I don't see how removing the 50 move rule would change very many draws. About the only case I can think of is a King + 2 knights vs. A king + a pawn. I know there are a few other cases but they are pretty rare.
You need to consider more complex endgames. Here are some examples:
I'm sure all of such positions occur much more often than stalemate (or a game that is agreed to a draw because it will eventually end in stalemate).
I don't see how removing the 50 move rule would change very many draws. About the only case I can think of is a King + 2 knights vs. A king + a pawn. I know there are a few other cases but they are pretty rare.
You need to consider more complex endgames. Here are some examples:
I'm sure all of such positions occur much more often than stalemate (or a game that is agreed to a draw because it will eventually end in stalemate).
None of your examples are draws because of the 50 move rule, they would all be draws with a million (or more) move limit. In none of them is there a forced win and they are not particularly complex. In all your examples, I think 50 moves is sufficient time to discover if the defender knows what he is doing. There are some positions that have forced wins that take longer than 50 moves, but they are rare.
The players create the draws. The rules are just the mechanism. You think eliminating stalemate will reduce the players tendencies to play drawish chess? All it would do is narrow the field of games (once the re-analysis of openings was well underway) in which equality, or more to the point, drawishness, is a key element. Payers who want to play drawish chess will simply gravitate to this smaller set of drawish games.
You can monkey with the rules of the game, but human nature is an entirely different nut to crack. Let's not confuse the two.
Another breath of sanity in this thread. Thanks kindly, @Grobe.
Would destroy the complexity of endgames.
Perhaps you should look at your play, not the rule.
If you scored a stalemate as a .75 win, it would make endgames more complex. BTW there is noting magical about .75, I suggest the number because it has historical precedent. You could score it as a .6 or even a .55 win and it would be an improvement over the present system.
Here's an interesting rule from the 1902 Monte Carlo Tournament:
"A won game counts 1 point. Drawn games have to be replayed; in case of a draw each player receives one-quarter of a point: if the drawn game between the same players is again drawn, then each man receives one-half point for both games; in case the game is won by either party, the winner receives an additional half point, a total therefore of three-quarters of a point for both the games, while the loser gets one-quarter. (This rule was also in force last year.)"
*checkmate = king cant move without moving into check (a stupid double negative). THis would be like in soccer, a goal is when the ball is travelling so that it cant miss the net, but it shouldnt actually go into the net.
*king cant move into check
*If you cant move its a draw
Alternate (1 sane elegant, easy to understand) rule:
*capture the king. (that is all)
If a ball travelling with adequate speed towards a net is not obstructed by some pesky, goodie-two-shoes goalie, usually it goes in. It's a Newtonian thing.
If, on the other hand, the ball IS obstructed by said pesky, goodie-two-shoes goalie, lo and behold, the ball will not go in as the kinetic energy of the ball is partially absorbed and redirected by some part of the goalies body! No goal! What gives?
It would seem the goalie has somehow foiled the plan of the opposing team, litterally blocking the trajectory of the ball. What a bummer. It's not nice having ones fool proof plan obstructed by stupid details like goalies* in a football match or -say - an opponent who just seems to know more about creating stalemate opportunities than you yourself do.
Please keep up the good work making sketchy comparisons to other games and activities in order to prove your point. Sooner or later we're bound to make a breakthrough one way or another. Even if it has allready taken more than a year.
*Did you realize they sometimes grab the ball with their hands? That's ridiculous, I mean, it's called football! Handball goalies blocking with their legs and feet is just as terrible, mind you. In fact, the idea of goalies in a football match needs to be abolished; they're ruining the game!
*checkmate = king cant move without moving into check (a stupid double negative). THis would be like in soccer, a goal is when the ball is travelling so that it cant miss the net, but it shouldnt actually go into the net.
*king cant move into check
*If you cant move its a draw
Alternate (1 sane elegant, easy to understand) rule:
*capture the king. (that is all)
If a ball travelling with adequate speed towards a net is not obstructed by some pesky, goodie-two-shoes goalie, usually it goes in. It's a Newtonian thing.
If, on the other hand, the ball IS obstructed by said pesky, goodie-two-shoes goalie, lo and behold, the ball will not go in as the kinetic energy of the ball is partially absorbed and redirected by some part of the goalies body! No goal! What gives?
It would seem the goalie has somehow foiled the plan of the opposing team, litterally blocking the trajectory of the ball. What a bummer. It's not nice having ones fool proof plan obstructed by stupid details like goalies* in a football match or -say - an opponent who just seems to know more about creating stalemate opportunities than you yourself do.
Please keep up the good work making sketchy comparisons to other games and activities in order to prove your point. Sooner or later we're bound to make a breakthrough one way or another. Even if it has allready taken more than a year.
*Did you realize they sometimes grab the ball with their hands? That's ridiculous, I mean, it's called football! Handball goalies blocking with their legs and feet is just as terrible, mind you. In fact, the idea of goalies in a football match needs to be abolished; they're ruining the game!
It should be noted that they are constantly tinkering with the interpretation of the off sides rules, due largely to the number of draws in the World cup.
The only chess players that want to abolish stalemate are those who don't know how to avoid it. Shall we consider abolishing enpassant?
Do you have any evidence of your assertion. I think Nimzovitch was pretty good at avoiding stalemates. If you wasnt to abolish enpassant please start a seperate thread, as it is completely irrelevant to the issues being discussed.
That's a completely different thing than altering the definition of what constitutes a draw versus a win though.
*checkmate = king cant move without moving into check (a stupid double negative). THis would be like in soccer, a goal is when the ball is travelling so that it cant miss the net, but it shouldnt actually go into the net.
*king cant move into check
*If you cant move its a draw
Alternate (1 sane elegant, easy to understand) rule:
*capture the king. (that is all)
If a ball travelling with adequate speed towards a net is not obstructed by some pesky, goodie-two-shoes goalie, usually it goes in. It's a Newtonian thing.
If, on the other hand, the ball IS obstructed by said pesky, goodie-two-shoes goalie, lo and behold, the ball will not go in as the kinetic energy of the ball is partially absorbed and redirected by some part of the goalies body! No goal! What gives?
It would seem the goalie has somehow foiled the plan of the opposing team, litterally blocking the trajectory of the ball. What a bummer. It's not nice having ones fool proof plan obstructed by stupid details like goalies* in a football match or -say - an opponent who just seems to know more about creating stalemate opportunities than you yourself do.
Please keep up the good work making sketchy comparisons to other games and activities in order to prove your point. Sooner or later we're bound to make a breakthrough one way or another. Even if it has allready taken more than a year.
*Did you realize they sometimes grab the ball with their hands? That's ridiculous, I mean, it's called football! Handball goalies blocking with their legs and feet is just as terrible, mind you. In fact, the idea of goalies in a football match needs to be abolished; they're ruining the game!
It should be noted that they are constantly tinkering with the interpretation of the off sides rules, due largely to the number of draws in the World cup.
Hehe, that's true. The whole off side discussion, as far as I know, revolves around spectators, so now all of a sudden the question beckons: Would more chess players follow WC games if the rules were to change?
I suppose it's all about perspective. When I manage to convert a lost position to a nice stalemate, I thoroughly enjoy that. When it happens to me (usually because I'm too daft to have a look at my opponents move before I continue my attacking spree) I have a laugh at my own expense. All the same it always seems to make me laugh.
None of your examples are draws because of the 50 move rule, they would all be draws with a million (or more) move limit. In none of them is there a forced win and they are not particularly complex. In all your examples, I think 50 moves is sufficient time to discover if the defender knows what he is doing. There are some positions that have forced wins that take longer than 50 moves, but they are rare.
?? I don't see how those are different from your K+N+N vs K example. In these positions, at least one side has enough material to mate, but the game is at a standstill because neither side can make progress. I'm not talking about won games that take longer than 50 moves. I'm talking about games that are theoretical draws, but the offical rules of chess would not recognize them as a draw. The only way to draw these in a reasonable amount of time if one of the players is being stubborn would be the 50 move rule (or the 3 fold repitition, though there are plenty of examples whree the 50 move rule can be reached prior to 3 fold rep)
Yes, high level games never reach that 50 move mark to claim draw by the 50 move rule because both players will often recognize that it would eventually end that way anyway, thus agree to a draw beforehand to be more efficient. However, the 50 move rule is still affecting these draw decisions.
Regardless, you're missing my main point which is that there is nothing wrong with draws, and it's not necessary to reduce their frequency.
*checkmate = king cant move without moving into check (a stupid double negative). THis would be like in soccer, a goal is when the ball is travelling so that it cant miss the net, but it shouldnt actually go into the net.
*king cant move into check
*If you cant move its a draw
Alternate (1 sane elegant, easy to understand) rule:
*capture the king. (that is all)
If a ball travelling with adequate speed towards a net is not obstructed by some pesky, goodie-two-shoes goalie, usually it goes in. It's a Newtonian thing.
If, on the other hand, the ball IS obstructed by said pesky, goodie-two-shoes goalie, lo and behold, the ball will not go in as the kinetic energy of the ball is partially absorbed and redirected by some part of the goalies body! No goal! What gives?
It would seem the goalie has somehow foiled the plan of the opposing team, litterally blocking the trajectory of the ball. What a bummer. It's not nice having ones fool proof plan obstructed by stupid details like goalies* in a football match or -say - an opponent who just seems to know more about creating stalemate opportunities than you yourself do.
Please keep up the good work making sketchy comparisons to other games and activities in order to prove your point. Sooner or later we're bound to make a breakthrough one way or another. Even if it has allready taken more than a year.
*Did you realize they sometimes grab the ball with their hands? That's ridiculous, I mean, it's called football! Handball goalies blocking with their legs and feet is just as terrible, mind you. In fact, the idea of goalies in a football match needs to be abolished; they're ruining the game!
It should be noted that they are constantly tinkering with the interpretation of the off sides rules, due largely to the number of draws in the World cup.
Hehe, that's true. The whole off side discussion, as far as I know, revolves around spectators, so now all of a sudden the question beckons: Would more chess players follow WC games if the rules were to change?
I suppose it's all about perspective. When I manage to convert a lost position to a nice stalemate, I thoroughly enjoy that. When it happens to me (usually because I'm too daft to have a look at my opponents move before I continue my attacking spree) I have a laugh at my own expense. All the same it always seems to make me laugh.
Would it make that much difference if you won or lost a 1/4 point instead of a 1/2 point with a stalemate trap. I find some stalemate traps amusing, but would find them just as amusing if they only saved a 1/4 of a point. There isn't a draw problem with untitled players. But I found it hard to get excited about the last candidates cycle and the last World championship match. It just seemed to be draw after draw. I enjoy playing chess, but I used to enjoy following the Championship and candidates matches and now find them pretty boring.
Now how many of those draws in the last WC cycle involved stalemate?
Thought so.
You forgot "resorts to ad hominem attacks in place of actual reasoning".
So considering another view point that opposes someone's idea automatically is wrong? Hmmm...
Is the glass half empty or half full?
I'm not sure you understood what I was saying there.
None of your examples are draws because of the 50 move rule, they would all be draws with a million (or more) move limit. In none of them is there a forced win and they are not particularly complex. In all your examples, I think 50 moves is sufficient time to discover if the defender knows what he is doing. There are some positions that have forced wins that take longer than 50 moves, but they are rare.
?? I don't see how those are different from your K+N+N vs K example. In these positions, at least one side has enough material to mate, but the game is at a standstill because neither side can make progress. I'm not talking about won games that take longer than 50 moves. I'm talking about games that are theoretical draws, but the offical rules of chess would not recognize them as a draw. The only way to draw these in a reasonable amount of time if one of the players is being stubborn would be the 50 move rule (or the 3 fold repitition, though there are plenty of examples whree the 50 move rule can be reached prior to 3 fold rep)
Yes, high level games never reach that 50 move mark to claim draw by the 50 move rule because both players will often recognize that it would eventually end that way anyway, thus agree to a draw beforehand to be more efficient. However, the 50 move rule is still affecting these draw decisions.
Regardless, you're missing my main point which is that there is nothing wrong with draws, and it's not necessary to reduce their frequency.
If you feel that there is nothing wrong with the rate of draws in the last Canidate's matches (over 90%) is acceptable then you are in a minority.
My example of a K+N+N vs K+PAWNwas the only example I could think of where there was a forced mate, but was a draw because of the 50 move rule. There are probably others but they are rare.
I'm not sure you understood what I was saying there.
You seemed to imply that people ( probably more specifically me, because I did do this in addition to using some other angles to show all of the reasons I could find to disagree) were using examples of failings by the side who would be the winner, if the OP's idea of a draw scenario would be reality, to try to undermine their logic, instead of using a more reasonable point of attack.
I'm not sure you understood what I was saying there.
You seemed to imply that people ( probably more specifically me, because I did do this in addition to using some other angles to show all of the reasons I could find to disagree) were using examples of failings by the side who would be the winner, if the OP's idea of a draw scenario would be reality, to try to undermine their logic, instead of using a more reasonable point of attack.
You need to get over yourself. I was adding to waffllemaster's list which was directed at Monster. It had nothing to do with you.
I'm not sure you understood what I was saying there.
You seemed to imply that people ( probably more specifically me, because I did do this in addition to using some other angles to show all of the reasons I could find to disagree) were using examples of failings by the side who would be the winner, if the OP's idea of a draw scenario would be reality, to try to undermine their logic, instead of using a more reasonable point of attack.
You need to get over yourself. I was adding to waffllemaster's list which was directed at Monster. It had nothing to do with you.
I see how it could applied either way. I noticed you didn't quote anyone on it. A nice snide way to attack and accuse without being able to be held accountable. I wasn't directly accussing you, that is why I mentioned the possibility in my post. So using the comment I need to get over myself for noticing something was possible sounds like a guilty conscience to me....but what ever is convenient for you....all of you trolls are alike
The only chess players that want to abolish stalemate are those who don't know how to avoid it. Shall we consider abolishing enpassant?