Everybody including David please check out my response:
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/reply-to-david-bergan-on-removal-of-the-draw
Why is every non-checkmate a 0.5-0.5 draw?
Sort:
dbergan wrote:
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
Hi David. Style points, I think, is recognition over and above simply completing the task. Figure skating, dance, freestyle skiing, etc dont award points for simply completing the task, additional recognition is given based on HOW the task was completed. So in chess, your proposal says a draw (completing the game) is not enough. Additional recognition is given to HOW it was done. That's style points.
I think of it in terms of other competitions, like golf. If one person shanks it off the tee into the trees, duffs the next one out, blades and ugly iron onto the green, then hits a putt 3 times harder than necessary and hits the back of the cup, falls in for a 4. The next guy hits a perfect drive down the middle, then a beautiful iron 15 feet from the cup, then a great putt that ends up on the lip, taps in for a 4. They tie. But under your proposal additional recognition is given to HOW the tie was achieved. It just doesn't make sense to me.
David, I should have also addressed your point about outside adjudication. Aren't chess tournaments monitored by outside agencies? It's not just the two players, with no one else watching or in the room.
It seems to me your proposal WOULD require an outside observer (of some kind) to judge the outcome of the game. Which I agree with. That would also apply in my examples, you hit a tree you get docked a 10th of a stroke (even if you both tie the hole with pars).
As if chess wasn't a complicated enough game and you want to introduce some crazy scoring system. This is the nature of the game and is the same in sports. I've watched countless football (soccer) matches where one team has defended pretty much all game and either scored a breakaway goal to win or draw. The idea of changing the result at the end of the match is ridiculous. Everybody has chess games that they are lucky to win and unlucky to lose, that's life. If you are a better player than your opponent you will generally win. If you don't win after being 'the better player' you only have yourself to blame. You're looking for utopia and you wont find it in chess !
That reminds me. In golf there IS sometimes consideration given to style points, or actions taken that are separate from the score of the game. It's called chips, coins, or sometimes Goofy Golf. There are rewards (or penalties) for things done on the course that are not related to the score. So for instance both players tie with two 4s, but one player hit it in the sand, he gets a little token with a sand trap on it and it counts against him, usually a dollar. Or a one putt, there he gains a dollar, even if the score is tied.
So for chess, you could implement this partial scoring and call it "Goofy Chess". Apart from the actual real score you could give or take away additional partial points (based on your criteria), then make some monetary adjustments based on who had more or less goofy chess points.
lfPatriotGames wrote:
That reminds me. In golf there IS sometimes consideration given to style points, or actions taken that are separate from the score of the game. It's called chips, coins, or sometimes Goofy Golf. There are rewards (or penalties) for things done on the course that are not related to the score. So for instance both players tie with two 4s, but one player hit it in the sand, he gets a little token with a sand trap on it and it counts against him, usually a dollar. Or a one putt, there he gains a dollar, even if the score is tied.
So for chess, you could implement this partial scoring and call it "Goofy Chess". Apart from the actual real score you could give or take away additional partial points (based on your criteria), then make some monetary adjustments based on who had more or less goofy chess points.
That must be crazy golf
Chess isn't about pieces, it's about position. Sacrificing pieces can lead to a better position, or help achieve checkmate, so why should the player who is up in material get more points?
Dec 17, 2018
0
#169
Ashvapathi wrote:
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.
A draw is not much of a 'reward', it just says neither player was good enough to win. Which they weren't. Perpetual check does not exist as any kind of rule in chess so there shouldn't be any game ending decision based on it.
Jimmykay wrote:
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.
Hi Jimmykay,
I teach chess to about a hundred elementary and middle-school students. Stalemate isn't really a factor at their level, and when it comes up, they assume it's a win for the player who isn't losing their king. They also often win/lose a game by taking a king outright (kid moves into check, etc.)
Both of those outcomes I leave as-is until the player is good enough to play at USCF tournaments. I believe it's a better teaching moment to let the kid lose the game as a result of, say, moving a pinned knight, than giving them a free takey-back because it was an "illegal move". They need to think about protecting their king on every move.
And let's face it, that's another strange chess tradition... no takey-back for hanging a queen in a tournament, but you automatically get one for hanging the king? Sounds like modern entitlement child-rearing. 
"You walked your most important piece into certain death, son, but it's ok to screw up like that in life, you're not dumb, we'll let you take the move back and do something else."
Kind regards,
David
Dec 18, 2018
0
#171
Deirdre has a hard time making a point without being nasty about it. I understand feeling strongly, but jeez.
dbergan έγραψε:
Jimmykay wrote:
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.
Hi Jimmykay,
I teach chess to about a hundred elementary and middle-school students. Stalemate isn't really a factor at their level, and when it comes up, they assume it's a win for the player who isn't losing their king. They also often win/lose a game by taking a king outright (kid moves into check, etc.)
Both of those outcomes I leave as-is until the player is good enough to play at USCF tournaments. I believe it's a better teaching moment to let the kid lose the game as a result of, say, moving a pinned knight, than giving them a free takey-back because it was an "illegal move". They need to think about protecting their king on every move.
And let's face it, that's another strange chess tradition... no takey-back for hanging a queen in a tournament, but you automatically get one for hanging the king? Sounds like modern entitlement child-rearing. "You walked your most important piece into certain death, son, but it's ok to screw up like that in life, you're not dumb, we'll let you take the move back and do something else."
Kind regards,
David
Wise guy. I think FIDE should honour you with a diploma.
Say coffee boy diploma for Developmental Instructors.
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?
Hi Jimmykay,
So far the only impact on chess theory that's been discussed is the endgame. And what happens to the endgame is that the huge collection of "book draws" will have to be sub-categorized into 5 types: (1) stalemates for white, (2) stalemates for black, (3) more material for white, (4) more material for black, (5) equal material. Players would try to steer a "drawn game" into one of those 5 outcomes that is favorable for them.
But by far the biggest impact it would have on tournament strategy is eliminating "grandmaster draws"-by-agreement. Which, I believe, we all think would be a huge positive step for chess. Or at least no one has spoken up to defend grandmaster draws, yet.
Kind regards,
David