i rarely draw , when i do its because both of us have gone toe to toe and withstood every blow thrown at each other , ,,,that is good chess and deserves merit , half a point for a draw is the fair score
Draws should count less than loss
Sort:
Nov 27, 2019
0
#3
Personally I think It sound's stupid, But it might be a nice chess variant
Nov 27, 2019
0
#4
yeah that carlsen anand world championship was very off putting for the amount of draws , not sure if a win is worth 3 points though but i remember when in footie a win only got two points
hakkyakky28 a écrit :
It's funny how people see these things in different ways. Valuing a draw less than a defeat seems completely against the spirit of the game to me. I think chess (or any competitive activity really) is most enjoyable when people are giving it their all to get the best result they can (within the limits of fair play and common courtesy, of course). It seems to me that your scoring system undermines the most fundamental aspect of the game, the thing that makes it a game in fact, just to promote a particular style of play. It's not worth it to me, especially when strategic, careful chess can be just as pretty as the wild attacking stuff. (Think of most of Capablanca's best games for example.) However, I do think 3 points for a win and 1 for a draw like in football is worth looking at considering the number of GM draws these days.
It's not the spirit of chess, it's the spirit of modern boring scientific chess promoted by steitnitz.
In japan there is no draw. Shogi allow no draw (the game itself) and the game is as romantic as in the 1800's century.
Chess is supposed to be romancic, every amateur love the romantic players. But the current system doesn't allow romantic chess to be played.
In the 1800's the unspoken gentleman rules that "draws are worse than defeat" was what permitted all the great games of morphy and anderssen we witness today.
Don't you want to go back to this era ?
And you could play positionally too. It would just be even riskier. If you played positionnaly and you couldn't convert your advantage you would accept your failure instead of just "taking the draw".
Johnny-Vang a écrit :
man, yer talkin plonk.
Of course not it's the romantic ideal ! Aren't you a romantic ? I thought every chess amateur was a romantic.
Here's another idea if you want :
More than 200 players in a big single elimination tournament.
Except this time only winner goes on to the next stage .
Everyobody would play for the win with black or white. Cause 1 loss, 1 draw and you go home.
Only the brave would get to the quarter, the semi and finally the final.
And the one who would win the tournament...
Would have won every game he played !
A truly romantic performance. A la bobby fisher.
Nov 27, 2019
0
#7
Johnny-Vang wrote:
well yes, I guess I am very romantic.
but I don’t think docking points is the answer. I think it would be better to make them pay a toll if it’s a boring draw.
Better yet ban them from chess.com
Nov 27, 2019
0
#8
I agree! That way I have a realistic chance of winning a tournament (you know, since everyone draws -- while I lose!)
Nov 27, 2019
0
#9
Stop spamming please, you've gone this in literally all the forums I've commented on in the last 10 minutes. Not cool 😤
Nov 27, 2019
0
#10
No they should not. People much more knowledgeable about chess thought about these questions and points rules for over a hundred years and they decided on the best solution.
Drawgood a écrit :
No they should not. People much more knowledgeable about chess thought about these questions and points rules for over a hundred years and they decided on the best solution.
The only true chessplayers were the romantics of the 1800's hundred era.
Don't you want to go back to their unspokens rule that created mayhem on the board ?
"Accept all sacrifices"
"Do everything to create an interresting game of chess"
"Only play gambit and romantic idea that will create a fight on the board."
Those were enforces rules ! Unspoken yes but enforced !
They were more intelligent than you and me and created all these crazy games.
I'm sure if we say to people : "Now a draw will give you nothing, absolutely nothing"
They will go back to the romantic chess of the past.
Nov 28, 2019
0
#12
there is a thinking in chess that says if both players play the best moves the game is drawn
yet somehow that then means if your thread becomes law that two players playing the best chess isnt the best chess , which is bizarre to me , but those early draws you see at gm level , when loads of pieces are left im less keen on , they are there for mayhem and fun , not to be put unused back in the box, those type of draws id say should be minus 10 points
ANOK1 a écrit :
there is a thinking in chess that says if both players play the best moves the game is drawn
yet somehow that then means if your thread becomes law that two players playing the best chess isnt the best chess , which is bizarre to me , but those early draws you see at gm level , when loads of pieces are left im less keen on , they are there for mayhem and fun , not to be put unused back in the box, those type of draws id say should be minus 10 points
Don't you think a tournament like this one ould be more natural ?
A true survival of the fittest ?
More than 200 players in a big single elimination tournament.
Except this time only winner goes on to the next stage .
Everyobody would play for the win with black or white. Cause 1 loss, 1 draw and you go home.
Only the brave would get to the quarter, the semi and finally the final.
And the one who would win the tournament...
Would have won every game he played !
A truly romantic performance. A la bobby fisher.
It's bound to create the most interresting chess ever played. I wouldn't say it would be bizarre. Top players would just appreciate for the first time in a long time what it is to have 2 players in a must win situation at the same time.
THose situations happens in opens or end of tournament sometimes they make for the most exciting chess ever.
Chess isn't only a cold scientific process ! It's also psychological, there is beauty in the romancitcs idea of the past even if they weren't always true.
Makes no sense. High level chess players agree to draw when neither wants to give up that last inch which would cause them to lose, ergo a draw is obviously a more favorable outcome than a loss.
hakkyakky28 a écrit :
finnsteur wrote:
Chess is supposed to be romancic, every amateur love the romantic players. But the current system doesn't allow romantic chess to be played.
In the 1800's the unspoken gentleman rules that "draws are worse than defeat" was what permitted all the great games of morphy and anderssen we witness today.
Don't you want to go back to this era ?
Actually, no, I do not want to go back to that era. I find the idea of playing particular (probably inferior) moves because of an unspoken "gentleman's agreement" to be inelegant. I want to see the best players play what they judge to be the best moves in order to win the game (or draw if they have no possibility of winning) based on current knowledge. Our current knowledge is just so much greater now than in the early nineteenth century that I don't think trying to rewind the clock and go back to the style of play that was used then makes any sense.
The games Morphy et al played then were great because that was the best chess humans were capable of at the time. But if Carlsen and the current generation switched to playing like that, with all sacrifices accepted not for any reason to do with their evaluation of the position but because of an unspoken agreement, I would feel those games would be tainted by the fact that they knew another continuation was probably better and didn't play it for non-chess reasons.
If you want more attacking games it seems to me that you should be looking to create a chess variant that makes aggressive play on average more likely to lead to a positive result. Vladimir Kramnik has an article on chess.com today where he argues 'no castling chess' might be a way to do that. I don't find his argument totally convincing, but that approach makes far more sense to me than the counter intuitive idea of making a draw count less than a loss in tournament scoring.
I refer you to this idea then.
More than 200 players in a big single elimination tournament.
Except this time only winner goes on to the next stage .
Everyobody would play for the win with black or white. Cause 1 loss, 1 draw and you go home.
Only the brave would get to the quarter, the semi and finally the final.
And the one who would win the tournament...
Would have won every game he played !
A truly romantic performance. A la bobby fisher.
I'm sure this type of tournament would make for the most interresting chess ever played. It wouldn't be inelegant at all. They would make their outmost effort to go to the next stage. All the while not playing bizarre moves that could make them lose.
It's like the young tal ideology : Play romantic but play just (we analyzed his sacrifices they were all at least leading to a draw even when they seemed crazy, he never intentionally play move that would lead him to a loss).
In this format you couldn't play subpar moves like in the old days because of stockfish and cie, your opponent would use your mistakes to win.
But at the same time you would always tries to create something new on the board. Something interresting, because winning is all you've got.
Nov 28, 2019
0
#16
Johnny-Vang wrote:
well yes, I guess I am very romantic.
but I don’t think docking points is the answer. I think it would be better to make them pay a toll if it’s a boring draw.
What is boring to you is not boring to someone else. I have had many exciting Berlin, Petroff, Exchange French, and London System games (almost always as Black in all 4 cases), yet you might find them boring due to the lengthy endgames. I do not find them boring!
Nov 28, 2019
0
#17
It is known that the best Black can do is to draw, unless White makes a "mistake." If two players are near perfect, like world chess championship, it is not surprising that there are a lot of draws. It certainly is boring to watch such matches. So just don't watch them. Perfect games are boring. Watch blitz instead.
Nov 28, 2019
0
#18
finnsteur wrote:
Because true romantics see draws as even bitter than defeat.
My idea for the top tournament :
Win : 1 point
Loss : 0 point
Draw : -1 point
It seems crazy but it's exactly like that our ancestors created romantic chess. There was an unspoken rule to arrange an insterresting fight on the board. Anderssen, morphy etc... they all played like that accepting all sacrifices.
This rule would have both players always tries their outmost to create a fight.
I prefer both players trying to play accurate.
Nov 28, 2019
0
#19
ATurkeyDressFInTown wrote:
mathgk wrote:
It is known that the best Black can do is to draw, unless White makes a "mistake." If two players are near perfect, like world chess championship, it is not surprising that there are a lot of draws. It certainly is boring to watch such matches. So just don't watch them. Perfect games are boring. Watch blitz instead.
It is known that white is better in practice because he is a move up. If chess were to be solved, black might have more chances or even win by force, and there are some neural nets and some theory crafting that suggests that if anyone is better, it's black, but only at the cutting, bleeding edge of chess theory.
I find that theory highly unlikely. Certainly, chess has not been "solved" and the first player does not always win in every zero-sum game. But the fact that the current best chess programs cannot win a single game as Black is a very strong evidence that, at least in chess, the first-move advantage is definitive.
Because true romantics see draws as even bitter than defeat.
My idea for the top tournament :
Win : 1 point
Loss : 0 point
Draw : -1 point
It seems crazy but it's exactly like that our ancestors created romantic chess. There was an unspoken rule to arrange an insterresting fight on the board. Anderssen, morphy etc... they all played like that accepting all sacrifices.
This rule would have both players always tries their outmost to create a fight.