| |
Main
Date: 31 May 2008 06:50:15
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Fixing The Draw Problem: New Promotion Rule
|
All one needs to do to ma=ke "theory" irrelevant withuot destroying the
opening is to change the rules of chess so that a pawn promotes to the piece
on the file in which it is promoted (such as a b or g pawn to a knight,
etc.).
Promotion of a king pawn can be to either any piece, a queen.
--
Ray Gordon, The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guru
Finding Your A-Game:
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
Includes 29 Reasons Not To Be A Nice Guy (FREE!)
The book Neil Strauss and VH-1 STOLE The Pivot From
Click HERE: for the ORIGINAL pivot chapter:
http://www.cybersheet.com/pivot.pdf
Here's my Myspace Page: And Pickup Blog (FREE advice)
http://www.myspace.com/snodgrasspublishing
Don't rely on overexposed, mass-marketed commercial seduction methods which
no longer work. Learn the methods the gurus USE with the money they make
from what they teach.
Thinking of taking a seduction "workshiop?" Read THIS:
http://www.dirtyscottsdale.com/?p=1187
Beware! VH-1's "The Pickup Artst" was FRAUDULENT. Six of the eight
contestants were actors, and they used PAID TARGETS in the club. The paid
targets got mad when VH-1 said "there are no actors in this club" and ruined
their prromised acting credit. What else has Mystery lied about?
|
|
| |
Date: 09 Jun 2008 04:59:00
From: Larry Tapper
Subject: Re: Fixing The Draw Problem: New Promotion Rule
|
On Jun 6, 3:05=A0pm, SBD <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jun 6, 12:25 pm, Rich Hutnik <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On May 31, 6:50 am, "Ray Gordon, creator of the \"pivot\""
>
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > All one needs to do to ma=3Dke "theory" irrelevant withuot destroying =
the
> > > opening is to change the rules of chess so that a pawn promotes to the=
piece
> > > on the file in which it is promoted (such as a b or g pawn to a knight=
,
> > > etc.).
>
> > > Promotion of a king pawn can be to either any piece, a queen.
>
> > How does weakening material entering the game reduce the number of
> > draws?
>
> > - Rich
>
> Quick conjecture on my part -
>
> Certainly the value of certain pawns in the endgame would be reduced.
> That would cause an imbalance that, until understood, would make
> certain players superior to others.
>
> 1. e4 e5 2. d4 would seem to be a mistake. However Wing gambits and
> Grobs might predominate;1. b4 e5 2. Bb2 Bxb4 3. Bxe5 is probably not
> good, since you have removed one of your pawns that can promote to
> queen.
>
> You would be more unlikely to try prying open the position with a
> "randbauer push" of the a or h pawn, since you then deprive the
> promotion to the second strongest piece on the board. hxg3 and axb3
> pawn recaptures would be less usual, correct?
>
> If you had only the g and b pawn to promote, wouldn't that be a draw?
> That would be a new positional draw two pawns up.
Interesting observations by SBD --- I think he's right to say, for
example, that the a- or h-pawn lever would be slightly devalued.
Generally speaking, remote pawn majorities would be devalued. For
example, in the Exchange Variation of the Grunfeld, White often gets a
potentially passed d-pawn while Black's counterplay is on the
queenside. Under these rules, the Exchange Variation looks better than
it already is.
Of course there will be more draws, not less, so Ray's header is
puzzling.
Consider endgame positions such as:
White B on d5, P on d7; Black R on c1; both kings out of play.
Under normal rules, Black to move is lost; under Ray's rules, Black
draws easily with ...Rc8! followed by Rd8.
Tactics aside, many routine endgames will now be drawn, for example
King + b-pawn + g-pawn versus King.
LT
|
| |
Date: 06 Jun 2008 12:05:17
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Fixing The Draw Problem: New Promotion Rule
|
On Jun 6, 12:25 pm, Rich Hutnik <[email protected] > wrote:
> On May 31, 6:50 am, "Ray Gordon, creator of the \"pivot\""
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > All one needs to do to ma=ke "theory" irrelevant withuot destroying the
> > opening is to change the rules of chess so that a pawn promotes to the piece
> > on the file in which it is promoted (such as a b or g pawn to a knight,
> > etc.).
>
> > Promotion of a king pawn can be to either any piece, a queen.
>
> How does weakening material entering the game reduce the number of
> draws?
>
> - Rich
Quick conjecture on my part -
Certainly the value of certain pawns in the endgame would be reduced.
That would cause an imbalance that, until understood, would make
certain players superior to others.
1. e4 e5 2. d4 would seem to be a mistake. However Wing gambits and
Grobs might predominate;1. b4 e5 2. Bb2 Bxb4 3. Bxe5 is probably not
good, since you have removed one of your pawns that can promote to
queen.
You would be more unlikely to try prying open the position with a
"randbauer push" of the a or h pawn, since you then deprive the
promotion to the second strongest piece on the board. hxg3 and axb3
pawn recaptures would be less usual, correct?
If you had only the g and b pawn to promote, wouldn't that be a draw?
That would be a new positional draw two pawns up.
|
| |
Date: 06 Jun 2008 10:25:42
From: Rich Hutnik
Subject: Re: Fixing The Draw Problem: New Promotion Rule
|
On May 31, 6:50 am, "Ray Gordon, creator of the \"pivot\""
<[email protected] > wrote:
> All one needs to do to ma=ke "theory" irrelevant withuot destroying the
> opening is to change the rules of chess so that a pawn promotes to the piece
> on the file in which it is promoted (such as a b or g pawn to a knight,
> etc.).
>
> Promotion of a king pawn can be to either any piece, a queen.
How does weakening material entering the game reduce the number of
draws?
- Rich
|
| |
Date: 04 Jun 2008 14:59:03
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Fixing The Draw Problem: New Promotion Rule
|
This is not new. It was proposed by Harvey in 1937 in Chess Review and
probably before that.
|
| |
Date: 31 May 2008 20:23:43
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: Fixing The Draw Problem: New Promotion Rule
|
On Jun 1, 5:49 am, "Ray Gordon, creator of the \"pivot\""
<[email protected] > wrote:
> I would think that the elimination of "theory" would offset the few times
> where oen would lack mating ability due to only having a kngiht or bishop.
The only theory that needs to be eliminated is the opening - endgame
theory isn't a threat to the game of Chess, but the need to memorize
openings is.
Of course, one _could_ allow promoting to an "Amazon" (Queen + Knight)
in addition to any other piece as a way to have less draws and destroy
'theory' in your sense too.
> My other idea was to give each side a queen in a drawn position.
Ah, that's an interesting notion, and would offset draws due to
insufficient material.
But I think it's also flawed, because then what's the point of
exchanging Queens? If you give each side a Bishop, then there's a
chance one side will have sufficient material to mate...
Of course, that may be just because I like my own idea better...
http://www.quadibloc.com/chess/ch0103.htm
John Savard
|
| | |
Date: 01 Jun 2008 22:41:35
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: Fixing The Draw Problem: New Promotion Rule
|
> The only theory that needs to be eliminated is the opening - endgame
> theory isn't a threat to the game of Chess,
Tablebases are up to seven pieces now. I'd cal that a threat.
--
Ray Gordon, The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guru
Finding Your A-Game:
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
Includes 29 Reasons Not To Be A Nice Guy (FREE!)
The book Neil Strauss and VH-1 STOLE The Pivot From
Click HERE: for the ORIGINAL pivot chapter:
http://www.cybersheet.com/pivot.pdf
Here's my Myspace Page: And Pickup Blog (FREE advice)
http://www.myspace.com/snodgrasspublishing
Don't rely on overexposed, mass-marketed commercial seduction methods which
no longer work. Learn the methods the gurus USE with the money they make
from what they teach.
Thinking of taking a seduction "workshiop?" Read THIS:
http://www.dirtyscottsdale.com/?p=1187
Beware! VH-1's "The Pickup Artst" was FRAUDULENT. Six of the eight
contestants were actors, and they used PAID TARGETS in the club. The paid
targets got mad when VH-1 said "there are no actors in this club" and ruined
their prromised acting credit. What else has Mystery lied about?
|
| |
Date: 31 May 2008 15:26:39
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: Fixing The Draw Problem: New Promotion Rule
|
On May 31, 4:50 am, "Ray Gordon, creator of the \"pivot\""
<[email protected] > wrote:
> All one needs to do to make "theory" irrelevant withuot destroying the
> opening is to change the rules of chess so that a pawn promotes to the piece
> on the file in which it is promoted (such as a b or g pawn to a knight,
> etc.).
>
> Promotion of a king pawn can be to either any piece, a queen.
There was an old version of Great Chess that used such a promotion
rule; instead of using miniature pieces as Pawns, as with Timur's
Chess, it used the file in which promotion took place so that it would
be simpler to keep track.
This would mean that managing to promote a Pawn wouldn't always
provide a piece strong enough to force mate - without, as you say,
altering the opening. It seems to me that this change would make
things worse, creating more draws rather than less.
John Savard
|
| | |
Date: 01 Jun 2008 07:49:23
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: Fixing The Draw Problem: New Promotion Rule
|
I would think that the elimination of "theory" would offset the few times
where oen would lack mating ability due to only having a kngiht or bishop.
My other idea was to give each side a queen in a drawn position.
"Quadibloc" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:6aba169f-7367-46b3-a083-c322b7b10e29@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> On May 31, 4:50 am, "Ray Gordon, creator of the \"pivot\""
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> All one needs to do to make "theory" irrelevant withuot destroying the
>> opening is to change the rules of chess so that a pawn promotes to the
>> piece
>> on the file in which it is promoted (such as a b or g pawn to a knight,
>> etc.).
>>
>> Promotion of a king pawn can be to either any piece, a queen.
>
> There was an old version of Great Chess that used such a promotion
> rule; instead of using miniature pieces as Pawns, as with Timur's
> Chess, it used the file in which promotion took place so that it would
> be simpler to keep track.
>
> This would mean that managing to promote a Pawn wouldn't always
> provide a piece strong enough to force mate - without, as you say,
> altering the opening. It seems to me that this change would make
> things worse, creating more draws rather than less.
>
> John Savard
|
| | | |
Date: 31 May 2008 17:14:40
From: johnny_t
Subject: Re: Fixing The Draw Problem: New Promotion Rule
|
Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot" wrote:
> I would think that the elimination of "theory" would offset the few times
> where oen would lack mating ability due to only having a kngiht or bishop.
That's insane on the face of it. The theory it would remove, is the
theory that results in WINS. It would keep all the theory that results
in draws and loses, the only thing left would be that the resulting
piece would be less powerful, which would result in more draws, and a
few more losses, at the expense of wins.
This would be a dumb "fix" of the draw problem.
Pawn promotion is simply the wrong place to look. Pawn promotion
creates more wins, not more draws.
The only obvious answer would be "penalty kicks". After a draw, you
flip coins in a race, for every 100 points of rating difference the
lower rated player gets + 1 points. The first to get six flips their
way, wins. (This is an auto win for a player with > 600 point rating
difference).
|
| | | | |
Date: 01 Jun 2008 10:20:21
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: Fixing The Draw Problem: New Promotion Rule
|
> That's insane on the face of it. The theory it would remove, is the
> theory that results in WINS. It would keep all the theory that results in
> draws and loses,
So it keeps theory that results in wins, but not losses?
A win-win thing?
What it would do is make it so that "equal material" in the ending is not
the only consideration for a draw. An extra piece wins most of the time
anyway, and with exchanges thrown into the mix, even GMs would have to
think.
What it would NOT do is affect the opening or middlegame as much as the
other solutions do.
--
Ray Gordon, The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guru
Finding Your A-Game:
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
Includes 29 Reasons Not To Be A Nice Guy (FREE!)
The book Neil Strauss and VH-1 STOLE The Pivot From
Click HERE: for the ORIGINAL pivot chapter:
http://www.cybersheet.com/pivot.pdf
Here's my Myspace Page: And Pickup Blog (FREE advice)
http://www.myspace.com/snodgrasspublishing
Don't rely on overexposed, mass-marketed commercial seduction methods which
no longer work. Learn the methods the gurus USE with the money they make
from what they teach.
Thinking of taking a seduction "workshiop?" Read THIS:
http://www.dirtyscottsdale.com/?p=1187
Beware! VH-1's "The Pickup Artst" was FRAUDULENT. Six of the eight
contestants were actors, and they used PAID TARGETS in the club. The paid
targets got mad when VH-1 said "there are no actors in this club" and ruined
their prromised acting credit. What else has Mystery lied about?
|
| | | | | |
Date: 31 May 2008 20:03:17
From: johnny_t
Subject: Re: Fixing The Draw Problem: New Promotion Rule
|
Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot" wrote:
> What it would NOT do is affect the opening or middlegame as much as the
> other solutions do.
And now that I have spent yet another 60 seconds thinking about this.
Your final proposition is also insane on face.
The dramatic differences in value of the pawns is going to dramatically
change the opening and middlegame. The struggle over space is an "all
things being otherwise equal" kind of proposition. When the central
pawns are worth so much more than you are going to see a dramatic shift
to keeping those pawns on the board, and you may very well see more
imbalanced play.
Not to say this doesn't "destroy" theory, but it dramatically changes
opening and middle game theory, and still doesn't change the "draw problem".
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 01 Jun 2008 22:40:54
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: Fixing The Draw Problem: New Promotion Rule
|
> The dramatic differences in value of the pawns is going to dramatically
> change the opening and middlegame.
Yes and no. It won't change the PRINCIPLES of opening play, but it will
wipe out those 50-move variations in some of the main lines.
--
Ray Gordon, The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guru
Finding Your A-Game:
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
Includes 29 Reasons Not To Be A Nice Guy (FREE!)
The book Neil Strauss and VH-1 STOLE The Pivot From
Click HERE: for the ORIGINAL pivot chapter:
http://www.cybersheet.com/pivot.pdf
Here's my Myspace Page: And Pickup Blog (FREE advice)
http://www.myspace.com/snodgrasspublishing
Don't rely on overexposed, mass-marketed commercial seduction methods which
no longer work. Learn the methods the gurus USE with the money they make
from what they teach.
Thinking of taking a seduction "workshiop?" Read THIS:
http://www.dirtyscottsdale.com/?p=1187
Beware! VH-1's "The Pickup Artst" was FRAUDULENT. Six of the eight
contestants were actors, and they used PAID TARGETS in the club. The paid
targets got mad when VH-1 said "there are no actors in this club" and ruined
their prromised acting credit. What else has Mystery lied about?
|
| | | | | |
Date: 31 May 2008 19:57:20
From: johnny_t
Subject: Re: Fixing The Draw Problem: New Promotion Rule
|
Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot" wrote:
>> That's insane on the face of it. The theory it would remove, is the
>> theory that results in WINS. It would keep all the theory that results in
>> draws and loses,
>
> So it keeps theory that results in wins, but not losses?
Yes, it keeps the theories based on mistakes that result in loses. It
keeps the theories that result in draws. It removes the theories that
results in wins, with a large majority of those becoming draws. It does
little to improve the decisive endings, with an entire net negative to
the decisive game column.
>
> A win-win thing?
>
> What it would do is make it so that "equal material" in the ending is not
> the only consideration for a draw. An extra piece wins most of the time
> anyway, and with exchanges thrown into the mix, even GMs would have to
> think.
What are you talking about? That it wouldn't have a difference? That
it would be more decisive? or that GM's would spend more effort on draws.
Please note the title that *you* put on this thread. *You* have claimed
the fix of the draw problem. Not a "change in theory" issue.
I at least devised something that fixes the "draw problem."
|
|
