I always feel for the player who can obviously win against me in one or two moves after the early stalemate is decided.
Personally it's frustrating when it happens to me.
Does anyone have an opinion on this?
Games drawn well before it's over
Sort:
I watched a clip from the US Championship today, they had John Ludwig Hammer (I think thats his name.) But he was thinking that they should just abolish the draw offers. It doesn't get around 3 move repetitions but this may bring around more fighting chess
Sorry I guess I do confuse stalemates with draws. I was commenting on a game I had recently. The pawns were making their move to becoming a queen and a definite win in that game. I think the player with a definite advantage should have the chance to go for the sure win. ie: pawn becomes queen/checkmate soon after.
What do people think about a rule like: making the player that repeats a move more than three times lose the game? It would get around the trap of a disadvantaged queen constantly repeating her attack on the king. That really annoys me by the way.
May 2, 2011
0
#6
dream101 wrote:
Sorry I guess I do confuse stalemates with draws. I was commenting on a game I had recently. The pawns were making their move to becoming a queen and a definite win in that game. I think the player with a definite advantage should have the chance to go for the sure win. ie: pawn becomes queen/checkmate soon after.
You don't have to accept a draw offer.
Even if the other player makes a draw offer after every move, you can always ignore it.
Yeah I know that, I usually ask the person (through chat) if they need to be somewhere if they are asking for a draw for no apparent reason.
My problem is that with the chess computer rule master or whatever it is.... that thing that ends the game when you have the chance to win, completely decides for you before you have the obviuos chance of winning..
ReasonableDoubt wrote:
Anyone who suggests abolishing the draw is completely wrong in my opinion. First, it won't do anything, it'll just annoy people and force them to repeat the position three times. Secondly, the reason that Grandmasters draw so early in some of their games is because strategically, they want a draw. This may sound strange, but if you're a full point ahead of the pack going into the last round or if you're playing someone who you know is stronger than you by far, a draw doesn't sound so bad anymore. Also, people may not be feeling well on any given day and not want a long game. The main point I'm getting at though is that GM's offer draws on move 15 because they're playing unambitious variations that generally go straight to an endgame where white is slightly favored. When a master heads to an endgame with a slight advantage and doesn't feel like trying to play for a win (i.e., doesn't create any weaknesses, doesn't do anything risky) it's very difficult to beat him. The reason that draws occur so early is to save time, as the white player has already established that they are simply going to head for a dull position that results in a draw 95% of the time. Chess revolves around strategy, and it's ridiculous to make a rule that first off shouldn't exist and secondly can't be enforced and will only end in people shuffling their kings back and forth.
sorry can't stand cut and paste
dream101 wrote:
What do people think about a rule like: making the player that repeats a move more than three times lose the game? It would get around the trap of a disadvantaged queen constantly repeating her attack on the king. That really annoys me by the way.
Well, that's already the case in Xiangqi. I can definitely see why people would like three-fold repetition to become a loss in chess as well. Both have their pros and cons.
On the other hand, I don't think there's anything wrong with draw by agreement.
May 22, 2011
0
#10
were you talking about this game? http://www.chess.com/livechess/game.html?id=122972461
if so, that is a stalemate because your opponent had no legal moves. that is an automatic draw.
ZBicyclist wrote:
dream101 wrote:
Sorry I guess I do confuse stalemates with draws. I was commenting on a game I had recently. The pawns were making their move to becoming a queen and a definite win in that game. I think the player with a definite advantage should have the chance to go for the sure win. ie: pawn becomes queen/checkmate soon after.
You don't have to accept a draw offer.
Even if the other player makes a draw offer after every move, you can always ignore it.
I was talking about the computer detrmining the draw.
dmeng wrote:
dream101 wrote:
What do people think about a rule like: making the player that repeats a move more than three times lose the game? It would get around the trap of a disadvantaged queen constantly repeating her attack on the king. That really annoys me by the way.
Well, that's already the case in Xiangqi. I can definitely see why people would like three-fold repetition to become a loss in chess as well. Both have their pros and cons.
On the other hand, I don't think there's anything wrong with draw by agreement.
I don't think anyone can complain about a game drawn by agreement.
Estragon wrote:
dream101 wrote
My problem is that with the chess computer rule master or whatever it is.... that thing that ends the game when you have the chance to win, completely decides for you before you have the obviuos chance of winning..
The computer will only "decide for you" in case of actual stalemate - no legal move possible but not checkmated - on the board. If you fall into a threefold repetition, the opponent has to claim it before it is awarded.
So the moral of the story is: don't allow a threefold repetition if you are trying to win the game.
thanks
The time to offer a draw is when your losing for some reason such as time shortage or material inferiority. Your opponent may feel he can take advantage and win or he may feel he has too little advantage to go for the win.
If the position is drawn ( such as the starting position and may other balanced positions) then it time to make a measured mistake to draw him out as if to say come on then see if you can beat me now.
ReasonableDoubt wrote:
That's completely ridiculous. Offering a draw from a losing position basically just makes you look like a jerk, and there's no way your opponent will accept. Also, if the position is drawn, the dumbest thing you can do is deliberately make a mistake to try to get your opponent to play for a win. The time to offer a draw is when:
1. The position is clearly drawn (this one should be obvious).
2. You are in a slightly better position that you are too tired to play out and probably wouldn't win anyway, and in your opinion is not worth wasting hours on while your opponent can probably still hold.
3. You are on the better side of a theoretical draw. Note that it is considered rude to offer a draw when on the worse side of a theoretical draw, as this insinuates that you are reminding the player it is drawn instead of allowing him time to see that you know the position.
4. A draw guarantees you a considerable amount of money. This one goes without saying.
5. On move 5 if you are playing the London System (I'm kidding).
6. If you feel physically ill or for some other reason unfit to continue.
That was a nice pice of etiquette!
Estragon wrote:
dream101 wrote
My problem is that with the chess computer rule master or whatever it is.... that thing that ends the game when you have the chance to win, completely decides for you before you have the obviuos chance of winning..
The computer will only "decide for you" in case of actual stalemate - no legal move possible but not checkmated - on the board. If you fall into a threefold repetition, the opponent has to claim it before it is awarded.
So the moral of the story is: don't allow a threefold repetition if you are trying to win the game.
There's also automatic draw because of "insufficient material". Like King and bishop versus King.
nxavar wrote:
Estragon wrote:
dream101 wrote
My problem is that with the chess computer rule master or whatever it is.... that thing that ends the game when you have the chance to win, completely decides for you before you have the obviuos chance of winning..
The computer will only "decide for you" in case of actual stalemate - no legal move possible but not checkmated - on the board. If you fall into a threefold repetition, the opponent has to claim it before it is awarded.
So the moral of the story is: don't allow a threefold repetition if you are trying to win the game.
There's also automatic draw because of "insufficient material". Like King and bishop versus King.
A threefold repetition is not always possible to get out of. Have people noticed perculiar times when games are being drawn for insufficient material.
I have noticed in games recently where say: 'player white has his king and a horse left vs player black with a king, horse, bishop and 1 pawn. Player white wins on time but the game is called a draw for insufficient material.'
Is this a decision based on the fact that: ' given more time player black would have won the game so insufficient material is called.'
Is chess stalemate being decided too early here?