Germany and when I correct you you pretend not to know what I'm talking about. Classic. You don't want the MCC kids to play the SCC kids because the MCC kids will be 'slaughtered'? You keep making statements about how chess for kids should not be competetive. Really? Twist away Twister.

Deregulation was done to increase competition in the financial sector. And yes there are also many other ways that competition can be increased. You being an American expert on competition should at least know that. I'm not sure why you have a hate on for chess and for Europe but perhaps you should stop and listen to yourself talk sometimes. Then you might even understand what you are saying. Your pleasure at alienating people only tells me that doing so is your hobby. Proposing bizzare changes to chess being more about alienating more people then it actually being an idea worth putting forth. Good luck in your attempts to allienate as many people as you can.

[Louis Morin]

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

It's the "distinct positional disadvantage" that is the usual culprit after the opening phase in games between players whose ratings differ by a certain large number. I just chose 200 points off the top, but maybe it's more, say 300 points.

How usual are we talking about? I will get back to you on that after I do some research. I'm pretty busy these days, but I'll try and get back to this in a few weeks.

I cannot claim to know everything in chess, but I still have a 36-year experience of competitive chess. And according to this experience, it is simply not true that there is a "distinct positional disadvantage" being the usual culprit after the opening phase in games between players whose ratings differ by a certain large number.

Some years ago, Jean Hebert wrote a book about an international tournament held in Montreal. In this tournament there were several strong GMs and also several "weaker" Quebec masters, all of them playing twice against each other. What I found interesting were the evaluations he made right after the opening in all these games. Surprisingly, the weaker Quebec master had an opening edge quite often against GMs - actually, almost as often as the opposite. Still, he would almost always end up losing.

Here is why. When a GM gets a distinct opening edge against a weaker player, he meets very little opposition and simply crushes his opponent 100% of the time. When a weaker player gets a distinct opening edge against a GM, he soon realizes that the GM is very resilient and will not go down easily. Actually, very often the weaker player will only draw, or even worse the GM will turn the tables and manage to win.

This is also true according to my personal experience over the board, against both much stronger and much weaker opposition. How many "won games" right after the opening did I spoil against masters? Plenty! And how many "resignable positions" did I save or even win against weaker players? Plenty!

So here is what I think about players whose ratings differ by a certain large number. The strongest player may play the opening a little better in general, but the main reason for his many wins is that he plays the middlegame and the endgame much, much better.

With respect to chess960, what would block you from playing a chess960 match against someone who beats you 75% of the time at standard chess and seeing if the results match? Aren't you curious about it? Why would you just assume if you could actually try it out? Maybe there is something about chess960 you don't like, because it's so easy to change from standard chess to chess960. I can see you're happy with standard chess, and that's fine, but if you could try the chess960 experiment, why wouldn't you say to yourself, "Hmmm, what if there is something to this and I could even things up more by playing chess960?"

When I talk about my 36-year experience in chess, I am not talking of casual games played in clubs or with computers or on Internet, but of serious competitive games in rated tournaments with a slow time control. Just tell me where and when there will be such a serious competition of chess960. I've never heard of any so far.

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: Re : Making Draws in Chess Very Rare

You sir are no Paul Beckwith. At least Paul knows what he is talkng about. He may or may not be right at the end of the day but he's not totally absurd.

You might have missed a few of the debates. Paul Beckwith is occasionally totally absurd.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Making Draws in Chess Very Rare

Not that I necessarily agree that there are way too many draws in chess, but a chess variant I thought of tonight, which might require only one change to the basic rules of chess (and yet may significantly decrease the percentage of drawn games) is what I tentatively would call (assuming the name isn't taken):

Throne Chess

In this otherwise standard version of chess, besides winning by checkmate, another way to win on the board will be for one side's king to arrive at the original square of the enemy king. That is, White wins if his king ever reaches e8, and Black wins if his king ever reaches e1.

This way it is also possible to win on time with just a lone king, as well. Unclear to me if the 50 move draw rule needs to be changed, as now many/most endgames would need to be reevaluated.

The idea for this variant occured to me less than half an hour ago, when I was playing over an old game between Judit Polgar and Anand where they played until nothing but the kings were left. In the final position White to move would be winning in a game of Throne Chess (W: Ka6, B: Ka4), but if the positions of the kings on the a-file had been reversed then the game would be a draw.

People can feel free to now poke holes in this proposed variant :), as I haven't given it much thought for one thing.

At the moment my prefered chess variant to become standard, if it's ever necessary, would be some 10x10 chess variant (though I worry an average game may be too many moves long); perhaps Throne Chess rules could be used for that too if need be.