Chess without draws

I don't think that rating relative orderings in a pool of games would depend on which W D L number embedding one chooses, whether 1, 0, -1 or 1, 0.5, 0. if that is one of the point being discussed..

I find that part of chess rule-set, the administrative category, to be not minimalist. It does not seem very parsimonious. kind of far from the core chess rules.. yet seems to be considered essential to chess. I find core chess already a challenge.

All i can say, is that online chess does not have the same time, duration and physical location logistic constraints as OTB. Rated chess online, hence does not have to be bound by physical or time of day constraints.. Overhead tournament structures might... But even those, do not really have to manage many people in restricted physical location, to find seating etc.... So maybe go back to basics from when chess was not such a law rule-book encyclopedia of all possible cases. Trim down what was due to such constraints and keep the stuff that motivates tournaments events are attention grabbing for some.

Why even have tournaments? online? I get the performance concept where one might want to prepare and dedicate specific intensity to the competitive sport, and have group events. I do. Still maybe thinking of why tournaments were even needed might help guide adapting or relaxing the various OTB formats used in history, to the new possibilities. Yes, of course. who is the best (does not have to be tournament, so there are other things to consider).

I find these question draining really fast. I cherish the finite core rule-set. one game at a time.. that is enough complexity already. So I go back to chess.

@Toscani said in ###:
> With drawn games only, a GM engine of site choice would assign an efficiency value for each phase.
> The sum of the phases would give a bonus to the higher efficient player.
> A player would get an extra ½ point bonus to the result of a drawn game, because they played most efficiently.

However many centipawns more one player kept, if they do not suffice to win they are inefficient :)

> Let's get some assistance from the engines, by making them a positive thing. Used to score drawn games.

If and only if we could limit artificial ignorance to that realm I would agree that's a positive thing :)

> let's adapt to change, it's easier then resisting.
> Chess is not like life, unless we fix the scoring.
> When we die, we don't get scored for the way we died. We get scored for how we did our life.
> Chess players both get a ½ point for drawing, but they also need to be scored for the game played.

Chess is like life, when we die, the score is 0-1 but the memorable lives on, anyway :)

> Give credit, where credit is due. White's extra effort should give a bonus of ½ point. Just like bonuses at work for producing more. That's part of life to. Chess is like life, so give the bonus time and bonus point. What's there not to understand.
> Ethically, it's not a crime to get a bonus. People say play for the win. So use the ½ bonus point to fight against those that play for a draw.

You cannot make 1,5 out of the one game playing out on the table. People say play for the win, mind it's a draw, be ready to lose :)



> There will always be leaders and followers. So there is not draws in that either.

:( :) ;)

@Toscani said in #29:
> A winner needs to be declared after one game. The bonus is for the game played, not the way it ended.
> Black gets a ½ point for drawing. The result was 91% Accuracy.
> White gets a ½ point for drawing. The result was 92% Accuracy.

This is a perfect example of why we shouldn't trust the computer. Since white started with a slight advantage, and the final result was a perfect tie, clearly white made more total error than black. But the computer in it's imperfect wisdom says that black made slightly more error.
Also, it would be terrible to have the winner of a tournament depend on which version of stockfish was used to score it.

OP says Chess without Draws., I say Chess without Draws is no Longer Chess ,,,

@ThunderClap said in #34:
> OP says Chess without Draws., I say Chess without Draws is no Longer Chess ,,,

I think it is more about tournament contexts or rating context than the one game rules. How do games affect either tournament progression (whatever flow structure or rules) or any rating measure of player. That the draw outcomes be telling more of their move history. The game would still be drawn, but there would be a parallel counter about move quality statistics for the game (with SF as referee to what should be). I guess one could keep such statistics in parallel for all games, even the won and the lost ones... and still have a pure core rule terminal outcome based rating. I think the insight section is actually doing that. But it is not counting toward ladders or is more of a personal diagnostic statistics. Those average centipawns per various filter categories compiling all games fitting the various filter combinations.

There may have been also disscusions earlier about reducing the number of draw categoris.. myself a radical proponent, for almost selfish reasons based on some scientific curiosity, and personal learning opportunities, of eliminating any termination by mutual agreement. let the board or the referee decide. so postition cycles would stay, but not resignation, or draw offers.

I guess one can always fool a referee with cooperative 3 folds very early in the game, the legality of it might hide the energy saving many-game strategy, or lack of curiosity about certain positions, maybe.

The title is more of an introduction to the general question of draw outcome and its consequences in many directions. Concision and expressivity might be at play.

it is not measure of quality. If at the end of the game is drawn what ever better moves were made during the game does not matter if it does not turn out check-mate.

The whole point of the game is annihilation of the king even the very work Chess is derived from show Shah. the odd centipawn thingy would be just confusing and add no value to the game and in fact it would not be chess in the first place

Forbidding the king to move into check created a node where no moves are possible, i.e. stalemate. That was mistake no. 1. Mistake no. 2 was to define that node as a draw.

That is why many top level chess games ends in a draw.

Easiest way to lessen the proportion of draws would be to change stalemate to a loss for the stalemated side.

However, this would still confuse newcomers into chess how to interpret some rules where both sides have pieces in absolute pin.

Best, as I see it, would to remove the rule of kings not being able to move into check. Capturing the king would then be possible. Loss of the king obviously would be a loss of the game.

This would simplify the rules of chess and make draws less common. The play itself would not change in any significant way.

(1) 50 move rule should be changed to 10 move (or 20 ply) rule as follows. If 20 plies are made without a pawn move or capture, then the player who has made the first move in the 20 ply sequence loses. (So, for example, if I make a pawn move or capture, then my opponent has to make a pawn move or a capture within the next 20 plies, otherwise they lose.)

(2) 3 move repetition: the player who initiates the 3-move repetition loses. In other words, the player who makes the same move in the same position 3 times immediately loses - their opponent does not have to repeat their move for the 3rd time.

(3) Stalemate - no need for a separate stalemate rule. As in many other games of strategy, the player who has no legal move left loses

A time line shows some changes to chess, but not all.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_chess

A History Of Chess by H. J. R. Murray
archive.org/details/AHistoryOfChess/page/n9/mode/2up
(Download option are on the bottom right side of their webpage.)

Obviously the problem of draws has been an ongoing thing with chess. Reducing the time to play has lowered the draws. Tiebreak games after drawn games are used to fix the problem. The clock is used to remove the draws too. We lose on time, we lose the game. So the clock is making the call of who wins in just one match. The original aim of chess was to checkmate, but we have settled for other means as long as the game has an end and a score is given. And i blame that on the sore losers not accepting they lost the war. It's not easy to fight against players that keep adding pieces to the chessboard or playing against players that their sole aim is the draw to gain something out of the game. Players settled for ½-½ to avoid arguments of who really gained something from the war. There is always someone that lost more territory then the other. By opposition two kings end somewhere on the chessboard. So when a game comes to a draw, we could add a ½ point for the player that has gained more territory. This would remove the first idea of mine using engines to make the call of the drawn games.

If a rule was added to started counting the territory gained after a drawn game, then the score of ½ - ½ would no longer exist and the game would become fair-play with an outcome of a player having a full point while the other player gets a half point for the drawn game. The full point goes to the one that gained territory.

The art of war is in chess. There are so many ways to avoid a loss. Some solutions to say the least are unethical. While other solutions to avoid a loss are considered acceptable like building a fortress. Even if the King was captured by the player, the game would not come to an end, because a pawn could then be promoted to a King. Kill a leader and they get replaced by another leader. So capturing the king in chess is not permitted because of that. If the rules permitted the capture to end the game, then it would also be a great variant to play. At the very least as a final tie breaker.