On the other hand, just now in the London chess classic, Fabi v Levon ended in an agreed draw after 21 moves! 2 rooks, 2 pieces and 6 pawns still on the board for each player! The problem is not that computers have made the players too good to be beatern, the problem is that it is too easy to accept a draw at any time instead of having to fight for a win.
Why is every non-checkmate a 0.5-0.5 draw?
Sort:
It seems to me the idea of awarding partial points is to determine a winner based on style. So instead of awarding points based on the outcome of the game, points are awarded based on how it was done. If the game ended with one side having more pieces than the other (having more critical elements of the game), wouldn't that be awarding style points? I like chess, and I like figure skating, but I dont think they should use the same method for determining a winner.
Awarding partial points in chess would be like awarding partial points in tic tac toe depending on how the tie was achieved. Or golf, where two people tie a hole both getting fours, but one gets a 4.1 and the other a 3.9 based on HOW they got the fours. I can see a lot of potentially really wrong things with this idea.
One of the beautiful things about chess is the multitude of defensive resources (stalemate, insufficient mating material, etc.) that are available to a player even if he has been "outplayed". This proposed scoring system would eliminate all of that and ruin the game.
Jimmykay wrote:
This is a silly idea because for 99.999% of players in the world, the abundance of draws is NOT a problem.
Let's take the games of Dbergan, the originator of this "idea", as an example, and look at what percent of his games have ended in a draw...
Blitz: 587 wins, 607 losses, and 42 draws...3.4% draws
Rapid: 30 wins, 34 losses, and 2 draws...3.0% draws
David, respectfully, you are trying to change the entire game of chess simply to solve a nonexistent problem.
I agree that draws are not an issue with games at my level. This new tournament scoring system would barely have any impact at all on class-level games. It wouldn't be better for us... but it's also not worse for us.
However, I'm not just a player, but a spectator, too. The place where my system has an effect is where draws are prevalent. It's designed to make the 0.001% of chess games, the ones that attract spectators, more interesting. And that's where Lasker, the originator of this idea, was playing at. It's also the level where Fisher, Capablanca, Nigel Short, and Maurice Ashley play at... all draw-haters.
Kind regards,
David
DeirdreSkye wrote:
Additionally he tries to solve a problem(assuming there is one) of a game he doesn't even remotely understands.
Thanks for the kind remark. What exactly do I not understand?
DeirdreSkye wrote:
On chess material superiority means absolutely nothing. Quite the contrary ,in some of the best games ever played the winner sacrificed material and won while material down.
I agree. The Opera Game is my favorite game of all time, and it was won exactly as you said. And my system would not in any way turn Morphy's win into a partial-win or loss. Getting a checkmate is the primary goal of chess.
DeirdreSkye wrote:
Also it is quite obvious that players like him suggesting such nonsense , never in their life studied endgame.
I have studied endgame.
DeirdreSkye wrote:
Is there any sane and reasonable chessplayer that believes that White doesn't deserve half point in this game? Is there anyone that believes Black's careless play must be rewarded with 0.66 or 0.75 of a point.
I'm a sane and reasonable chess player and I believe that Black should get 0.8. They should have had 1.0. but blew it... and don't deserve the full point. White, as you said literally blundered everything away, and as such in no way deserves half a point in my mind. By their cleverness they saved themselves 0.2 points on the last move.
DeirdreSkye wrote:
Stalemate makes chess more creative and increases the levels of accuracy needed to win a game. There is absolutely no reason one of the 2 sides to take more points or more fragments of a point in a stalemate position.
I agree that stalemate does make chess more creative and increase the level of accuracy. It adds even more creativity and nuance to score it the way that I do.
Kind regards,
David
Dec 16, 2018
0
#148
David I just want to say I appreciate your effort and The rational way you present and defend your idea.
I understand your logic and intent, but I think that it is a tough sell, as evidenced by the responses in this thread.
Dec 16, 2018
0
#149
dbergan wrote:
I agree that draws are not an issue with games at my level. This new tournament scoring system would barely have any impact at all on class-level games. It wouldn't be better for us... but it's also not worse for us.
But, as has been pointed out, these changes that you suggest would FUNDAMENTALLY change certain strategic approaches to the game. Chess theory would be dramatically different when played with this scoring method, so much that it would be classified as a DIFFERENT game than what you and I play...as people rise through the ranks of chess, are they then supposed to suddenly make dramatic differences in how they approach the game? Or will a certain select few start playing that way as children?
Very nice! Good ideas. And well explained... Thumbs up.😊
Stalemate as an equal draw just does not make sense. It should be changed.
Dec 16, 2018
0
#152
Ashvapathi wrote:
Stalemate as an equal draw just does not make sense. It should be changed.
So what would a stalemate mean when two 12-year olds are playing a friendly game? Is it a draw? Or does one play win "just a little"?
I have no idea how you can answer that.
I have no idea how chess can allow a different definition of "winning" when playing a tournament game versus a casual friendly game.
In casual, it should be win...
Dec 16, 2018
0
#154
Ashvapathi wrote:
In casual, it should be win...
Different rules + different strategies = Different game
Dec 16, 2018
0
#155
It's certainly a great reward for incompetent newbies to give them a win when they screw up and totally fail to achieve the one objective of the game. Basically like saying 'Don't worry, you don't need to learn from your mistakes, we'll just pretend they aren't mistakes and give you a win anyway'
Dec 16, 2018
0
#156
glamdring27 wrote:
It's certainly a great reward for incompetent newbies to give them a win when they screw up and totally fail to achieve the one objective of the game. Basically like saying 'Don't worry, you don't need to learn from your mistakes, we'll just pretend they aren't mistakes and give you a win anyway'
That is called "modern parenting". It helps develop a sense of entitlement.
lfPatriotGames wrote:
It seems to me the idea of awarding partial points is to determine a winner based on style. So instead of awarding points based on the outcome of the game, points are awarded based on how it was done. If the game ended with one side having more pieces than the other (having more critical elements of the game), wouldn't that be awarding style points? I like chess, and I like figure skating, but I dont think they should use the same method for determining a winner.
Awarding partial points in chess would be like awarding partial points in tic tac toe depending on how the tie was achieved. Or golf, where two people tie a hole both getting fours, but one gets a 4.1 and the other a 3.9 based on HOW they got the fours. I can see a lot of potentially really wrong things with this idea.
Hi IPG,
Can you explain what you mean by "style points"? When I think of style points I think of figure skating, gymnastic, french horn recitals... all things that are judged subjectively by an outside observer. My alternative tournament scoring system doesn't require an outside observer to adjudicate the game. I've heard that idea floated... that all drawn games should be put into Stockfish for an evaluation and a winner chosen that way. I don't like the Stockfish idea because it's not transparent. With my system, both players would know if the fast-50 is going to favor White or Black. With Stockfish-evaluation, neither player knows, which would make it more like figure skating... you're hoping, but not sure that, say, the Romanian judge will think the triple-axel was perfect.
Anyway, as it is, I don't see "style points" in my system. I see simple transparent objective criteria for evaluating a variety of chess game outcomes. A stalemate is a form of asserting dominance over the other player. It's not merely a "better style" than two lone kings marching purposelessly around the board. These are qualitatively different outcomes that, because of tradition, are scored identically.
Let's re-think that tradition.
Kind regards,
David
QueensKnightOut wrote:
One of the beautiful things about chess is the multitude of defensive resources (stalemate, insufficient mating material, etc.) that are available to a player even if he has been "outplayed". This proposed scoring system would eliminate all of that and ruin the game.
Hi QKO,
I agree that that is one of the beautiful things about chess, but how is any of that "eliminated" with my proposed tournament scoring system? The game is played exactly the same way, and you are still rewarded for using a defensive tool. For example, if you're down a rook but force the opponent into a stalemate, you're rewarded with 0.2 points. If your opponent has a combination that would lead to a mate in two, but you sacrifice a piece to activate a perpetual check on his king, you're rewarded with 0.3 or 0.4 points.
The game isn't "ruined". It just incentives players in a tournament to play for the dominant position.
Kind regards,
David
forked_again wrote:
David I just want to say I appreciate your effort and The rational way you present and defend your idea.
I understand your logic and intent, but I think that it is a tough sell, as evidenced by the responses in this thread.
Thanks! I don't expect anything to change until we have some pilot tournaments with my scoring system (or some variation of it). That's when the real discussion could start about how different point values or material values affect play.
Do you think players (like the anti's in this thread) would actively boycott a pilot tournament?
Kind regards,
David
glamdring27 wrote:
It's certainly a great reward for incompetent newbies to give them a win when they screw up and totally fail to achieve the one objective of the game. Basically like saying 'Don't worry, you don't need to learn from your mistakes, we'll just pretend they aren't mistakes and give you a win anyway'
From the other side, why do you want to reward the losing player just because the winning player blundered or the losing player found a way to sac all his pieces? That's not chess! The objective of chess is to checkmate your opponent, not to stalemate yourself.
To balance 'stalemate as win rule', perpetual check should also be a win giving the chance of a fight back even if you are down on material.
Good example by Dierdre. In the end, I think if you applied any kind of formula to the 12 draws in the WCC and declared one or the other the winner, it would seem inappropriate and contrived. The fact is that neither player won the classical portion of that match, and that's the way the history books should read. How you deal with a draw is a good question, but the formula would not be the right way.