An idea for eliminating more draws

It would be nice if draws were limited to stalemates and insufficient material situations. In order for this to be the case basically what would need to be eliminated is draws by agreement and the 3 fold repetition. Many people say that you can't just get rid of draws by agreement because they could always just repeat a move 3 times and call it a draw.

Has anyone ever suggested something like this:

Make it so the person who first repeats the position for the 3rd time loses the game. In this way, situations where neither player wants to weaken their position - situations that before may have led to 3-fold repetition and a draw - are now more like an opposition situation. The person who is on the move with a 3-fold repetition looming is the one forced to play on with a new move.

Whenever a draw is agreed, A new game of chess starts between the same two players, except the position on the board is the same as the previous game but 2 ply earlier. The players play out this position. If this game has a draw agreed, then a third game of chess is started with the position being the way it was 2 ply before the draw was agreed on board 2 and so on and so forth.

Once one player wins a meta chess game, they pop one level above to the chess game one meta level higher and the player can go back any number of ply and a chess game is played from there.

If a meta meta chess game is won and the resulting meta chess game (that was previously drawn) is reversed back to a point in the game that is then played out to another draw, then another branch of meta meta chess game is started to resolve that position.

After all variations are folded and a player wins on the first chess board, he recieves a number of points equal to the total number of chess boards involved in the meta-chess tree.

I believe now that FIDE should immediately adapt this foolproof way of removing draws from chess.

Some of the historic Shogi variants were once thought to have rules that would forbid any repetition. This leads to several effects that Chess (variant) players almost universally consider as unfair. E.g. that you can force a win by perpetual checking. In variants like Shogi and Xiangqi perpetual checking is explicitly forbidden (i.e. an all-checks repetition makes the checker lose, irrespective of who repeats first).

Mini-Shogi has the rule that every other (3rd) repetition is a loss for the side that had the first move. (Chess players would call this side 'white', but Shogi players of course do everything in reverse.)

Of course Mini-Shogi games do not have a natural end, as captured pieces are dropped back on the board, so winning would always remain possible. It would become a bit of a silly game if you had to continue in Chess with K+B vs K+N some 16 million moves until all possible positions are exhausted...

Then what would happen in this position?

Agreed, that's why my method is the only way to eliminate draws for sure!

In case of draw, I like Chess 960 as drawbreaker. In case of another draw, another Chess 960 until someone wins.

I actually like draws since it keeps it still interesting. It gives the obvious looser a reason to keep fighting. Getting a draw out of an obvious loss is like a win to me. 

WOW!! The ability to switch sides is actually an amazing way to play chess. Why have I not heard of this? There's no way people would be happy with slight advantage draws if there is always the option of switching sides.

I don't think the option of switching sides even has to be mandatory. 

However, I can see how it's very strange. Imagine watching a youtube video about a legendery chess game of the past:

"And here Tal and Botvinnik switch sides, and Tal had the black pieces. Ne5, f5, Nc4, Bxc4, Bxc4

Here Botvinnik offered a draw, and Tal and Botvinnik switched places again."

It could take quite a bit of getting used to, but is very, very feasable.

However, I'm still not optimistic. Even seemingly simple "no drawback" solutions to draw heavy top level chess such as 1.5 points for a win ended up having unintended cosequences. So I'm sure this would be no different and I'm simply not creative enough to come up with them.

You're stuck in a no true scotsman fallacy. It's true, I don't mind draws either. But you're essnentially saying:

"If you understand chess, then you will not hate draws."

Then super gm Kasimdzhanov says "I understand chess, and I hate draws."

Since he is rated at least a 1000 points higher than you, the only way you can really retort is to say "Well you don't truly understand chess."

As you can see, your assertion that chess understanding is related to your attitude towards draws is simply fallacious.

Great idea by Kasimdzanov!!

http://en.chessbase.com/post/kasimdzhanov-open-letter-to-fide-with-a-proposal

Simple and recommended. 

About the ratings though, if it's decided on a Classical - Rapid - Blitz combo, then it should be rated as a draw for Classical and Rapid, and as a win for Blitz. 

"Either eliminate the draw or force a player to play stupid moves" can be split into:

"Eliminate the draw"

"Force a player to play stupid moves."

Therefore in your statement you have implied:

"Changing the the rules to eliminate the draw implies you have no chess understanding."

Super GM Kasimdzanov says "I have chess understanding, and I want to change the rules to eliminate the draw. Therefore your statement can't be true."

Once again, your only way to respond without conceding your point is to say "Well then Super GM Kasimdzanov, you don't truly have chess understanding."

You're still in a no true scotsman fallacy.

+1

Simple solution: draw for White counts 0.4 points, for Black 0.6

Stop trying to re-invent the wheel with utter horsesh*t, for crying out loud!

Take the following position.  White is up a pawn.  If he is too stupid to figure out that Black threatens to sacrifice the Rook and force perpetrual check, he doesn't deserve to win.  Under your rules of whoever initiates the repetition loses, what you are doing is telling White to go about his own business since Black can't force a draw by repetition, he would lose doing it under your rules.

You must work to get the win, not take some easy bullsh*t way out with new corny, moronic rules that only a chess imbecile that can't mate his opponent under the current rules would come up with!

Maybe something like Chutes and Ladders is more up your alley.  Always a winner in that game!

so people would play 3-fold repetition until time runs out? How boring would that be... you would have like 300 moves

Guys

Draws are just part of chess.Chess wouldn't be chess without draws.It gives the predicted losar a chance  not to lose.

Draws are important to the game. If there were 9,999,999 games between 2 people that played perfectly in each one, Every game would be a draw.

You dont need to change the rules of the game - just have 3 points for a win and 1 for a draw. Straight away players in tournaments will be reluctant to agree a draw unless there is no other realistic option on the board.