Two articles pondering the issues with Chess: Stale openings,

Main

Date: 07 Apr 2008 14:39:55
From:
Subject: Two articles pondering the issues with Chess: Stale openings,

In my Future of Chess post, I was challenge to provide ANY evidence of
issues with chess as it is now. Well, here are two that discuss these
issues:
1. Polemic Thinking, part two:
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/dvoretsky88.pdf

In this, the current state of chess openings is discussed, and the
growing discontent, as seen by the author.

2. A new angle regarding the draw issue:
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4553

This discusses the draw issues with chess on the highest level. It
states:
In the ChessBase.com articles, all the suggestions for fixing the high
draw rate problem in elite professional chess have two things in
common: (a) they are off-the-board rules changes, not on-the-board;
and (b) they fail to subdue the high draw rate (unfortunately).

For instance, the popular Sofia rule of banning draw offers has
resulted in a draw rate of 56% (see M-Tel tournaments 2005-2007). That
is barely any lower than the whopping 60% rate from the five latest
world or FIDE championship events (Kasparov-Kramnik 2000, through FIDE
Mexico 2007).

Ok folks, since 2000, 60% of all chess games on the highest level end
in a draw? Is this right? Anyone care to argue that 60% of draws is
good? As the article pointed out 2% or less of Shogi on the highest
level ends in draws.

Anyhow, please do comment here. I am curious for people to argue how
60% of all chess matches on the highest level ending in draws is a
good thing. Do 60% of all soccer matches end in draws in Europe?
Please let me know.

- Rich

Date: 21 Apr 2008 01:53:50
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: Two articles pondering the issues with Chess: Stale openings,

On Apr 20, 7:15 pm, Quadibloc <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Apr 20, 6:04 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I note that you haven't even defined the "perpetual check" condition
> > and it isn't even part of regular chess (where games are drawn through
> > repetition, whether or not check is involved)
>
> Huh? The rules of chess at least used to list perpetual check, *along
> with* repetition of the position, and the 50-move rule, and
> insufficient material as one of the basic drawing conditions.

Ah, here we are:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_check

The rules of Chess have been revised recently, which is why it is no
longer one of the standard draw conditions.

John Savard

Date: 21 Apr 2008 01:50:59
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: Two articles pondering the issues with Chess: Stale openings,

On Apr 20, 8:40 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote:

> Not solely to avoid quibbles like this, but more importantly
> to give your proposal a logic that is satisfying. That is missing
> in the current proposal.

I think that the proposal I have made, whether or not it is really
worthwhile or effective, does have at least an underlying logic behind
it.

So I'll try to explain it.

The "expected value" of a game of Chess is not known. What is known,
though, is that it doesn't seem to be a win for White. White does win
more often than Black, and there are also many draws.

Presumably, then, White has an advantage, but not a big enough one to
win dependably if both sides are evenly matched for ability.

There are situations in Chess, currently counted as draws, which still
appear to indicate that one side has obtained some advantage over the
other side. These include stalemate and a preponderance of material
insufficient to force mate.

Acknowledging some of these situations as victories, but minor ones
with less scoring credit, would mean fewer games would be counted as
draws; thus, players would have scoring chances in more balanced
situations. However, this could also have the opposite effect, because
if the minor victory is in the vicinity of the "expected value" of
Chess, White could play defensively, and be assured of this minor
victory almost every time.

Go had a problem with dull play, caused not by draws, but by the first
player being able to win by two or three stones in game after game by
defensive play that husbanded the first move advantage. A practice
called _komidashi_ was adopted, in which the first player had to win
by a certain number of stones, and the result was the resurgence of
livelier play.

If the "expected value" of Chess is something slightly better for
White than a draw, then Black will have to play offensively, at least
to a limited extent, and take some risks, even in order to score a
minor victory. So I try to balance Chess, following the inspiration of
komidashi, but adapting it to Chess, where there is no fine gradation
of how much one has won by, by favoring Black in points awarded for
the minor victories.

But I don't know where the expected value of Chess lies, so I don't
know how many points to give Black. And I want to give White an
incentive to play aggressively as well.

So what I do is reduce the amount by which Black is favored as the
result of the game becomes more decisive. So White can escape from the
situation that heavily favors Black if the victories are only minor
ones by playing more aggressively, and thus bringing about a situation
where checkmate resolves the game more often - on both sides.

Because Chess isn't like Go, I don't have a spectrum of choices - a
one stone, two stone, three stone, and so on victory. I have to take
the possible ending situations I can find, and they may not be all
that systematic or logical. It seemed reasonable to take stalemate as
a "bigger" victory than bare King, and then to throw in perpetual
check - defined and discussed in most standard books on Chess back in
the 1960s at least - as the least of the lot.

That is the logic, such as it may be, behind my proposal.

John Savard

Date: 20 Apr 2008 18:15:38
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: Two articles pondering the issues with Chess: Stale openings,

On Apr 20, 6:04 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote:

> I note that you haven't even defined the "perpetual check" condition
> and it isn't even part of regular chess (where games are drawn through
> repetition, whether or not check is involved)

Huh? The rules of chess at least used to list perpetual check, *along
with* repetition of the position, and the 50-move rule, and
insufficient material as one of the basic drawing conditions.

Perpetual check is when one player is able to give check on every move
from that point on and announces the intention of doing so. Perpetual
check usually is associated with repetition, because that enables one
player to force repetition, but that is not a necessity.

John Savard

Date: 20 Apr 2008 16:32:54
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: On draws, Shogi, and Near Chess (was: Two articles pondering the

On Apr 20, 4:13 pm, Quadibloc <[email protected] > wrote:

> A paper on programming a computer to play Go, by I. J. Good, cites the
> paper-and-pencil game of Boxes as a game even more complicated than
> Go, but one that never became respected because it is too complicated
> to develop useful strategies for.

I was forgetting my manners. Here's the URL:

http://www.chilton-computing.org.uk/acl/literature/reports/p019.htm

John Savard

Date: 20 Apr 2008 16:31:32
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: Two articles pondering the issues with Chess: Stale openings,

On Apr 20, 2:47 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "John Savard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> > I have now moved this material to the page
>
> >http://www.quadibloc.com/chess/ch0103.htm
>
> I think that your proposal for dynamic scoring is interesting.
> Your specific proposal seems overcomplicated.

I know it is complicated, but I don't see a simpler way to promote
more aggressive play by both players.

> I also think
> it would change endgame theory, but likely in a way that builds on
> existing endgame theory that might not be too objectionable
> to existing players.

I intended to achieve that by lowering the reward for stalemate to
something I had proposed earlier - in the neighborhood of a 3/5 - 2/5
split - because in earlier versions, stalemate was treated as close to
checkmate, which would create objectionable changes.

> The biggest problem is that it still rewards the unplayed draw
> in the same flawed manner as the existing scoring. I don't see
> it as likely to produce aggressive play.

It's intended to do something different from what existing proposals,
like 1/3 - 1/3 for a draw, are intended to do. It can be combined with
such measures.

This is why it's complicated - it does something I haven't heard of a
way of doing before.

> And, numerically, the advantage you give to Black doesn't seem
> enough to compensate for White's advantage of the first move.

In earlier versions of the proposal, it might have been too large. It
can be tweaked, of course.

But if play is so defensive that the best "win" for either player is
perpetual check, then Black gets a huge advantage - so at least mildly
aggressive play by White is promoted.

John Savard

Date: 20 Apr 2008 15:13:27
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: On draws, Shogi, and Near Chess (was: Two articles pondering the

On Apr 11, 8:36 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "Quadibloc" <[email protected]> wrote in message

> > Yes, that's all I was saying. Chess is already a complex strategy
> > game, not analyzed fully even by computers, and that's a good thing.
> > But if a game is so complicated that there is no rational way to play
> > it, that would be bad.
>
> Are there games that you feel fall into this category?

I've now found a game that someone else has claimed belongs to this
category.

A paper on programming a computer to play Go, by I. J. Good, cites the
paper-and-pencil game of Boxes as a game even more complicated than
Go, but one that never became respected because it is too complicated
to develop useful strategies for.

The game of Boxes is played in this manner:

A grid of 8 dots by 8 is placed on a sheet of paper. A move consists
of drawing a line between two orthogonally-adjacent points. A player
who draws the fourth line around a square puts his mark in the square
indicating he has won one point, and then he gets another turn.

The player who completed the most squares wins.

John Savard

Date: 20 Apr 2008 22:58:57
From: Andy Walker
Subject: Re: On draws, Shogi, and Near Chess (was: Two articles pondering the

In article <[email protected] >,
Quadibloc <[email protected] > wrote:
>A paper on programming a computer to play Go, by I. J. Good, cites the
>paper-and-pencil game of Boxes as a game even more complicated than
>Go, but one that never became respected because it is too complicated
>to develop useful strategies for.

I think that would come as a surprise to the game theorists
who have used Boxes for many years as an example of a real game that
*can* be usefully analysed at many levels, exploiting the connexions
between numbers and games described [eg] in "Winning Ways", by
Berlekamp, Conway and Guy. Whether that makes Boxes easier or harder
than Go is another question [to which I don't know the answer].

Certainly Boxes is quite a difficult game, and in general its
solution is NP-hard [as with many other generalised games]. But it
also has many nice features making it suitable both for computer play
and for humans to exploit anti-computer strategies. The simple rules
and regular structures can be exploited by a good program; but also
top-class play requires a lot of pattern-matching in separate parts
of the board, that then have to be "added" together, in a way that
is much easier for humans to spot than for computers, unless these
are programmed in a rather sophisticated way.

--
Andy Walker
Nottingham

Date: 01 May 2008 21:02:47
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: On draws, Shogi, and Near Chess (was: Two articles pondering the

Andy Walker <[email protected] > wrote:
> Quadibloc <[email protected]> wrote:
>> A paper on programming a computer to play Go, by I. J. Good, cites
>> the paper-and-pencil game of Boxes as a game even more complicated
>> than Go, but one that never became respected because it is too
>> complicated to develop useful strategies for.
>
> I think that would come as a surprise to the game theorists
> who have used Boxes for many years as an example of a real game that
> *can* be usefully analysed at many levels, exploiting the connexions
> between numbers and games described [eg] in "Winning Ways", by
> Berlekamp, Conway and Guy.

John later posted a link to the article he was talking about. It was
published in 1965 so probably predates this analysis of dots and
boxes.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Disposable Beer (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ refreshing lager but you never have
to clean it!

Date: 19 Apr 2008 18:52:27
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Two articles pondering the issues with Chess: Stale openings,

I still like the systems as in St Petersburg 1896 which separate out
the prizes into prizes as in the current system, and separate prizes
which value a win and a loss more than 2 draws. There are many
possible variants. In the St Petersburg tournament, which was used in
some other tournaments and matches as well, there was in addition to
prizes for 1st, 2d, 3d, 4th a separate amount of money for each win,
loss, or draw, where the amount you got for a win and a loss was more
than 2 draws. I think this works well for a number of reasons in
quality round robin tournaments. Does anyone see any objections to
this? It would give non-prize winners a good reason to play hard all
the way through.

Perhaps in a Swiss event, you could have two prize systams; one on the
standard system, and the other based on draws counting slightly less
than .5. You could win prizes in both systems, so this would involve
reducing the top prize for winning only in the "standard" scoring
method. I would be tempted to have the prize be for wins only, but
this would lead to some bad strategies, such as losing the 1st few
rounds so that you could wrack up a lot of wins against weak players.

On Apr 19, 7:58=A0pm, "David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "David Richerby" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:mfi*[email protected]...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Quadibloc <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> David Kane <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>> I'm not sure I agree with this. I think some anti-draw incentives
> >>> could be useful in match play, but the real problem is the flurry
> >>> of unplayed draws at the end of every tournament.
>
> >> Draws within tournaments are a problem. In addition to making the
> >> tournaments less interesting, they open the door to certain forms of
> >> collusion.
>
> >> And scoring a draw as less than half a win is a simple remedy
> >> feasible in tournaments.
>
> > How would that help reduce the number of unplayed draws in the last
> > couple of rounds of tournamnets? =A0The point of the draws is that a
> > large fraction of the field decides that the result of the tournament
> > has already been decided so they just agree quick draws to preserve
> > that ordering without making any further effort. =A0That works just as
> > well for any scoring of draws, even 0-0.
>
> > The only difference is that, if a draw scores less than 1/3 and player
> > X is only two draws behind player Y (same number of wins but Y has two
> > more draws), X can overtake Y by winning in the last round if Y only
> > draws. =A0However, in the circumstances described, X has already dropped=

> > more than 4/3 points by drawing two games, so is unlikely to be
> > challenging for the lead; Y is doing even worse, so neither
> > necessarily cares all that much about their exact mid-to-bottom-table
> > ranking.
>
> Uhhh, no.
>
> Let's consider a realistic situation. Before the last round of a tournamen=
t,
> there are 4 players tied (using conventional scoring) with 4.5 points
> (4 wins + 1 draw) and there are 8 players with 4 points, 4 with =A04 wins
> and a loss, 4 with 3 wins and two draws. And consider typical
> prize distributions (from a World Open example I gave earlier).
>
> With conventional scoring, the top players do the following calculation.
> With a draw, the only way that I will not finish in a tie for first is if
> the other game between 4.5s is decisive (an unlikely event). The only peop=
le
> they will have to share the top prizes with are those at 4.0 who happen to=

> win (a number between 0 and 2) So a draw gives the following
> result: BEST case (4 way tie for 1st $2800), TYPICAL (5 way tie for 1st $2=
400),
> WORST case (6 way tie for 2nd place $1060)
>
> Now imagine that a draw is 0.3. The same 4 are atop the tables with 4.3,
> followed by 4 with 4.0 and 4 with 3.6. Consider the outcome of
> a draw in this case. The best case doesn't change ($2800), but the worst c=
ase is
> now a
> four-way tie for 4th place ($410). =A0Typical is probably
> about a 6 way tie for 2nd place ($1060).
>
> So the benefit from a last round win ($4500-$6000) is unchanged by the
> changed scoring but the value of a draw has been significantly reduced.- H=
ide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Date: 19 Apr 2008 08:35:22
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: Two articles pondering the issues with Chess: Stale openings,

On Apr 9, 9:25 am, [email protected] wrote:

> You actually lumped Shogi in with blackjack? If you were doing a
> taxonomy of games, would Shogi be closer to chess or blackjack? Shogi
> is derived from the same game chess was, so what is your point by
> lumping it with blackjack? The reality is, someone could choose to
> play Shogi if they want a game in the same family of chess.

In relation to this topic, I note that Chess is not scissors-paper-
stone on my page at

http://www.quadibloc.com/chess/ch0101.htm

by noting that if my proposed scoring system to encourage aggressive
play has the result that it is optimal for each player to choose a
mixed strategy combining both aggressive and defensive play, since
chess moves are made one at a time, instead of players using
randomizers to decide between aggressive and defensive play, players
would choose lines of play that combine defensive and attacking
chances without identifying their eventual choice of general strategy.

John Savard

Date: 19 Apr 2008 08:26:50
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: Two articles pondering the issues with Chess: Stale openings,

On Apr 19, 8:28 am, David Richerby <[email protected] >
wrote:
> John Savard <[email protected]> wrote:
> >http://www.quadibloc.com/chess/ch0101.htm
>
> I disagree strongly with your assertion that capturing the king is
> `effectively the object of the game.' I don't see how it helps to
> clarify the rules to state that capturing the king is effectively the
> object of the game but, by the way, stalemate is a draw, even though
> the stalemated player wouldn't be able to stop his king being
> captured, and then have to jump through hoops to explain why this is
> and why it's illegal to move into check. Indeed, the very fact that
> stalemate is a draw proves that capturing the king is not the goal of
> chess.
>
> Much easier just to say that the object of the game is to checkmate
> the king -- it's correct, consistent and simple.

That is true enough: to checkmate the king is the object of chess, and
stalemate is a draw.

What I was saying there, and I may need to clarify it somewhat, is
that some people get confused when you tell them "the King can never
be captured", because then they forget "the King may not move into
check". To make sure that the rule that the King may not move into
check, or be left in check, is firmly in mind, one could begin by
saying that capturing the King is *almost* the object of Chess, but
because of the one exception, that stalemate is a draw, the capturing
move is not actually played, and Chess works like this - and *then*
get into the real rules.

So what I am discussing here is how to introduce Chess to young
children and others who have never heard of it before, and who lack
some of the conceptual framework which chess players take for granted.

John Savard

Date: 19 Apr 2008 07:03:16
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: Two articles pondering the issues with Chess: Stale openings,

On Apr 18, 1:13 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote:

> The proposal is too complicated for me to comment.

On my web site at

http://www.quadibloc.com/chess/ch0101.htm

I have now added a diagram which may make it clearer what I have
*intended* to achieve by my proposal.

This is not a proof, of course, that it would actually work in the
specific form proposed; it just shows why, if something on this basis
is done, but with the scoring tweaked to correspond to the actual
chances of different Chess outcomes given aggressive or defensive
play, rather than my illustrative arbitrary figures, there's a chance
it could work.

The diagram shows a normal distribution of possible degrees to which
one player might move the game to his advantage at the end, a mapping
from them to different outcomes, and then the mapping from those
outcomes to the scoring, and shows how this would change when the
normal distribution is stretched out by more aggressive play.

John Savard

Date: 18 Apr 2008 13:27:31
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: Two articles pondering the issues with Chess: Stale openings,

On Apr 18, 1:12=A0pm, "David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote:

> As a practical matter, there is very little match play in chess.
> So changing the tournament situation is what is important.
>
> > The World Championship will create more interest than any tournament,
> > and so if we are to revitalize public/spectator interest in Chess, we
> > must have more interesting Chess *there*.
>
> I'm not sure I agree with this. I think some anti-draw incentives could
> be useful in match play, but the real problem is the flurry of unplayed
> draws at the end of every tournament.

Draws within tournaments are a problem. In addition to making the
tournaments less interesting, they open the door to certain forms of
collusion.

And scoring a draw as less than half a win is a simple remedy feasible
in tournaments.

But I think that this problem, although serious, isn't really the
whole problem that people are talking about when they suggest
switching to Capablanca Chess and the like. The tournament problem is
an internal one for the Chess world, and their goals are more
ambitious - they want to reach out to the larger world. And so when
they say "draws", they're thinking of more than just unplayed
sweetheart draws.

I think that there is a nostalgia for the days before Steinitz
operating here.

And that's a hard problem to solve, so when I stumbled on something
which offered a possibility of addressing it, I was excited about
that.

John Savard

Date: 19 Apr 2008 15:44:40
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Two articles pondering the issues with Chess: Stale openings,

Quadibloc <[email protected] > wrote:
> David Kane <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I'm not sure I agree with this. I think some anti-draw incentives
>> could be useful in match play, but the real problem is the flurry
>> of unplayed draws at the end of every tournament.
>
> Draws within tournaments are a problem. In addition to making the
> tournaments less interesting, they open the door to certain forms of
> collusion.
>
> And scoring a draw as less than half a win is a simple remedy
> feasible in tournaments.

How would that help reduce the number of unplayed draws in the last
couple of rounds of tournamnets? The point of the draws is that a
large fraction of the field decides that the result of the tournament
has already been decided so they just agree quick draws to preserve
that ordering without making any further effort. That works just as
well for any scoring of draws, even 0-0.

The only difference is that, if a draw scores less than 1/3 and player
X is only two draws behind player Y (same number of wins but Y has two
more draws), X can overtake Y by winning in the last round if Y only
draws. However, in the circumstances described, X has already dropped
more than 4/3 points by drawing two games, so is unlikely to be
challenging for the lead; Y is doing even worse, so neither
necessarily cares all that much about their exact mid-to-bottom-table
ranking.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Homicidal Gigantic Tool (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a hammer but it's huge and it
wants to kill you!

Date: 18 Apr 2008 13:16:04
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: Two articles pondering the issues with Chess: Stale openings,

On Apr 18, 11:24=A0am, Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote:
> Quadibloc wrote:
> >A hard-fought game that ends in a draw can indeed be beautiful chess.
>
> >Still, it is safe to assume that there is a widely shared preference
> >for _excitement_ in sport, and a tie result is perceived as less
> >exciting than a win.
>
> I don't think so. =A0In most sports, a close game is more exciting
> than a one-sided game. =A0Also, games are exciting or not exciting
> while being played, but the tie result happens at the end of play.
> The spectator wouldn't know to be unexcited while watching the
> game.

You make a good point, so I will clarify further. Ties in previous
games tend to be perceived as resulting from unexciting defensive play
in Chess, not a close game - a score of 0-0 rather than 100-100 - and
so I'm thinking of a message of what to expect that draws people in in
the first place to see the game and hopefully find it exciting.

The spectator will be excited during the game when he sees a thrilling
Queen sacrifice; usually, they aren't made to draw.

John Savard

Date: 18 Apr 2008 10:53:45
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: Two articles pondering the issues with Chess: Stale openings,

On Apr 18, 10:50=A0am, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 08:54:30 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
> <[email protected]> wrote:

> >Draws are a problem mainly because they're perceived as less exciting,
> >but exciting chess is the more general problem.
>
> Seems to me, we've got the old "Tragedy of the Commons" manifesting
> itself in yet another situation. =A0
>
> A prearranged or short draw damages the chess environment in terms of
> general interest and sponsorship, but provides real benefit to the
> individuals agreeing to it: =A0needed rest, a risk-free payday, progress
> toward a title, =A0etc. =A0 To the two competitors, =A0this outweighs thei=
r
> possible long run loss from degrading the chess world.

Yes, but it is _also_ the "Tragedy of the Commons" even if it is not
that sort of thing, which is easy to condemn. Even if it is just a
question of players playing real chess, but choosing defensive and
positional play instead of sharp, exciting tactical play. Here,
censure is not applicable, and each player playing the best chess he
knows how to play is doing exactly what he should do.

Making exciting chess rather than boring chess winning chess takes
some doing.

John Savard

Date: 18 Apr 2008 10:50:00
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: Two articles pondering the issues with Chess: Stale openings,

On Apr 18, 10:21=A0am, David Richerby <[email protected] >
wrote:
> Quadibloc <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > But the visible manifestations of chess, in the form of play at
> > rated events and so on, seem to be in trouble.
>
> Visible to whom? =A0And is this question the nub of the problem?

Visibility isn't the nub, but I've noted in a previous post that one
can be cynical, and see the nub of the problem in terms of money and
power.

Basically, what is desired is for major chess tournaments and matches
to be "bigger events", more visible, capturing more attention. Larger
prize funds wouldn't hurt either. So the requirement is that the chess
played by Grandmasters be more interesting.

John Savard

Date: 18 Apr 2008 08:54:30
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: Two articles pondering the issues with Chess: Stale openings,

On Apr 18, 4:05=A0am, David Richerby <[email protected] >
wrote:

> No idea. =A0But that tells you about the state of meat-space chess
> tournaments, not the state of chess.

It is certainly true that people can play chess online, and that has
improved the popularity of the game for casual play.

When it comes to casual play, chess can take care of itself, and
doesn't need help.

But the visible manifestations of chess, in the form of play at rated
events and so on, seem to be in trouble. The concern is with "serious"
play rather than casual play; with the ability of Grandmasters to make
a living from chess.

Is it because Internet play doesn't require cabfare or whatever? Then
the problem is incurable.

But this is a problem people have been moaning about before the
popularity of the Internet, and before the collapse of the Soviet
Union - even if it's gotten worse lately.

So we have Bird, Capablanca, Fischer... and now Seirawan coming up
with new forms of chess to shake up the openings. We have 1/3 - 1/3
scoring for draws proposed. There's a widespread sentiment, even if
not a majority sentiment, that there is some sort of a problem, and it
would be nice if we could fix it. It doesn't seem as though anyone has
come up with a workable way _to_ fix it, because nothing has really
caught on.

Instead of saying, "hey, is there really a problem", which is one way
of reacting to what seems to be a waste of time, and even an annoyance
to other chess players, if the rules are going to get changed for no
good reason - I suggest looking at matters in a way that might bring
consensus instead of discord. Just what _is_ the problem all these
people are really complaining about?

If we nail down the problem, maybe we could start to say "this will
help to fix it", or "no, it can't be helped by any of these measures".

Many social changes have happened between the time of the Cafe de la
Regence and the present day. But chess has changed too - and I suspect
it is nostalgia for the tactical bravura before Steinitz that is
animating the discontent. If high-level chess games did feature more
splashy Queen sacrifices and the like, there would be more general
interest in them. (As the interest would percolate down among people
who knew something of chess, encouraging more people to play chess
casually would also help; it's just that casual play isn't where the
problem is directly perceived.)

Draws are a problem mainly because they're perceived as less exciting,
but exciting chess is the more general problem.

John Savard

Date: 18 Apr 2008 17:21:16
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Two articles pondering the issues with Chess: Stale openings,

Quadibloc <[email protected] > wrote:
> But the visible manifestations of chess, in the form of play at
> rated events and so on, seem to be in trouble.

Visible to whom? And is this question the nub of the problem?

Dave.

--
David Richerby Crystal Tree (TM): it's like a tree
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ but it's completely transparent!

Date: 18 Apr 2008 05:45:47
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: Two articles pondering the issues with Chess: Stale openings,

On Apr 7, 10:12 pm, Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote:

> [1] When people complain about draws, they usually mean too
> many draws without a real fight. When I say that draws
> are good, I am thinking of a well-fought game that ends
> in a draw. Complain about premature/unfought draws and
> you might get a different answer from me -- and a different
> set of solutions.

A hard-fought game that ends in a draw can indeed be beautiful chess.

Still, it is safe to assume that there is a widely shared preference
for _excitement_ in sport, and a tie result is perceived as less
exciting than a win. Thus, even well-fought draws are likely to be a
"problem", although less so than draws without a fight.

*The amount of material required to force checkmate* is sufficient
that it takes quite some doing to win a game of Chess. This
characteristic of Chess is a two-edged sword. It means players do have
to play aggressively and take risks if they're to put a positive
result on the scoreboard. But because recklessness will only benefit
one's opponent, the aggressive play ends up still being careful and
sound enough so that wins only happen once in a while.

Draws are just the most concrete aspect of the "real" problem. The
problem is a lack of excitement in Chess.

What happens on the board contributes to that excitement, but it's not
the only thing. If a player obtains checkmate by sacrificing a Queen
and both Rooks, is it exciting? Yes, if it happens in a match between
the world's two top players. No, if it's a Grandmaster doing this to a
woodpusher in a simul.

Tournaments are to matches as regular season games are to the
playoffs. If the Stanley Cup is boring, people won't be interested
enough in hockey to tune in for the regular season.

So while 1/3 - 1/3 for a draw might be a good idea, it isn't a
solution to the excitement problem. We don't have the "The Russians
Have Fixed World Chess" problem anymore: _that_ problem might be
addressed by 1/3 - 1/3, or even 0 - 0, for a draw.

Chess isn't Shogi, but they are related games. There are reasons,
though, that Shogi is unlikely to supplant Chess; the feature that
eliminates most draws, drops, also makes it not as deep a game as
Chess. (Also, flat pieces are unexciting visually, although that's a
minor issue.)

The goal is excitement, yet excitement of a type that appeals to the
existing pool of Chess enthusiasts. So replacing Chess by football or
gladiatorial combat isn't the goal.

Instead, historical examples yield a definition of the goal. La
Bourdonnais - MacDonnell. Anderssen - Kieseritzky. These are the kinds
of fireworks that would bring Chess a bigger audience.

Since we want better Chess, getting players to forget what they
learned from Steinitz, even if it were possible, isn't the solution.
But to make a different kind of play *the rational way to win* would
seem to imply we must change the rules of Chess, since the way players
are playing now is what they have found to be the best way to win the
game as it is.

John Savard

Date: 18 Apr 2008 02:51:22
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: Two articles pondering the issues with Chess: Stale openings,

On Apr 7, 4:44 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote:

> For example, instead of 29% pseudo chess, and 71% White
> wins/Black draw, which we get from 1867-scoring (draw=.5)
> , what if we had a tournament format that produced 0% pseudo-chess,
> and 100% of contests starting with the objective of
> White win/Black draw? Or what about, God forbid,
> 0% pseudo-chess, and 50% White win/Black draw, 50%
> White win/Black win objectives?
>
> That we don't know exactly what tournament format/alternate
> scoring/prize fund distribution would produce the above situations
> is really just a detail. The key thing is to understand that chess is
> killing itself by rewarding strategies that devalue the individual
> game, and that create an anti-competitive environment. Those
> are just fundamentally inconsistent with creating a dramatic
> event, and Sophia rules do nothing to address the problem.

This is a good statement of the problem.

I favor using an alternate scoring, rather than a different tournament
format or a different prize fund distribution as a suitable measure.

1) It is simpler to describe.

2) It can be made applicable to matches as well as tournaments.

3) It does not create a situation where players have two conflicting
objectives to deal with.

What kind of alternate scoring, though, would change this -
particularly if one of the fundamental goals is to affect all chess
games equally, so that 1/3 - 1/3 for a draw, which makes the total
point value of a game nonconstant, therefore affecting tournaments,
but not matches, is excluded as an alternative?

I emphasize applicability to matches for two reasons:

Players shifting gears between two habits is difficult for them, and
likely will mean they will stick with the older habits if they work in
one of the contexts they face, slowing the results.

The World Championship will create more interest than any tournament,
and so if we are to revitalize public/spectator interest in Chess, we
must have more interesting Chess *there*.

Changing the rules of Chess trivially gets rid of the opening book.
How to do so in a way that promotes more aggressive play, though, is
less obvious.

How to change the scoring in Chess to promote aggressive play isn't
obvious either, though. If aggressive play means sticking your neck
out, making yourself more likely to lose, then you will get both
players playing defensively, accumulating, at best, small positional
advantages, and going for the win only if they have the rare good
fortune of having enough advantage for that to be sound.

So, for a long time, I was stumped. I didn't have a good idea for
this, and it didn't seem that anyone else did either. But then I heard
of how _komidashi_ in Go solved a similar problem.

The problem is that komidashi works because of how Go is scored. You
have a board with 361 spaces, and you count up how many are controlled
by each player to determine who wins. So it's easy to say the first
player (Black in Go) has to win by 7 or more stones to win, and
otherwise he loses.

Checkmate is all or nothing. And the problem in Go was different than
the one in Chess: Chess is usually a draw; in Go, the first player
wins (by three spaces or so) when both players play defensively.

So I put on my thinking cap, and tried to figure out how one could
create an analogue of komidashi that would apply to Chess. And I came
up with a scoring scheme that at least *possibly* could reward
aggressive play, taking _reasonable_ risks to win, even in a match
instead of just in tournaments.

(Since tournaments lend themselves to certain abuses of draws that
don't arise in matches, i.e. "The Russians Have Fixed World Chess",
Fischer's famous Sports Illustrated article, perhaps additional
measures of the 1/3 - 1/3 nature are also warranted. But that is a
_separate issue_; the issue of making Chess more like that of the pre-
Steinitz era in excitement is one that has to be addressed all the way
up to the World Championship.)

Since komidashi worked by cancelling out the first player's advantage,
my scheme would need to somehow reduce White's advantage in Chess, so
that each game is balanced on a knife-edge. This is an apt metaphor,
because one of the other things in komidashi is that the score offset
always has an odd 1/2 stone, so as to make OTB draws impossible.

So my thought was this:

To reduce the vast expanse of advantage over which the result is a
draw, give scoring points for things less than checkmate. Partial
credit for stalemate, bare king, and even perpetual check!

To encourage aggressive play by both players, and to give Black an
advantage, start by giving Black more credit than White if a smaller
victory is achieved, but as the victories become more decisive, and
the credit to the winner increases, make the difference smaller.

So if the game remains in the territory where someone *wins* by
perpetual check, having only a tiny advantage, Black, who is
disadvantaged by moving second, is at an advantage due to the scoring.
So even if Black, by playing aggressively, only wins 1/3 of the time,
and loses 2/3 of the time, the scoring means Black ends up the winner!

But as the game moves *out* of that territory, up to where victory is
obtained the old-fashioned way, by checkmate, the scoring no longer
favors Black - full credit for a win is the same for both players. So
White can't just play for a win by perpetual check, he has to play for
checkmate to pull the game out of the region where the scoring favors
the other player.

This is the handwaving argument - I made up some arbitrary percentages
for what happens if players choose agressive/defensive strategies, and
applied a simplified version of this type of scoring to it, and then,
from the payoff matrix obtained, found out what game theory would
recommend. In the example, the result was that White was still best
advised to play defensively, but Black finally was encouraged to play
aggressively. This is somewhat like the situation in Go *before*
komidashi; it's still an improvement, and it just happens to be the
result because of the particular percentages I made up, too.

This is on the page
http://www.quadibloc.com/chess/ch0101.htm

So the scheme might work better than exhibited in the example, or not
as well.

John Savard

Date: 17 Apr 2008 22:31:24
From: Rich Hutnik
Subject: Re: Two articles pondering the issues with Chess: Stale openings,

On Apr 17, 12:34 pm, David Richerby <[email protected] >
wrote:
> Quadibloc <[email protected]> wrote:
> > David Richerby <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> I dispute that the number of people joining chess associations is a
> >> useful statistic for measuring the popularity of chess.
>
> > That depends on what you mean by "the popularity of chess".
>
> > It is a useful metric for determining the amount of money flowing in
> > to prize funds in tournaments and the like.
>
> Not in England, it isn't. Anyone can take part in tournaments and
> receive an ECF rating, whether they are a member of that organization
> or not. If you want to know how much money is flowing to tournament
> prize funds, it would be much better to look at tournaments than
> federations.

Membership in an association shows fidelity to a game, and interest to
be part of it. One can also look to how many people are participating
in tournaments, and the prize money. So, how is chess on that front
now?

But, I will say, if you see stuff that is happening in Canada going on
all over, there is problems with chess.

- Rich

Date: 18 Apr 2008 11:05:56
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Two articles pondering the issues with Chess: Stale openings,

Rich Hutnik <[email protected] > wrote:
> David Richerby <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Not in England, it isn't. Anyone can take part in tournaments and
>> receive an ECF rating, whether they are a member of that organization
>> or not. If you want to know how much money is flowing to tournament
>> prize funds, it would be much better to look at tournaments than
>> federations.
>
> Membership in an association shows fidelity to a game, and interest to
> be part of it.

No. Membership in an association shows fidelity to the association
and interest to be part of that. Associations, as far as I can see,
don't generate much interest, let alone fidelity.

My fidelity to the game is shown by the fact that I regularly play it,
I own several sets, I own many books, one of the few pieces of
software I've paid for is a chess engine[1], I post frequently to
rgc.*, ...

> One can also look to how many people are participating in
> tournaments, and the prize money. So, how is chess on that front
> now?

No idea. But that tells you about the state of meat-space chess
tournaments, not the state of chess.

> But, I will say, if you see stuff that is happening in Canada going
> on all over, there is problems with chess.

There are problems with chess associations. Who needs them? Any two
people with a piece of paper and a pen or pencil can make a
rudimentary chess set and play the game.

Dave.

[1] I prefer to use free software in general but pay for all the
commercial software that I use. At the moment, that consists of
Windows XP, Paint Shop Pro X and Fritz 8.

--
David Richerby Homicidal Lead Vomit (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a pile of puke that weighs a ton but
it wants to kill you!

Date: 18 Apr 2008 13:10:13
From: Andy Walker
Subject: Re: Two articles pondering the issues with Chess: Stale openings,

In article <iPg*[email protected] >,
David Richerby <[email protected] > wrote:
>Rich Hutnik <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Membership in an association shows fidelity to a game, and interest to
>> be part of it.

There are too many other factors for this to be useful in
comparing across games and sports. Cost is one, and this in turn
is likely to depend on the structure of the game/sport, inc factors
such as the number of professionals, whether there are spectators,
TV rights, sponsorship, the cost of the equipment and the venues,
and the social "snob appeal". The degree of compulsion is another.
It's not an easy picture.

Even within a game, such as chess, a conscious decision to
change the nature of the association may make a big difference to
the numbers of members. The ECF, in particular, decided a while
back to push for an increase in the number of direct members, with
the idea of making the ECF more attractive to advertisers/sponsors
and giving it more clout in discussions [eg] with government. In
the past, most regular players belonged to the ECF indirectly, eg
through membership of a club which was affiliated to a county
which was affiliated to the ECF. Now, direct membership is required
to play in the 4NCL and is encouraged financially for those who play
in leagues and tournaments. I doubt whether this has made much
difference to numbers playing or to the ECF's immediate finances
[as most of the money is simply coming in by a different route],
or to the commitment that players have to the ECF or their club or
county; but it changes perspectives.

>No. Membership in an association shows fidelity to the association
>and interest to be part of that. Associations, as far as I can see,
>don't generate much interest, let alone fidelity.

As in most walks of life, most people just "want to play",
and it is left to the select few volunteers to "show an interest"
and help with the organisation [without which there would/could be
no serious events].

>> One can also look to how many people are participating in
>> tournaments, and the prize money. So, how is chess on that front
>> now?

Who knows? It depends too much on the organisers and the
venues. I have played in two tournaments this year so far; both
were thriving. The local tournament is tomorrow and Sunday; after
years of genteel decline, numbers are up 40%, the venue is full,
and last-minute entrants have been told not to bother as they cannot
be accepted [see "http://nottschess.org"]. Other tournaments have
folded. You need enthusiastic and competent organisers, good venues,
a favourable slot in the calendar, a good prize structure, sensible
entry fees, ....

[...]
>There are problems with chess associations. Who needs them? Any two
>people with a piece of paper and a pen or pencil can make a
>rudimentary chess set and play the game.

Indeed. You don't even need the set -- as a schoolboy, I
played many "blindfold" games during boring lessons. But without
the associations, you will not get organised chess -- titles,
ratings, leagues, championships, county matches, national teams,
arbiters, etc -- and there will be no funds for training juniors,
no way of talking to governmental and other bodies, and no focal
point for the game. We don't need the ECF [USCF, FIDE, ...] in
their present form; but if they didn't exist, we would have to
re-invent them. Of course, we might do better at the second go;
but don't count on it.

--
Andy Walker
Nottingham

Date: 18 Apr 2008 17:18:14
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Two articles pondering the issues with Chess: Stale openings,

Andy Walker <[email protected] > wrote:
> David Richerby <[email protected]> wrote:
>> There are problems with chess associations. Who needs them? Any
>> two people with a piece of paper and a pen or pencil can make a
>> rudimentary chess set and play the game.
>
> Indeed. You don't even need the set -- as a schoolboy, I played
> many "blindfold" games during boring lessons.

Sure, but that's not `any two people'.

> But without the associations, you will not get organised chess --
> titles, ratings, leagues, championships, county matches, national
> teams, arbiters, etc

Titles, county/regional matches and national teams are beyond the
aspirations of most players. Ratings, leagues and championships are
available on the internet. Arbiters are only needed to support the
other things on the list. I'm not suggesting that these things are
without value; merely that the average player can survive quite
happily without them and that this is why the problems of the
associations are not indicative of problems with chess per se.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Aquatic Moistened Car (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a high-performance luxury car but it's
moist and it lives in the sea!

Date: 18 Apr 2008 19:34:39
From: Andy Walker
Subject: Re: Two articles pondering the issues with Chess: Stale openings,

In article <Mtl*[email protected] >,
David Richerby <[email protected] > wrote:
>>> There are problems with chess associations. Who needs them? Any
>>> two people with a piece of paper and a pen or pencil can make a
>>> rudimentary chess set and play the game.
>> Indeed. You don't even need the set -- as a schoolboy, I played
>> many "blindfold" games during boring lessons.
>Sure, but that's not `any two people'.

Well, if you're going to get picky, then nor was your claim
that they could "play the game".

>> But without the associations, you will not get organised chess --
>> titles, ratings, leagues, championships, county matches, national
>> teams, arbiters, etc
>Titles, county/regional matches and national teams are beyond the
>aspirations of most players.

Your question was "Who needs them?", not "Who are the best
players?"! But AAMOF your aspirations must be truly dire if county
matches are beyond you -- even the weakest players are eligible for
the U100 teams. Any local player who wants to play is playing.

> Ratings, leagues and championships are
>available on the internet.

True. But that just makes internet sites surrogate clubs
and other associations. Note that ratings are only "interesting"
if they are clearly related to the "standard" Elo ratings.

> Arbiters are only needed to support the
>other things on the list. I'm not suggesting that these things are
>without value; merely that the average player can survive quite
>happily without them

Yes, but so can the "average" football player who just has
a kickaround in the park -- very possibly in complete ignorance of
many of the rules of the game. The health of football [and chess]
is not to be measured by people like that, but by the people who
play [or spectate] at least somewhat more seriously, and thereby
impact on the clubs and leagues, perhaps buy books and magazines,
and provide funds for the higher levels of the game. [I'm happy
to accept internet chess as "more seriously" in this sense.]

> and that this is why the problems of the
>associations are not indicative of problems with chess per se.

A true result arrived at by [IMHO] false reasoning.

--
Andy Walker
Nottingham

Date: 19 Apr 2008 16:19:58
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Two articles pondering the issues with Chess: Stale openings,

Andy Walker <[email protected] > wrote:
>David Richerby <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Andy Walker <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> David Richerby <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> There are problems with chess associations. Who needs them? Any
>>>> two people with a piece of paper and a pen or pencil can make a
>>>> rudimentary chess set and play the game.
>>> Indeed. You don't even need the set -- as a schoolboy, I played
>>> many "blindfold" games during boring lessons.
>> Sure, but that's not `any two people'.
> Well, if you're going to get picky, then nor was your claim that
> they could "play the game".

True, true. Pickiness aside, we're in agreement that it's very easy
to play chess without even having any specialist equipment like a
board and pieces.

>>> But without the associations, you will not get organised chess --
>>> titles, ratings, leagues, championships, county matches, national
>>> teams, arbiters, etc
>> Titles, county/regional matches and national teams are beyond the
>> aspirations of most players.
> Your question was "Who needs them?", not "Who are the best
> players?"!

True. But doesn't it seem kind of backwards to ask the rank and file
players to stump up money in membership fees to support the activities
of the strongest players? In other sports, it's the income generated
by the strongest players and their teams that supports the infrastruc-
ture of the game. Admittedly, a lot of that money comes from the fans
paying money to watch the elite players play but that's a dramatically
different situation. The situation in chess is akin to asking the
people playing in the pub five-a-side tournament to pay membership
fees to the organizers of the Premier League.

> But AAMOF your aspirations must be truly dire if county matches are
> beyond you -- even the weakest players are eligible for the U100
> teams.

Good point. Though the fact that I'd completely forgotten about the
under-not-much county teams suggests that a lot of other people might
be not aspiring to play county chess because they think it's only for
titled players.

>> Ratings, leagues and championships are available on the internet.
>
> True. But that just makes internet sites surrogate clubs and
> other associations.

Of course. But it's very hard to measure participation online because
one person might be a member of many sites and it's hard to quantify
the level to which that occurs.

> Note that ratings are only "interesting" if they are clearly related
> to the "standard" Elo ratings.

Not necessarily. A rating provides a means of tracking one's own
performance trends and compare with other people on the same site.
For example, I'm rated a shade under 2100 on an online correspondece
site. I've no idea how taht compares with a FIDE Elo rating, except
that I'm nowhere near 2100 FIDE. I do, on the other hand, know that
I've been hanging around that 2100 level for the last couple of
months whereas, six months ago, I was hanging around the 1950 level.

>> I'm not suggesting that these things are without value; merely that
>> the average player can survive quite happily without them
>
> Yes, but so can the "average" football player who just has a
> kickaround in the park -- very possibly in complete ignorance of
> many of the rules of the game. The health of football [and chess]
> is not to be measured by people like that, but by the people who
> play [or spectate] at least somewhat more seriously, and thereby
> impact on the clubs and leagues, perhaps buy books and magazines,
> and provide funds for the higher levels of the game.

I think the large number of people playing football in parks, albeit
informally, *is* evidence of the health of the game. Similarly, the
large number of people I see jogging, most of whom probably aren't
members of running clubs and whatnot.

> [I'm happy to accept internet chess as "more seriously" in this
> sense.]

*nod*

>> and that this is why the problems of the associations are not
>> indicative of problems with chess per se.
>
> A true result arrived at by [IMHO] false reasoning.

:-)

Dave.

--
David Richerby Edible Game (TM): it's like a family
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ board game but you can eat it!

Date: 20 Apr 2008 01:29:02
From: Andy Walker
Subject: Re: Two articles pondering the issues with Chess: Stale openings,

In article <Ejk*[email protected] >,
David Richerby <[email protected] > wrote:
[...]
> But doesn't it seem kind of backwards to ask the rank and file
>players to stump up money in membership fees to support the activities
>of the strongest players?

Not really. This has to happen one way or another, else
no-one can make a living out of it. You said you owned lots of
books -- that's you stumping up to support the activities of the
authors. Everyone who enters tournaments is supporting the prize
money which goes to the strongest players. The *annual* cost of
joining the ECF is a "cheap ticket" compared with almost any form
of professional entertainment or "night out" -- eg, a concert or
play, a cricket/football/tennis match, a restaurant meal, a full-
price book or CD. It's a nominal amount to sustain organisation
of the game we play. *You* might not miss that organisation, but
thousands of regular players in England would [though they might
not realise it] -- essentially *everyone* who plays regularly in
leagues or matches or tournaments.

> In other sports, it's the income generated
>by the strongest players and their teams that supports the infrastruc-
>ture of the game. Admittedly, a lot of that money comes from the fans
>paying money to watch the elite players play but that's a dramatically
>different situation.

For the sports you regularly see on TV, that's more-or-less
true, as long as you count TV rights as a version of "from the fans".
But even popular TV sports such as golf and tennis *also* extract
huge sums in membership fees from the ordinary players. My nearest
golf club [to which I do *not* belong!] charges members #839pa, or
50 years-worth of ECF membership. For less usual TV sports, such as
squash, badminton, archery, sailing, ..., the situation is much as
in chess -- the ordinary players have to pay real money as soon as
they move out of the "messing around in the local school hall" stage
-- except that the costs are *enormously* greater [in addition to
the cost of the equipment].

> The situation in chess is akin to asking the
>people playing in the pub five-a-side tournament to pay membership
>fees to the organizers of the Premier League.

Well, no it isn't. But it is akin to asking those who play
in the tenth division of the local pub league to pay fees to the FA;
which they do.

>> Note that ratings are only "interesting" if they are clearly related
>> to the "standard" Elo ratings.
>Not necessarily. A rating provides a means of tracking one's own
>performance trends and compare with other people on the same site.
>For example, I'm rated a shade under 2100 on an online correspondece
>site. I've no idea how taht compares with a FIDE Elo rating, except
>that I'm nowhere near 2100 FIDE. I do, on the other hand, know that
>I've been hanging around that 2100 level for the last couple of
>months whereas, six months ago, I was hanging around the 1950 level.

But you [apparently] don't know whether that 150-point
improvement is by the equivalent of 15 Elo points, and so mere
"noise", or of the equivalent of 1500 Elo points and really quite
dramatic. If you *do* know, it's only because you *also* have a
decent idea of what ECF or FIDE ratings signify. And if you play
and beat someone at your site with a rating of, say, 2500, you
have [apparently] no idea whether your opponent is of IM or GM
standard, so that you can be really proud of your achievement,
or a mere patzer. Again, if you *do* have some idea, it's only
because you are able to relate chessic abilities, as evidenced by
the standard of play, to Elo ratings. If you're genuinely content
to have no information about your standard of play, as measured
against league/tournament play in the UK, that's fine, but it
makes you very unusual.

>I think the large number of people playing football in parks, albeit
>informally, *is* evidence of the health of the game. Similarly, the
>large number of people I see jogging, most of whom probably aren't
>members of running clubs and whatnot.

Somewhere here we should probably agree to disagree. I don't
think there *are* large numbers for either of these [assuming you mean
random kickarounds and jogging, not the lower leagues that happen to
use park pitches for real matches], not compared with the numbers that
play or watch serious football/athletics/squash/chess, nor do I think
that a couple of middle-aged somewhat overweight people trotting past
tell us anything at all about the state of athletics. YMMV.

--
Andy Walker
Nottingham

Date: 17 Apr 2008 22:28:13
From: Rich Hutnik
Subject: Re: On draws, Shogi, and Near Chess (was: Two articles pondering the

On Apr 17, 9:10 am, David Richerby <[email protected] >
wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > So, to sum up, Near Chess had none of the rules that were added to
> > chess when the queen went mad, and rules needed to be added: Pawns
> > move forward only one space (not two), there is en passant, ...
>
> I assume you mean `there is *no* en passant' ?
>
> Dave.

Sorry, correct. There is no en passant, because the pawns start on
the third rows, and only move one space. The actual rules have this
correctly stated.

- Rich

Date: 17 Apr 2008 10:21:26
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Two articles pondering the issues with Chess: Stale openings,

On Apr 17, 8:25 am, Quadibloc <[email protected] > wrote:
> So I proposed the following scoring schedule for Chess:
>
> 10 points to the game are split as follows:
>
> White forces checkmate - 10 points out of 10 for White.
>
> White forces stalemate - 8/2.
>
> White bares Black's King (and elects not to continue the game in
> pursuit of stalemate or checkmate) - 6/4

These last two seem rather silly, but there might be an interesting
point to them, like time trouble or some other idea. Else, why would
White not play on?

Also why would black get only 2 points for doing the same thing?

Date: 17 Apr 2008 08:46:41
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: Two articles pondering the issues with Chess: Stale openings,

On Apr 17, 6:53=A0am, David Richerby <[email protected] >
wrote:

> I dispute that the number of people joining chess associations is a
> useful statistic for measuring the popularity of chess.

That depends on what you mean by "the popularity of chess".

It is a useful metric for determining the amount of money flowing in
to prize funds in tournaments and the like. If more people started
playing Chess at home, instead of Monopoly or Checkers, but there was
no increase in the sales of chess clocks, no increase in purchases of
books analyzing the latest variations in the Nimzo-Indian, no increase
in the amount of TV coverage of the World Championship, then the
specific facet of "the popularity of chess" which is of concern has
not increased.

Or, to put it even more directly, the number of people joining chess
associations *is* a very useful statistic for the amount of money and
power under the control of the presidents of those associations.

So, if we can find a way to get the players in the World Championship
to play like they were Anderssen and Kieseritzky, by fiddling with the
points for a draw or something... then maybe the membership of the
USCF would be powerful and influential enough to decide who would be
the next President! Of the United States, that is, not the USCF.

Once one realizes what one's goals are, then one can effectively work
on the methods for achieving them. Of course, the chess-playing
community doesn't really harbor *quite* such grandiose ambitions as I
have referred to above, but it is about money and publicity, not about
the popularity of the game itself in areas that are under the radar.

John Savard

Date: 17 Apr 2008 17:34:14
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Two articles pondering the issues with Chess: Stale openings,

Quadibloc <[email protected] > wrote:
> David Richerby <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I dispute that the number of people joining chess associations is a
>> useful statistic for measuring the popularity of chess.
>
> That depends on what you mean by "the popularity of chess".
>
> It is a useful metric for determining the amount of money flowing in
> to prize funds in tournaments and the like.

Not in England, it isn't. Anyone can take part in tournaments and
receive an ECF rating, whether they are a member of that organization
or not. If you want to know how much money is flowing to tournament
prize funds, it would be much better to look at tournaments than
federations.

> Or, to put it even more directly, the number of people joining chess
> associations *is* a very useful statistic for the amount of money
> and power under the control of the presidents of those associations.

Trivially.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Homicidal Tool (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ hammer but it wants to kill you!

Date: 17 Apr 2008 08:38:17
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: Two articles pondering the issues with Chess: Stale openings,

On Apr 17, 8:37=A0am, David Richerby <[email protected] >
wrote:
> Quadibloc <[email protected]> wrote:
> > But if there is no problem, there is no problem. The statistics you
> > give of the English Premier League, showing they aren't plagued with
> > a lot of draws, might somehow be irrelevant, though.
>
> I don't think they are particularly relevant, no. =A0But I posted them
> in response to a direct request for such information.
>
> > [...] This explains why draws in the English Premier League might
> > not be relevant.
>
> Actually, I think the main reason they're not relevant is that chess
> doesn't involve 22 men running backwards and forwards kicking a ball
> and the EPL doesn't involve two men thinking and occasionally moving
> little pieces of wood on a little wooden table.

I'm sorry, I misunderstood your post. I thought that you were
referring to rated tournament Chess play at the club level in England,
to show that there weren't that many draws there. (Tight time controls
will do that, but with a deleterious effect on the quality of play.) I
should have read it more carefully instead of skimming through the
details.

It certainly is true that Chess is at a disadvantage because one needs
to be intelligent to understand what is going on, whereas one doesn't
need to be athletic to understand a footbal game.

The absence of cheerleaders, after the fashion of American football,
might be cited as another limitation.

John Savard

Date: 17 Apr 2008 06:25:13
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: Two articles pondering the issues with Chess: Stale openings,

On Apr 17, 6:42 am, David Richerby <[email protected] >
wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote:

> > What I think probably needs to be agreed to that draws to this level
> > are an issue for the health of chess.

> If you think this `needs to be agreed' then it sounds like you've
> already made your mind up so there's little point trying to discuss
> it.

If the point were determining if draws are a problem or not, that
certainly would be correct. But if the point is Saving Chess before
disaster happens, then debating the issue would be a waste of time,
only working on means to fix it.

But if there is no problem, there is no problem. The statistics you
give of the English Premier League, showing they aren't plagued with a
lot of draws, might somehow be irrelevant, though.

If the "real" problem is declining prize pools, then the cause is
declining public interest in Chess as a spectator sport.

This explains why draws in the English Premier League might not be
relevant. Who pays any attention to Triple-A baseball? Only Major
League Baseball is nationally televised; so it is Major League
Baseball that is what captivates public interest in the sport and has
a significant revenue stream.

So the problem is: when the two foremost grandmasters in the world
meet in the World Championship match, the Chess event that has a
chance of attracting general public interest, *then* there are too
many draws. And the games are not exciting enough in other ways: too
much positional play, too few dashing Queen sacrifices.

Yes - the culprit is Steinitz!

I think we can all agree that Chess games at the high grandmaster
level are not like La Bourdonnais/McDonnell or Anderssen/Kieseritzky
very often, and if they were, they would be more exciting. If one
identifies the problem one is "really" thinking about, then, indeed,
the question of whether there *is* a problem isn't too big an issue,
since this is a real phenomenon.

As for one of the other issues named, the large amount of opening book
knowledge does make a daunting climb for the aspiring chess player.
FischerRandom is one simple solution to that, and I tried, on my web
page at

http://www.quadibloc.com/chess/ch0202.htm

to propose an even more palatable way to address the issue.

Getting players, who are going to try to play to win as best they can,
and to draw in preference to losing as well, to forget they've ever
heard of Steinitz is going to be a bigger job. Playing Chess according
to sound positional principles is far simpler than calculating
variations dozens of moves ahead, unless you're a computer.

One thing that's been proposed is to score a draw as 1/3 - 1/3. If
this applied to OTB draws, not just agreed draws, it would encourage
players to accept some risk of losing as they played for mate. But
there's a problem.

This would impinge on tournament play, but it would have no effect on
match play. And the matches, not the tournaments, are what needs
fixing!

I don't know if I've come up with "the solution" to this, and, in
fact, that may be unlikely. But I had heard that in the world of Go,
something called _komidashi_ had solved the problem of too much
defensive play.

The problem with Go wasn't too many draws; instead, the player who
played first (in the case of Go, Black) could be depended on to win by
three stones like clockwork. So they decreed that a win less than 3
1/2 stones by Black counted as a win by White. The odd 1/2 point
neatly got rid of OTB draws as well.

The point margin has gradually been increased - it's now often at 7
1/2 stones - but the result had been to force the first player to play
aggressively.

I asked myself if something similar could be done for Chess. Like the
odd half-point, could the area of "insufficient material" be narrowed
down? Yes; one could have an option to win with bare King once again.

Then, if a slight advantage suffices to win, we need to tilt the
balance towards Black.

So I proposed the following scoring schedule for Chess:

10 points to the game are split as follows:

White forces checkmate - 10 points out of 10 for White.

White forces stalemate - 8/2.

White bares Black's King (and elects not to continue the game in
pursuit of stalemate or checkmate) - 6/4

A draw is still 5/5. Non-zero-sum scoring makes life very complicated,
and makes tournament and match play fundamentally different. Making it
4/6 would be excessive, and the right behavior would not be driven.

Black bares White's king - 2/8.

Black forces stalemate - 1/9.

Black forces checkmate - 0/10 - Black gets all 10 points.

White, with the first move advantage, is pushed harder to play for
checkmate instead of just bare King, and Black, at a disadvantage, is
pushed harder than White is to get at least some kind of a win. (If we
scored a draw as 4/6, White would gain the same number of points as
Black would from a bare King, so the only thing Black gets rewarded
extra for is showing up.)

Maybe this is a silly idea, but it is the first one I've had that I
think is actually relevant to encouraging more aggressive play, and at
least it draws on *some* real-world experience, even though Chess is
not Go.

John Savard

Date: 17 Apr 2008 15:37:04
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Two articles pondering the issues with Chess: Stale openings,

Quadibloc <[email protected] > wrote:
> But if there is no problem, there is no problem. The statistics you
> give of the English Premier League, showing they aren't plagued with
> a lot of draws, might somehow be irrelevant, though.

I don't think they are particularly relevant, no. But I posted them
in response to a direct request for such information.

> [...] This explains why draws in the English Premier League might
> not be relevant.

Actually, I think the main reason they're not relevant is that chess
doesn't involve 22 men running backwards and forwards kicking a ball
and the EPL doesn't involve two men thinking and occasionally moving
little pieces of wood on a little wooden table.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Happy Gerbil (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ children's pet that makes your
troubles melt away!

Date: 12 Apr 2008 14:06:40
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: On draws, Shogi, and Near Chess (was: Two articles pondering the

On Apr 12, 12:36 am, Quadibloc <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Apr 11, 8:36 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > "Quadibloc" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > Yes, that's all I was saying. Chess is already a complex strategy
> > > game, not analyzed fully even by computers, and that's a good thing.
> > > But if a game is so complicated that there is no rational way to play
> > > it, that would be bad.
>
> > Are there games that you feel fall into this category?
>
> No, I don't know of any existing games like that. This is a potential
> danger, but not one of the most serious.
>
> Gess, Rithmomachy, and some of the *really large* chess variants might
> approach that state, but I suspect even they fall short.

In addition to complexity, another characteristic that is required is
that the game be very tactically sharp.

In any event, to explore the outer limits of tactical complexity, on
my page at

http://www.quadibloc.com/other/bo0103.htm

I describe, after a number of real games invented by others, the game
of Gheskers, based on Gess but combining with it the idea from
Byelorussian Cheskers or Shashmaty.

John Savard

Date: 11 Apr 2008 23:36:41
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: On draws, Shogi, and Near Chess (was: Two articles pondering the

Date: 11 Apr 2008 17:15:39
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: On draws, Shogi, and Near Chess (was: Two articles pondering the

On Apr 11, 1:35 pm, Rich Hutnik <[email protected] > wrote:

> Totally
> expected lines 8+ moves out, where you see your impending doom, and
> all you have to do is wait for your opponent to execute (knowing they
> will) isn't exactly dramatic. Of course, in this, there is likely
> need for some balance here.

Yes, that's all I was saying. Chess is already a complex strategy
game, not analyzed fully even by computers, and that's a good thing.
But if a game is so complicated that there is no rational way to play
it, that would be bad.

John Savard

Date: 11 Apr 2008 19:36:58
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: On draws, Shogi, and Near Chess (was: Two articles pondering the issues with Chess)

"Quadibloc" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:1de534b0-560c-4bcb-8f16-cddc7a16343a@q10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 11, 1:35 pm, Rich Hutnik <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Totally
>> expected lines 8+ moves out, where you see your impending doom, and
>> all you have to do is wait for your opponent to execute (knowing they
>> will) isn't exactly dramatic. Of course, in this, there is likely
>> need for some balance here.
>
> Yes, that's all I was saying. Chess is already a complex strategy
> game, not analyzed fully even by computers, and that's a good thing.
> But if a game is so complicated that there is no rational way to play
> it, that would be bad.

Are there games that you feel fall into this category?

> John Savard

Date: 11 Apr 2008 12:35:10
From: Rich Hutnik
Subject: Re: On draws, Shogi, and Near Chess (was: Two articles pondering the

On Apr 11, 3:10 am, Quadibloc <[email protected] > wrote:
> Rich Hutnik wrote:
> > On Apr 10, 5:25 pm, Quadibloc <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Ok, I will agree that a game
> > can be too unwieldy in nature that it really works against people.
>
> That was basically what I was thinking of. But even a big chess
> variant with lots of pieces usually wouldn't be quite as unpredictable
> as I outlined. If one adds other elements that are hard for people to
> calculate, to get a game like Checkers or Reversi, one might get the
> kind of game filled with counter-productive surprises (from the
> standpoint of seeking an improved Chess; the game might still be
> entertaining in its own right) I was thinking of.

I personally would see the inability to fully calculate everything
leading up to surprises (a source of drama) would actually be a good
thing for a game, particularly an abstract strategy game. I don't see
a problem with this. Such would also make for better drama for
spectators and could help facilitate games getting on TV. Totally
expected lines 8+ moves out, where you see your impending doom, and
all you have to do is wait for your opponent to execute (knowing they
will) isn't exactly dramatic. Of course, in this, there is likely
need for some balance here. I will say that perhaps lacking the
unexpected surprise element is what works against getting a game like
chess on TV, in addition to the complexity.

> Yes; having minor win conditions would make the scoring even sharper.
> At least the term sharp scoring is used in discussions of counting
> systems for Go.

Such a scoring system would be useful for handicapping also.

- Rich

Date: 11 Apr 2008 05:55:14
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: Two articles pondering the issues with Chess: Stale openings,

On Apr 10, 11:34 pm, Kenneth Sloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> Quadibloc wrote:
>
> > If White doesn't have a big advantage, and so we have an equal number
> > of wins and losses not determined by color, those are happening at
> > random... and so the better player might lose in a match due to a
> > statistical fluctuation.
>
> Then, you have Backgammon.

That was my point; making a game overly complicated might have the
same net effect as introducing chance elements, even though they're
not explicit.

John Savard

Date: 11 Apr 2008 00:10:53
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: On draws, Shogi, and Near Chess (was: Two articles pondering the

Rich Hutnik wrote:
> On Apr 10, 5:25 pm, Quadibloc <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ok, I will agree that a game
> can be too unwieldy in nature that it really works against people.

That was basically what I was thinking of. But even a big chess
variant with lots of pieces usually wouldn't be quite as unpredictable
as I outlined. If one adds other elements that are hard for people to
calculate, to get a game like Checkers or Reversi, one might get the
kind of game filled with counter-productive surprises (from the
standpoint of seeking an improved Chess; the game might still be
entertaining in its own right) I was thinking of.

> > Yes: sharp scoring means the score distinguishes between levels of
> > skill in play, or achievement in a game, that are closer together.
> > Thus, allowing stalemate and bare king as wins would sharpen the
> > scoring in Chess.
>
> You mean granularity in scoring to account for the degrees of
> competency or mastery seen? Something like a stalemate or bare king
> as a 1/2 point win, instead of a full point for a checkmate, would
> count as this? Way back when, before the Queen went mad, they used to
> have minor win conditions in chess.

Yes; having minor win conditions would make the scoring even sharper.
At least the term sharp scoring is used in discussions of counting
systems for Go.

John Savard

Date: 10 Apr 2008 22:07:44
From: Rich Hutnik
Subject: Re: On draws, Shogi, and Near Chess (was: Two articles pondering the

On Apr 10, 5:25 pm, Quadibloc <[email protected] > wrote:
> It's true that change is resisted because people are comfortable with
> defensive play and opening book knowledge, but that's exactly why
> change is believed to be needed.
>
> I was thinking of a different problem; under some sets of
> circumstances, a chess variant could be so hard for people to play
> that it wouldn't serve as a game of skill. Once a player knows enough
> not to blunder away pieces, his results against a Grandmaster would be
> nearly even, because the game is so unmanageable.
>
> One could, basically, have too much of a good thing when designing a
> variant to liven up Chess.

I am curious why, if a game has no luck (players completely control
everything), and no hidden information, why such isn't a "game of
skill"? Because people aren't that good at it, why should it not be
seen as a game of skill and strategy? Ok, I will agree that a game
can be too unwieldy in nature that it really works against people. It
could have just too much to it to really be that enjoyable, that
people won't play it. It is said that chess replaced Rithmomachia for
this reason. If you like at Rithmomachia, it looks WAY more unwieldy
than chess is. You have mathematical formulas, an excess of
formations, etc... Chess, as complicated as it is, and with its own
quirks, actually is an easier game. I do recall trying to do my
Linebreakers game and blowing it up bigger and bigger. It became a
real bear and too much in the end. So, while I will challenge that
such a game shouldn't get knocked for skill, I will agree that too
much is not necessarily better. And this points to a recent chess
variant someone proposed on here, that was supposed to be better,
because it was more.

> > What is meant by sharp scoring? You mean that it reduces the number
> > of draws?
>
> Yes: sharp scoring means the score distinguishes between levels of
> skill in play, or achievement in a game, that are closer together.
> Thus, allowing stalemate and bare king as wins would sharpen the
> scoring in Chess.

You mean granularity in scoring to account for the degrees of
competency or mastery seen? Something like a stalemate or bare king
as a 1/2 point win, instead of a full point for a checkmate, would
count as this? Way back when, before the Queen went mad, they used to
have minor win conditions in chess.

- Rich

Date: 10 Apr 2008 14:25:59
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: On draws, Shogi, and Near Chess (was: Two articles pondering the

On Apr 10, 12:55=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Apr 10, 12:47 pm, Quadibloc <[email protected]> wrote:

> > It certainly can be (i.e., Go). But if tactical winning chances emerge
> > for one or the other player out of the blue, as it were, not as the
> > result of good positional play, but *effectively* randomly, because
> > the consequences of the moves in the game are impossible to reason out
> > in advance... then one can have a game of pure strategy that behaves
> > like a game of chance because
>
> So, you are defining "random" here to be "unexpected" then. =A0I
> personally not sure if that is a problem or not. =A0The element of
> surprise is what can lend to drama. =A0If players have access to all
> information, and totally control the environment, such an unexpected
> turn should be something good, in my opinion. =A0Perhaps you are
> touching on a reason for resistance to anything that would change
> chess. =A0People want to have things be the same comfortable lines they
> are used to. =A0Being challenged to adapt may not be the most
> comfortable thing. =A0Perhaps there is some "autopilot" beating
> opponents thing that people want to do. =A0Not being creative, but
> winning via comfort. =A0And that is a source of why change is resisted.

It's true that change is resisted because people are comfortable with
defensive play and opening book knowledge, but that's exactly why
change is believed to be needed.

I was thinking of a different problem; under some sets of
circumstances, a chess variant could be so hard for people to play
that it wouldn't serve as a game of skill. Once a player knows enough
not to blunder away pieces, his results against a Grandmaster would be
nearly even, because the game is so unmanageable.

One could, basically, have too much of a good thing when designing a
variant to liven up Chess.

> > This isn't a common failure mode of chess variants, but it is another
> > possibility to keep in mind. Generally speaking, getting deep strategy
> > is good, and hard to do... and sharp scoring in a large and complex
> > game is usually unlikely. But drops as in Shogi are just the thing to
> > sharpen the scoring.
>
> What is meant by sharp scoring? =A0You mean that it reduces the number
> of draws?

Yes: sharp scoring means the score distinguishes between levels of
skill in play, or achievement in a game, that are closer together.
Thus, allowing stalemate and bare king as wins would sharpen the
scoring in Chess.

John Savard

Date: 10 Apr 2008 11:55:51
From:
Subject: Re: On draws, Shogi, and Near Chess (was: Two articles pondering the

On Apr 10, 12:47 pm, Quadibloc <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Apr 10, 10:19 am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > Did you just compare Shogi to Blackjack?
>
> I thought I'd just make a reference to another post you commented on.
> Obviously, Shogi is much more like Chess than it is like Blackjack!

Ok, I must of misread what you wrote.

> > By the way, how does a game
> > from simple set of rules that generates exceeding complications on the
> > parts of the players, a "game of chance"? Isn't that the trademark of
> > complex strategy?
>
> It certainly can be (i.e., Go). But if tactical winning chances emerge
> for one or the other player out of the blue, as it were, not as the
> result of good positional play, but *effectively* randomly, because
> the consequences of the moves in the game are impossible to reason out
> in advance... then one can have a game of pure strategy that behaves
> like a game of chance because

So, you are defining "random" here to be "unexpected" then. I
personally not sure if that is a problem or not. The element of
surprise is what can lend to drama. If players have access to all
information, and totally control the environment, such an unexpected
turn should be something good, in my opinion. Perhaps you are
touching on a reason for resistance to anything that would change
chess. People want to have things be the same comfortable lines they
are used to. Being challenged to adapt may not be the most
comfortable thing. Perhaps there is some "autopilot" beating
opponents thing that people want to do. Not being creative, but
winning via comfort. And that is a source of why change is resisted.

> a) its strategy is too deep, and
>
> b) its scoring is too sharp.
>
> This isn't a common failure mode of chess variants, but it is another
> possibility to keep in mind. Generally speaking, getting deep strategy
> is good, and hard to do... and sharp scoring in a large and complex
> game is usually unlikely. But drops as in Shogi are just the thing to
> sharpen the scoring.

What is meant by sharp scoring? You mean that it reduces the number
of draws?

- Rich

Date: 10 Apr 2008 09:47:25
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: On draws, Shogi, and Near Chess (was: Two articles pondering the

On Apr 10, 10:19=A0am, [email protected] wrote:

> Did you just compare Shogi to Blackjack?

I thought I'd just make a reference to another post you commented on.
Obviously, Shogi is much more like Chess than it is like Blackjack!

> By the way, how does a game
> from simple set of rules that generates exceeding complications on the
> parts of the players, a "game of chance"? =A0Isn't that the trademark of
> complex strategy?

It certainly can be (i.e., Go). But if tactical winning chances emerge
for one or the other player out of the blue, as it were, not as the
result of good positional play, but *effectively* randomly, because
the consequences of the moves in the game are impossible to reason out
in advance... then one can have a game of pure strategy that behaves
like a game of chance because

a) its strategy is too deep, and

b) its scoring is too sharp.

This isn't a common failure mode of chess variants, but it is another
possibility to keep in mind. Generally speaking, getting deep strategy
is good, and hard to do... and sharp scoring in a large and complex
game is usually unlikely. But drops as in Shogi are just the thing to
sharpen the scoring.

John Savard

Date: 10 Apr 2008 09:19:26
From:
Subject: On draws, Shogi, and Near Chess (was: Two articles pondering the

On Apr 9, 1:59 pm, Quadibloc <[email protected] > wrote:
> One solution to that is to disallow draws by agreement, but that seems
> to be too extreme a measure, and players already have colluded in
> obtaining other types of draw when a draw by agreement might appear to
> be an obvious way to let a third player win in a tournament.

Haven't they tried that and the end result is only a marginal decrease
in draws that appeared?

> Of course, 1/3 - 1/3 point draws are one way to deal with that, too -
> let the cat eat a third of a point.

How about making it 0-0, since it still doesn't advance the chess
match in any way? Zero sum for a draw is still zero sum.

> But the solution people want is simply a game that provides excitement
> through winning possibilities. The example of Shogi, with very few
> draws, that you've raised is therefore a very good illustration.
>
> Except for one thing: in Japan, Shogi is treated as checkers, compared
> to Go, which is taken seriously like chess. One could modify Chess so
> that although it is nominally a strategy game, it has excessive
> complications, and unexpected winning chances, so that it ends up
> being, in effect, a game of chance - like blackjack. I don't think
> drops by themselves would have that effect on Shogi, but there are
> perhaps other factors involved.

Did you just compare Shogi to Blackjack? By the way, how does a game
from simple set of rules that generates exceeding complications on the
parts of the players, a "game of chance"? Isn't that the trademark of
complex strategy?

> So it might be that what appears to be the best kind of way to reduce
> draws, to make Chess more of a game of tactical offense and less a
> positional, defensive game, might end up being achieved by dumbing it
> down, the worst thing that could happen.

Gee, sounds like "Near Chess" I had been working on, after I found it
while playing around with Freeling's Grand Chess on an 8x8 board:
http://www.chessvariants.org/index/msdisplay.php?itemid=MSnearchess

Well, defense still matter, However, it is streamlined compared to
regular chess (any complexities are due to explaining what got left
out). Its purpose is to be a non-trivial intro game that teaches
people the basic of chess (pawn structure, the general strategy, and
how pieces move), while not boring those who teach it. It just drops
the complex rules that were integrated when you go mad queen and give
the pawn the ability to advance two spaces. I am not going to say I
invented "Near Chess". It is more like, while I was attempting to
adapt Freeling's Grand Chess to an 8x8 board, I decided to move the
rooks up, and discovered it. The original idea became Skirmish Chess
which existed, and the streamlined version, that drops castling,
limits pawn movement, and replaces checkmate with king capture. The
name then became "Near Chess". If you were to add castling and
checkmate back, it ends up being Skirmish Chess, which was invented by
Tony Paletta.

So, to sum up, Near Chess had none of the rules that were added to
chess when the queen went mad, and rules needed to be added: Pawns
move forward only one space (not two), there is en passant, there is
no castling, and checkmate is replaced by a king capture (no
stalemate). Near refers to the pieces being closer to one another,
the rules being near (streamlined) chess (like "Near Beer" is to
regular beer), and also the shifting and positioning of pieces happens
behind the pawns (nearer to the play). The point of it is to be an
easier to learn chess, that isn't trivial. And in no way am I
pitching this as "the next chess" in any way. I just think it is an
interesting variant to play with people who haven't played chess
before. I would say had chess gone this route, it would of been
interested if castling, giving the pawns double mobility, etc... would
of ever entered into chess. It is possible people now would of been
debating that such changes that are seen in chess as it today, would
make the game needlessly complex, and work against the real spirit of
chess, arguing that people are also trying to make pawns insane, and
not just the queen.

> But it's not the end of the world if someone proposes a new chess
> variant, and that variant is not any good! People can just ignore it.
> If we learn how to make variants with desired features in their play,
> then we have progressed towards being able to engineer the variant
> that produces the kind of Chess we want.

I am curious why a single game needs to be the answer. Maybe multiple
versions would count here. In no way would I even say Near Chess, or
the IAGO Chess game would fit that. I personally believe the IAGO
Chess System is a good framework for integrating all this together,
but it alone isn't the answer.

- Rich

Date: 17 Apr 2008 14:10:25
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: On draws, Shogi, and Near Chess (was: Two articles pondering the

<[email protected] > wrote:
> So, to sum up, Near Chess had none of the rules that were added to
> chess when the queen went mad, and rules needed to be added: Pawns
> move forward only one space (not two), there is en passant, ...

I assume you mean `there is *no* en passant' ?

Dave.

--
David Richerby Poisonous Atom Bomb (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ weapon of mass destruction but it'll
kill you in seconds!

Date: 17 Apr 2008 14:02:59
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: On draws, Shogi, and Near Chess (was: Two articles pondering the

<[email protected] > wrote:
> On Apr 9, 1:59 pm, Quadibloc <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Of course, 1/3 - 1/3 point draws are one way to deal with that, too -
>> let the cat eat a third of a point.
>
> How about making it 0-0, since it still doesn't advance the chess
> match in any way? Zero sum for a draw is still zero sum.

That's not what zero-sum means. Zero sum means that one player's loss
is the other player's gain or, in other words, the total points
awarded for every game is the same, regardless of the result. Chess,
as currently played, is zero-sum because one point is awarded for each
game[1], either given wholly to the winner or half to each in the case
of a draw. Chess with a 0.6/0.4 white/black score for a draw is also
zero-sum. However, chess with each player getting 1/3 points for a
draw is not zero-sum, since drawn games are worth only 2/3, while won
games are worth a whole point.

Dave.

[1] We'll ignore the fact that, in games terminated by the arbiter
because the rules were breached, the arbiter can award the points
as he sees fit. For example, if the player with the queen in KQ vs K
repeatedly made illegal moves, he would forfeit the game but his
opponent would be unlikely to be awarded more than half a point.

--
David Richerby Mouldy Swiss Ghost (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a haunting spirit but it's made in
Switzerland and starting to grow
mushrooms!

Date: 09 Apr 2008 13:31:19
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: Two articles pondering the issues with Chess: Stale openings,

On Apr 9, 9:29=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
> I don't know any other competition that works this way,
> and don't know why chess would end up having this as an exception.
> Perhaps because it favors the reigning world champ.

Actually, you may well have accidentally hit on the reason why many
chessplayers, not just the current World Champion, might be against
some ways of getting rid of draws!

If two players are nearly equal in strength, and most games between
them end up the same way, as draws, then the games accurately reflect
their strength.

If on the other hand most games between them end up with White always
winning, the games would *also* reflect their strength, but _that_
would be in danger of being dull too, as it is a foregone conclusion.
(If Black won when Black was only a very slightly better player, that
would be OK, but a big advantage for White would be just as bad as
lots of draws.)

If White doesn't have a big advantage, and so we have an equal number
of wins and losses not determined by color, those are happening at
random... and so the better player might lose in a match due to a
statistical fluctuation. Matches might have to be a hundred games long
- just as if there were draws almost all the time - with victory being
a lead of at least three points to be sure of finding the better
player.

So there is an issue that reflects, both for and against, on getting
rid of draws - not interfering with game results as allowing one to
quickly find the better player.

John Savard

Date: 11 Apr 2008 00:34:27
From: Kenneth Sloan
Subject: Re: Two articles pondering the issues with Chess: Stale openings,

Quadibloc wrote:
>
> If White doesn't have a big advantage, and so we have an equal number
> of wins and losses not determined by color, those are happening at
> random... and so the better player might lose in a match due to a
> statistical fluctuation.

Then, you have Backgammon.

--
Kenneth Sloan [email protected]
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://KennethRSloan.com/

Date: 09 Apr 2008 10:59:51
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: Two articles pondering the issues with Chess: Stale openings,

On Apr 9, 9:25=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
> On Apr 8, 12:12 am, Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/> wrote:

> > [1] When people complain about draws, they usually mean too
> > many draws without a real fight. =A0When I say that draws
> > are good, I am thinking of a well-fought game that ends
> > in a draw. =A0Complain about premature/unfought draws and
> > you might get a different answer from me -- and a different
> > set of solutions.
>
> If the rules allow for draws to occur and be unfought, then guess
> what, you will have these if this game proves to be an advantage to
> people playing.

One solution to that is to disallow draws by agreement, but that seems
to be too extreme a measure, and players already have colluded in
obtaining other types of draw when a draw by agreement might appear to
be an obvious way to let a third player win in a tournament.

Of course, 1/3 - 1/3 point draws are one way to deal with that, too -
let the cat eat a third of a point.

But the solution people want is simply a game that provides excitement
through winning possibilities. The example of Shogi, with very few
draws, that you've raised is therefore a very good illustration.

Except for one thing: in Japan, Shogi is treated as checkers, compared
to Go, which is taken seriously like chess. One could modify Chess so
that although it is nominally a strategy game, it has excessive
complications, and unexpected winning chances, so that it ends up
being, in effect, a game of chance - like blackjack. I don't think
drops by themselves would have that effect on Shogi, but there are
perhaps other factors involved.

So it might be that what appears to be the best kind of way to reduce
draws, to make Chess more of a game of tactical offence and less a
positional, defensive game, might end up being achieved by dumbing it
down, the worst thing that could happen.

But it's not the end of the world if someone proposes a new chess
variant, and that variant is not any good! People can just ignore it.
If we learn how to make variants with desired features in their play,
then we have progressed towards being able to engineer the variant
that produces the kind of Chess we want.

John Savard

Date: 09 Apr 2008 08:29:28
From:
Subject: Re: Two articles pondering the issues with Chess: Stale openings,

On Apr 8, 12:19 am, "[email protected]"
<[email protected] > wrote:
> There were many attempts to discourage draws in the past, and I don't
> know why they were all abandoned. One that makes sense for a small,
> high powered round robin tournament is to modify the prize structure.
> This was used in the famous St Petersburg quadrangular tournament
> between Lasker, Steinitz, Pillsbury, Tschigorin; it was also used in
> several matches.
>
> Instead of basing the prize only on position, the money comes in 2
> parts. Part of the money comes from your position in the tournament.
> Another part comes from giving a certain amount A for a win, B for a
> draw, and C for a loss; A > B > C but A+C > 2*B.
>
> This has both the virtue of discouraging draws, and making all players
> benefit from winning a game even when they are either out of the prize
> money, or in the position where the last game(s) do not affect their
> prize money position.
>
> Does anyone see any objection to such a system? I think it would even
> be good in weekend tournaments, except for the problem of having to
> write too many checks.
>
> Jerry Spinrad

It is possible for the reasons that have been discussed, that the
system favors people wanting draws, thus you have more draws. People
have speculated why here.

As for myself, I have no objections to whatever would work, and can be
shown to work. But then there will be an issue where if the games are
played hard, and they still end up as draws. When it comes to a world
champ, this is a problem. All the world champ would have to do is
hold serve. I don't know any other competition that works this way,
and don't know why chess would end up having this as an exception.
Perhaps because it favors the reigning world champ.

- Rich

Date: 09 Apr 2008 08:25:30
From:
Subject: Re: Two articles pondering the issues with Chess: Stale openings,

On Apr 8, 12:12 am, Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote:
> (If you plan on using very long subject lines, you might want to consider using a newsreader that doesn't Word Wrap them...)
>
> [email protected] wrote:
> >Anyone care to argue that 60% of [games ending in] draws is good?
>
> Sure! Other than your personal preference, what's wrong
> with 60% of high level chess games ending in draws?

Is 60% draws more or less likely to grow chess? My interest is in the
growth of chess, as it is all abstract strategy games. When the
growth of chess is brought up, and discussed about appealing more to
people who don't play, an answer that comes roaring back is that the
masses are too stupid to understand the game. If they weren't so
stupid, then it would grow. In other words, growth issues (the ONLY
accurate measure for true numbers and growth is how many people join
chess associations), and that number has been declining.

> Before you answer, consider two things:
>
> [1] When people complain about draws, they usually mean too
> many draws without a real fight. When I say that draws
> are good, I am thinking of a well-fought game that ends
> in a draw. Complain about premature/unfought draws and
> you might get a different answer from me -- and a different
> set of solutions.

If the rules allow for draws to occur and be unfought, then guess
what, you will have these if this game proves to be an advantage to
people playing.

> [2] If you look at the various webpages you cite, you might
> notice that many of them freely admit that thinking too many
> draws to be a bad thing is a personal preference and move
> on to possible solutions given that assumption. You seem to
> think that we have to agree that too many draws are a bad
> thing.

I can show you example after example, from Olympic events to
professional sports that there ends up being a need to not have things
end in draws. Even the case of soccer, for the World Cup, has a way
to not have the World Cup end in a tie. If every other sport has tie-
breakers, then what is your argument that chess does not? Oh, chess
is not a sport? Are you suggesting then that there no longer be a
world champion at chess, because shoot, it isn't a sport? It is a
form of human competition, complete with rules, and a winner and
loser. It isn't an athletic sport, but a MIND sport. And if you
object to this, just to justify your defense that draws are fine, then
you run against IMSA and FIDE itself, that are doing the World Mind
SPORTS Games in China. From a game perspective, it is a sport. And
if it is a sport, then look at the whole of sports and ask whether or
not they accept draws as a norm or not. If they don't, they should be
taken as a sign that draws are an issue. This goes from boxing,
onward.

Ok, let's say that you continue to argue that it still isn't a sport.
Well then, is not chess a competition, compared to even eating hotdogs
or whatever. Want to call it a game? Well, it is a game. Look at
all the competitions they have for games, and ask how many actually
accept things ending in a draw over 50% of a time. Any others besides
chess? And if you say, "Well that makes chess unique", then I would
put the charge to you to show how this being unique is helpful for the
growth of chess.

> >As the article pointed out 2% or less of Shogi on the highest
> >level ends in draws.
>
> Your point being? When using correct basic strategy 8.9% of
> blackjack hands end up in a tie. But Blackjack and Shogi
> are not chess.

You actually lumped Shogi in with blackjack? If you were doing a
taxonomy of games, would Shogi be closer to chess or blackjack? Shogi
is derived from the same game chess was, so what is your point by
lumping it with blackjack? The reality is, someone could choose to
play Shogi if they want a game in the same family of chess.

- Rich

Date: 17 Apr 2008 13:53:49
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Two articles pondering the issues with Chess: Stale openings,

<[email protected] > wrote:
> In other words, growth issues (the ONLY accurate measure for true
> numbers and growth is how many people join chess associations), and
> that number has been declining.

I dispute that the number of people joining chess associations is a
useful statistic for measuring the popularity of chess. Many people
play chess on-line; some chess associations (such as the ECF) allow
non-members to play in tournaments and obtain ratings.

> I can show you example after example, from Olympic events to
> professional sports that there ends up being a need to not have
> things end in draws. Even the case of soccer, for the World Cup,
> has a way to not have the World Cup end in a tie. If every other
> sport has tie- breakers, then what is your argument that chess does
> not?

Every knock-out tournament needs tie-breaks, including the chess World
Cup. Most chess tournaments are run as leagues, rather than knock-out
competitions and many sports are content to let draws in leagues stand
as draws, including the group phases of the football World Cup.
You're not comparing like with like.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Solar-Powered Newspaper (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a daily broadsheet but it doesn't
work in the dark!

Date: 07 Apr 2008 21:19:58
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Two articles pondering the issues with Chess: Stale openings,

There were many attempts to discourage draws in the past, and I don't
know why they were all abandoned. One that makes sense for a small,
high powered round robin tournament is to modify the prize structure.
This was used in the famous St Petersburg quadrangular tournament
between Lasker, Steinitz, Pillsbury, Tschigorin; it was also used in
several matches.

Instead of basing the prize only on position, the money comes in 2
parts. Part of the money comes from your position in the tournament.
Another part comes from giving a certain amount A for a win, B for a
draw, and C for a loss; A > B > C but A+C > 2*B.

This has both the virtue of discouraging draws, and making all players
benefit from winning a game even when they are either out of the prize
money, or in the position where the last game(s) do not affect their
prize money position.

Does anyone see any objection to such a system? I think it would even
be good in weekend tournaments, except for the problem of having to
write too many checks.

Jerry Spinrad

On Apr 7, 4:39=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> In my Future of Chess post, I was challenge to provide ANY evidence of
> issues with chess as it is now. =A0Well, here are two that discuss these
> issues:
> 1. Polemic Thinking, part two:http://www.chesscafe.com/text/dvoretsky88.pd=
f
>
> In this, the current state of chess openings is discussed, and the
> growing discontent, as seen by the author.
>
> 2. A new angle regarding the draw issue:http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetai=
l.asp?newsid=3D4553
>
> This discusses the draw issues with chess on the highest level. =A0It
> states:
> In the ChessBase.com articles, all the suggestions for fixing the high
> draw rate problem in elite professional chess have two things in
> common: (a) they are off-the-board rules changes, not on-the-board;
> and (b) they fail to subdue the high draw rate (unfortunately).
>
> For instance, the popular Sofia rule of banning draw offers has
> resulted in a draw rate of 56% (see M-Tel tournaments 2005-2007). That
> is barely any lower than the whopping 60% rate from the five latest
> world or FIDE championship events (Kasparov-Kramnik 2000, through FIDE
> Mexico 2007).
>
> Ok folks, since 2000, 60% of all chess games on the highest level end
> in a draw? =A0Is this right? =A0Anyone care to argue that 60% of draws is
> good? =A0As the article pointed out 2% or less of Shogi on the highest
> level ends in draws.
>
> Anyhow, please do comment here. =A0I am curious for people to argue how
> 60% of all chess matches on the highest level ending in draws is a
> good thing. =A0Do 60% of all soccer matches end in draws in Europe?
> Please let me know.
>
> - Rich

Date: 07 Apr 2008 16:21:07
From:
Subject: Re: Two articles pondering the issues with Chess: Stale openings,

On Apr 7, 6:44 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote:
> The idea that changing the rules of chess is necessary to produce draw rates
> below 60% is completely without empirical support in my opinion.

Well is chess on the highest level coming at around 60% draw rate or
not? If it is, does anyone care to argue that it isn't a problem? I
am curious here. Not saying that anyone has the right solution, just
curious if this is what is going on.

If this is going on, anyone care to argue what can be done with it?

> That we don't know exactly what tournament format/alternate
> scoring/prize fund distribution would produce the above situations
> is really just a detail. The key thing is to understand that chess is
> killing itself by rewarding strategies that devalue the individual
> game, and that create an anti-competitive environment. Those
> are just fundamentally inconsistent with creating a dramatic
> event, and Sophia rules do nothing to address the problem.

Ok, it sounds like you agree that it is a problem then. I am curious
if anyone out there would argue that it is not. What I do see is that
people think it is just one thing that needs to be done. Why not do
multiple things to totally reduce it? It does look like the Sophia
rule is not effective.

What I think probably needs to be agreed to that draws to this level
are an issue for the health of chess. I am curious if anyone would
disagree.

Maybe one approach is that the players, before they begin, agree to
one or more items on a list of options, and then play under those
rules.

By the way, anyone know what percentage of football matches (aka
soccer) end in draws? I would be interested in seeing the percentage
compares to what is seen in chess.

- Rich