What "draw problem" are you talking about?
The BEST solution for the draw problem
Sort:
Also, the problem with this tournament style is that it actually PROMOTES draws more. People know that if they play solid and aim for a draw, their opponent will go for something crazy. The opponent would know the same, and thus, 60-90% of the games would all be drawn.
I don't think too many people would play for the win. After all, why risk anything when you can play safely and your opponent will be the one taking risks?
JustARandomPatzer a écrit :
I don't think too many people would play for the win. After all, why risk anything when you can play safely and your opponent will be the one taking risks?
You know it would'nt happen ahah
But I can't prove you that it won't except by testing it !
I'm absolutely sure of my Idea. I'm absolutely sure of the way people would approach the game, the rest is a matter of proving it by organizing a tournament like that.
People WOULD play for the win. Chances that your opponent end up with a somewhat better position and just torture you while you have no chance of winning anymore are too high.
JustARandomPatzer a écrit :
What "draw problem" are you talking about?
Check the articles by krmanik and Gserper :
https://www.chess.com/article/view/reduce-draws-chess?ncc=1#first_new_comment
https://www.chess.com/article/view/no-castling-chess-kramnik-alphazero?ncc=4#first_new_comment
I'm talking about draws at the top level everyone know of the problem and lately a lot of people try to come up with solutions.
Like this one :
Amputation of finger 4 each draw
Quite interresting I must admit.
finnsteur wrote:
Oh, so the one at the top level. Ok, but that's not a problem. It just means they are playing well.
JustARandomPatzer a écrit :
What "draw problem" are you talking about?
Check the articles by krmanik and Gserper :
https://www.chess.com/article/view/reduce-draws-chess?ncc=1#first_new_comment
https://www.chess.com/article/view/no-castling-chess-kramnik-alphazero?ncc=4#first_new_comment
I'm talking about draws at the top level everyone know of the problem and lately a lot of people try to come up with solutions.
Like this one :
Amputation of finger 4 each draw
Quite interresting I must admit.
finnsteur wrote:
No, they wouldn't play for the win. Why go for something risky when you can wait for the opponent to self destruct? I'd bet 5 dollars that the winner of said tournament would have had at LEAST 60% drawn games, but the opponent simply went crazy.
JustARandomPatzer a écrit :
I don't think too many people would play for the win. After all, why risk anything when you can play safely and your opponent will be the one taking risks?
You know it would'nt happen ahah
But I can't prove you that it won't except by testing it !
I'm absolutely sure of my Idea. I'm absolutely sure of the way people would approach the game, the rest is a matter of proving it by organizing a tournament like that.
People WOULD play for the win. Chances that your opponent end up with a somewhat better position and just torture you while you have no chance of winning anymore are too high.
And this would be even more apparent at the top level. You'd see between 6 and 30 decisive games out of 128.
Ahahah you're crazy
It COULD happen but it wouldn't ^^
And you know it, you wouldn't bet your house on that I'm sure ^^
Same things for them !
They have a choice, either playing for the win (not too risky ! just for the win) or playing for the draw hoping their opponent self destruct.
Will they really think their opponent will self destruct ? they would look them in the eyes, look at the other games already over, lots of decisive match and think to themselves "what if he just never take too many risk ?".
You see by playing like you said there's a lot of chances you're just gonna leave the tournament early, because no one want to selfdestruct, the opponent would just torture à la carlsen but no one would voluntarly play for the draw I'm sure of it. It's a big gamble you don't even seem to understand lol
I want to see this tournament happen just for you to watch my prediction come true ^^
Just make it so that if there is a draw, there is a tiebreak.
JustARandomPatzer a écrit :
Just make it so that if there is a draw, there is a tiebreak.
No
the system was already tested in top tournament it didn't change the percentage of draws at all (70% or more).
You must be eliminated if you draw the game. I go back on my Idea I was being pulled of by your crazy schemes ^^
I wanna see the basic Idea tested. And we'll see if people try to take advatage of the system.
We'll just see who is right.
No change.
LOL
Is this a joke ? That's the last idea I proposed ^^
People found it too weird and unnatural.
This Idea is more clear and concise. You enter the tournament and you know what you're in for. Spectators know what to root for etc...
A simple elegant system.
So you want people to pay worse in an attempt to win? Ok then...
There are many flaws with the system.
The problem with the proposed solution is that at the top levels, playing for the win still often results in a draw. Two great players playing well will draw a lot of games. If you want to solve the draw problem, change the rules of. Chess, except that sort of defeats the purpose.
Meadmaker a écrit :
The problem with the proposed solution is that at the top levels, playing for the win still often results in a draw. Two great players playing well will draw a lot of games. If you want to solve the draw problem, change the rules of. Chess, except that sort of defeats the purpose.
We have to see what happen don't be so quick to judge.
The amount of draw right now is insane. If the players knew draws won't get them anywhere they would play for the win until the end. Both of them, that would create more chances on the board.
Right now a lot of the time one players play for the win and the other for the draw. That's the problem with modern chess. The t<o players must play for the win for real chances to be created.
The majority of the games drawn were drawn because 1 player wanted to draw the game (the black player most of the time). If he know it's not an option he won't choose this strategy, he'll prefer to play for the win by creating chances WITH his opponent. Both players will play cooperatively in the beginning to create crazy positions.
That's my opinion.
GMproposedsolutions a écrit :
You could do a double elimination.
?
That's already a double elimination.
The system is :
- elimination tournament
- winner go to the next stage
- loser is eliminated
- In case of a draw, double elimination.
IMBacon a écrit :
What exactly is this "draw problem" people are talking about?
Check the articles by krmanik and Gserper :
https://www.chess.com/article/view/reduce-draws-chess?ncc=1#first_new_comment
https://www.chess.com/article/view/no-castling-chess-kramnik-alphazero?ncc=4#first_new_comment
I'm talking about draws at the top level everyone know of the problem and lately a lot of people try to come up with solutions.
Please Sign Up to comment.
If you need help, please contact our Help and Support team.
Here's my Idea for reducing draws at the top level !
I know a lot of people who agree with it. No changes of rules. Not overly complicated. No impact on amateurs !
If we could try it here at chess.com, I would be thrilled :
More than 200 players in a big single elimination tournament.
Except this time only winners goes on to the next stage .
Everybody would play for the win with black or white. Because 1 loss or 1 draw and you go home.
Only the brave would get to the quarter, the semi and finally the finale.
And the one who would win the tournament...
Would have won every game he played !
A truly romantic performance. A la bobby fisher.
I already proposed a lot of Idea but it feels like the best one, easy to explain, no weird stretch and finally easily implemanted. We could do a tournament like that tomorrow if we wanted !
What do you all think ?