Main Date: 06 Dec 2007 10:54:49 From: zdrakec Subject: On draws Hullo all: Giving some thought to how draws happen over the board, it occurs to me that many of the rules in place that allow draws to happen are quite arbitrary, and have little or nothing to do with the actual movement of the pieces. With that in mind, the following rule changes strike me as perhaps interesting: 1. Draws may not be agreed. 2. Three-fold repetition shall be illegal. That is, the player having the move may not make a move that repeats the position for the third time. If he has no other legal move, we may regard this as a form of stalemate, perhaps. I am not completely sure, but I think that this rule would do away with perpetual check. By analogy, I refer to the ko rule in Go, which essentially prevents the same position from appearing on the board more than once (with some rather esoteric exceptions). 3. There shall be no 50-move limit. This becomes more practical than it once was, in an age where clocks can have a delay, and can add a time increment per move. 4. Since the object of the game is to place the opponent's king in a position from which it cannot avoid being captured, I suggest that stalemate should be a loss for the stalemated player. In principal, the player who has stalemated his opponent has accomplished the priy goal of the game. Of course, this has been suggested many times before. I am not certain, but that would seem to leave lack of mating material as the sole way to draw a game. Naturally, there can still be abuse, but it would, I think, tend to be obvious... Thoughts? Regards, zdrakec   Date: 22 Dec 2007 18:12:02 From: help bot Subject: Re: On draws On Dec 22, 11:21 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > > A once-a-year solution misses the fact that > > tournament announcements are listed monthly; > > I meant as well as monthly - but who, these days, doesn't have a computer? Old folks and kids who can't yet afford one? > > As one of those > > freaks, I would not mind such a change, but > > some people actually take printed materials > > and read them while away from their computers. > > Let them pay for it! But I think there is always a rush to get those out in > time anyway Yeah, I hear that as an excuse for the poor quality; yet many articles are not of a timely nature (rehashes of old fogy stuff), or else the game notations are no better than instant anno-Fritzations. >, and net TLAs seem much more likely. Besides - there is a huge > advantage of putting it on the net - non-USCF members might actually go to > an event if they could read about it! I see; free content for everyone, and a but more, hopefully *quality* content, for paying members. > [I am on such a roll this week!] Zebediah-- is that you? The Easy level is getting thumped! But I'm still ahead (for once) on points, this month. > Since otherwise they can't - and ICC for example have bigger membership than > USCF, and they are more active players... food for thought, but who's > hungry? Look, I told you how it is: Bill Goichbrg /owns/ the USCF, so if you want to implement change, you gotta talk to the big guy, see? > Every week I look around about a dozen chess sites, plus 3 or 4 > event-oriented sites, and the standard of article seems to me /at least/ > equivalent to the print product in CL. The point of a print magazine these > days seems to be as respository for something more, not less considered than > web-output. You appear to be describing a magazine from a different planet; maybe Inside Chess or New in Chess? Chess Lies is filled with second-rate stuff. > Before Tim Hanke attained his previous emminence at USCF we actually talked > a lot about what might be possible there [with another regular here who knew > the rope] - and Tim was gung-ho for getting rid of the mag entirely and > going all on-line. After election I think he was told to drop it! The Boss don't like other people coming up with ideas; it makes him look dumb in comparison. In fact, he /is/ dumb in comparison, but dumb in a powerful, dictator-ruler sort of way. > But I didn't agree with him completely - I though some things should be > on-line, and only on-line, but the more considered journal of chess should > become a quarterly Ah, New in Chess (again). > - with just as many pages as 3 individual editions, but > sufficiently indexed and worked up to become a real 'keeper'. This would > also provide an opportunity to take the best of the web contributions and > increment those too. > > It still seems like a viable means to proceed - but depends what USCF > actually want. Um, power, money, power, fame, money, power... . > Chessville has more unique hits per month than CL's > distribution, eg, but of course, these are not necessarily USCF members, > though 90% are US/Canadian originated. Okay, but Google has more hits in one second than you guys get in an entire week! Even SS's various porn sites-- er, I mean Web sites-- get a huge number of hits (just like the druggies in baseball). > > Putting this new (to me) material into better > > perspective, it shows precisely how loonies like > > Larry Parr have distorted the hearsay/reality in new > > and amazing ways; where DB indicates he feared > > dire consequences for his father's indiscretions, LP > > morphs things into a KGB plot to keep DB from > > winning the title (as if the KGB had orchestrated the > > father's own actions). > > You evidently never read Gulko's MSS? That depends. What is "MSS", decoded from the original Andean, through Latin and on down the line into modern English? I simply read the article in Chess Lies magazine, and it failed to match up with the tall tales spun by the spin-meisters here. Taking GM Bronstein at his word, he put the blame on his own fears, which in turn came about as the direct result of his father's indiscretions. DB implied that his father had come to watch him play voluntarily, and that he got away with falsifying his passport to do so. DB also seemed fearful of the dramatic changes which which winning the title (he says) would have brought in his life, and of scrutiny of his personal life. All this, of course, is after-the-fact bolt-on psychology, which allows a person to /justify/ failure (not that tying for the world championship is actually a failure, by any measure). I compare it to GM Botvinnik's own psychology, his holier-than-thou claptrap wherein he proclaims to be of far superior character than everybody else (with the /possible/ exception of Mother Teresa). Interesting stuff. > Anyway, not to be further contentious > about complexities... > > > The reality is that the more the American dollar falls > > in value, the more easily we will be able to *export* > > goods and thus reduce our titanic budget deficits. > > Same happened in England. A possibly unwonted side-effect is that well > dressed fellas from Saudi wound up owning half of London. But that can't > happen here unless the Saudis buy New York from the Japanese. Like it or not, *we* gave them all that money in exchange for light, sweet crude, buried under heaps of sand in their desert. Now if they want to spend it, we have little choice* but to give them California and half of Texas. ----- * Low scum that we are, "we" have arranged for inflation to eat away at the real value of their American dollars, bwahahaha! ----- > The problem, you see, is what to buy imports with, and since they are > cheaper than local products, are no longer manufactured here, leaving as > sole viable kets to export, maple-syrup, and all the old hardwood timber > still standing in the great north-west, plus Hollywood, and hand-carved > lead-free weighted chess sets, carved! not turned! Which we can trade for > 'sort-of' tuna fish and all the rice we can eat. Wrongo! It is the Chinese who must /import/ food from "us"! Droughts, pollution (which we Americans practically invented, or stole from London) and other factors have reduced the Chinese to buying food from everybody and his brother, including Brazil, Argentina, and yes, even America. > > Once the avian flu hits(!??), our debt burden with > > regard to Social Security payments will be dramatically > > reduced by the near-total devastation to the old and > > infirm, so we're actually in great shape. As for China > > and other threats, they will choke on their own air > > and water pollution, random earthquakes and so forth; > > I'm not worried. > > I can see! Compared with some reports this is a relatively optimistic and > cheerful view of the future. Apart from say, 30%+ casualties, inflation is the only serious downside. It beats a nuclear war with the old USSR by a wide gin (no bald mutants, etc.). > > In the end, "we* will emerge from our > > mine-shafts with a one-pawn advantage still intact; > > and our technique (with apologies to Mr. Bronstein) > > will carry us through; after all, technique is all we've > > got; we're lazy, complacent, and ignorant people. > > Short-term, one sugegstion I have is to sell New York completely, before it > sinks beneath the waves - naturally declining to insure it with greenbacks, > otherwise sale = drawn game <dang!> You East coasters are soooo self-centered! The USCF moves its HQ away to Jed Clampet's old back yard, and you whine that it's the end of the world. FYI: not everything centers around New York-- the city or the state. Apart from the NYSE, what do you have that the Arabs might really want? Nothing. Okay, that thingie in NY harbor could be melted down for copper in a pinch, but really, aside from Niagara Falls and a few pretty trees which change color in Autumn, it's boring. That's why I'm moving to the top floor of a new casino in Maccau... just as soon as I win the World Open. -- help bot     Date: 23 Dec 2007 08:51:55 From: Chess One Subject: Re: On draws "help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:8c3b8cd9-6fe9-4ee7-9aaf-e0f893306b98@x29g2000prg.googlegroups.com... > On Dec 22, 11:21 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > A once-a-year solution misses the fact that >> > tournament announcements are listed monthly; >> >> I meant as well as monthly - but who, these days, doesn't have a >> computer? > > Old folks and kids who can't yet afford one? I dunno what interest old folks have in TLA's but all kids have scholastic access to computers, besides, their chess teachers do - so I don't think this is a big factor. ------- > Yeah, I hear that as an excuse for the poor > quality; yet many articles are not of a timely > nature (rehashes of old fogy stuff), or else > the game notations are no better than instant > anno-Fritzations. Therefore, as is, CL sucks as a 'keeper' print magazine. >>, and net TLAs seem much more likely. Besides - there is a huge >> advantage of putting it on the net - non-USCF members might actually go >> to >> an event if they could read about it! > > I see; free content for everyone, and a but > more, hopefully *quality* content, for paying > members. I'm not sure what sort of qualities are appropriate for TLAs - you got to pay for them in the mag, but Chessville puts them on the web for free, eg. There is no difference in the copy we/print. >> [I am on such a roll this week!] > > Zebediah-- is that you? The Easy level is > getting thumped! But I'm still ahead (for > once) on points, this month. I am just about to score 2300, then I can resign 4 games and slink back to 2260. Haven't played Sanny's game in an age - I would if it actually played a move regularly, but its slower than correspondance! Really - I can play 10 opponents in about the same time as Sanny's thing makes its 15th move. I think it win by out-boring opponents. >> Since otherwise they can't - and ICC for example have bigger membership >> than >> USCF, and they are more active players... food for thought, but who's >> hungry? > > Look, I told you how it is: Bill Goichbrg /owns/ > the USCF, so if you want to implement change, > you gotta talk to the big guy, see? I don't think there is much negotiable there. Last time someone else made an independent commitment, it was over-ruled, and Bill took him to the woodshed. >> Every week I look around about a dozen chess sites, plus 3 or 4 >> event-oriented sites, and the standard of article seems to me /at least/ >> equivalent to the print product in CL. The point of a print magazine >> these >> days seems to be as respository for something more, not less considered >> than >> web-output. > > You appear to be describing a magazine from > a different planet; maybe Inside Chess or New > in Chess? Chess Lies is filled with second-rate > stuff. I look at mostly online materials - they compare well with CL. >> Before Tim Hanke attained his previous emminence at USCF we actually >> talked >> a lot about what might be possible there [with another regular here who >> knew >> the rope] - and Tim was gung-ho for getting rid of the mag entirely and >> going all on-line. After election I think he was told to drop it! > > The Boss don't like other people coming up with > ideas; it makes him look dumb in comparison. In > fact, he /is/ dumb in comparison, but dumb in a > powerful, dictator-ruler sort of way. You don't need to be st if you're dumb - is a well known aphorism, and 'b' students rule the world. This is why the proposed USCF support for Kasparov's democracy would be a joke! And, methinks, as unwelcome an association as Fischer said it was. I just wish it would govern, and not be several businesses running under the cover of a governing non-profit - which is so obviously the FIDE model we all love. >> But I didn't agree with him completely - I though some things should be >> on-line, and only on-line, but the more considered journal of chess >> should >> become a quarterly > > Ah, New in Chess (again). Which at least works as a stand alone commercial magazine, rather than CL which is as much propaganda device, and as generally interested as PR hand-outs to the press. zzzzzz I even think they would sell outside the membership - I'd pay for one if there was something in it worth paying for and keeping, and not as disposable as the daily newspaper. >> - with just as many pages as 3 individual editions, but >> sufficiently indexed and worked up to become a real 'keeper'. This would >> also provide an opportunity to take the best of the web contributions and >> increment those too. >> >> It still seems like a viable means to proceed - but depends what USCF >> actually want. > > Um, power, money, power, fame, money, power... . so sad we should agree so much - wanna stop now? --------- >> You evidently never read Gulko's MSS? > > That depends. What is "MSS", decoded from > the original Andean, through Latin and on down > the line into modern English? good guess - manuscriptus [manuscripts] - an old word is MANUAL, from [L.], the mass-book it does not mean published in Massachusetts. > I simply read the article in Chess Lies magazine, > and it failed to match up with the tall tales spun by > the spin-meisters here. Taking GM Bronstein at > his word, he put the blame on his own fears, which > in turn came about as the direct result of his father's > indiscretions. DB implied that his father had come > to watch him play voluntarily, and that he got away > with falsifying his passport to do so. DB also > seemed fearful of the dramatic changes which > which winning the title (he says) would have brought > in his life, and of scrutiny of his personal life. All > this, of course, is after-the-fact bolt-on psychology, > which allows a person to /justify/ failure (not that > tying for the world championship is actually a > failure, by any measure). Now, they are /not/ that, but may be supposed to be that, with more or less validity. And this indeed is a reason to interview chess players before they become completely gaa-gaa! But nothing emerging from the SU is as simple as ABC, comrade! And I think we should take pity on all who write from experience of being in it, any real information being like true-gold, and free conversation with other informed persons also at a massive premium. Since 1920 that state used family members to inform on one another, forced, as policy, the division of children from their parents and insisted on informers everywhere - so in your house or on your block someone would report on /you!/ once per week, just as the default and background. > I compare it to GM Botvinnik's own psychology, > his holier-than-thou claptrap wherein he proclaims > to be of far superior character than everybody else > (with the /possible/ exception of Mother Teresa). > Interesting stuff. You cannot compare anything Soviet to anything else unless you too lived under such repression. But Botvinnik was not the only straight-shooter [at least apparently so - in this respect Spassky was his heir. I do not suspect we know much more about the lives and times of chess players in the Soviet Union than those who were in it. At least, from several thousand messages with Russians on this subject, I sometimes learn new things - but mostly they learn things from me about themselves. This is complicated subject, and ... Whoops - gotta go! Phil Innes   Date: 22 Dec 2007 12:12:58 From: Guy Macon Subject: Re: On draws help bot wrote: > >Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/> wrote: > >> >> When someone engages in logical fallacies, it is >> >> like having a car with sugar in the gas tank >> >> or a computer running Microsoft Vista >> >> > Ouch! That hurt. Look, unless you fork >> >over the big bucks for an Apple computer, >> >or are a Linux freak, Microsoft is just a >> >(harsh) fact of life. >> >> But Vista is not. I run linux where I can, but there are >> several windows programs that have no Linux replacement, >> such as AutoCAD and OrCAD. They all run fine in Windows >> Server 2003 or Windows XP Pro. In fact, Microsoft will, >> if asked, give you a licence key to downgrade the copy of >> Vista installed on a new PC to XP. > > Is Windows XP Pro a 64-bit OS? > > Some of the chess programs offer more-expensive >versions which purportedly run faster, but they fail >to explain that most factory Windows PCs can't run >the programs because even if the PC has more bits, >the OS may not. In fact, my laptop says it has 64 >bits (Turioun 64) , but the standard OS doesn't (fully) >support it. there are two 64-bit XPs. Windows XP Professional x64 Edition is for Intel x86-64 Microsoft Windows XP 64-bit Edition is for Intel Itanium. For XP Professional x64 Edition vs. XP Professional, here are the differences: XP64 XP32 Virtual memory 16 TB 4 GB Paging file 512 TB 16 TB Hyperspace 8 GB 4 MB Paged pool 128 GB 470 MB Non-paged pool 128 GB 256 MB System cache 1 TB 1 GB System PTEs 128 GB 660 MB Also see: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/282423 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64 -- Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ >   Date: 21 Dec 2007 16:43:13 From: help bot Subject: Re: On draws On Dec 21, 4:47 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote: > The systems you have proposed is not all that different from the BAP (Ballard > anti-draw point) system that has been experimented with: 3 for Black > win, 2 for White win, 1 for Black draw, 0 for everything else. > > Its features are that (1) it provides an incentive for both sides to play to win > (2) it removes the imbalance of the existing scoring in favor of White. It also appears to "feature" a titanic flaw: there is no difference between a draw and a loss for White! Imagine that you are having a great tournament, but in the final round you are given the White pieces against a far superior player; no point in groveling for a draw, is there? Just play willy-nilly reckless attacking style, since losing is unfairly treated the very same as a well-earned draw. Also, toss out your "Winning with 1.x4 books" and replace them with study of *only* the Black side of openings; simple math tells us that no longer is it advantageous to waste time on the White side of things; all energy and focus must now be directed to increasing one's winning percentage /as Black/! Wow. What an amazing "improvement". You may have blindly stumbled onto one of the silliest "solutions" to the grandmaster-drawing problem known to mankind. I think a blind squirrel could likely do a bit better than this. Have him/her try out every possibility, and then analyze the results. But before trying anything out of sheer desperation, you might want to first have a go at revising the ratings system so that players of the White pieces get a small penalty for giving up draws; these penalties, when added together over time, could give some pause regarding their behavior; I suspect that more than a few "grandmasters" would begin to try harder as White, and the draw percentage would decline somewhat. If that's not sufficient, then step up the pressure a bit more. I have given precious little thought to this funky system of yours, but it is *readily apparent* that the typical 5-round Swiss tournament will be ruined by the fact that whoever gets three Blacks has a titanic advantage over his unlucky brethren who are alloted only two. The luck of the pairings would largely determine who has the best shot at first place, among other prizes. This is not so bad, given that everyone has a fair shot at getting lucky; but the dramatic *unintended consequences* reveal the shallowness of the approach. It reminds me of the U.S. government's decision to exempt trucks and SUVs from stricter fuel-mileage regulations; in that fiasco, the unintended (and unforeseen) consequence was that trucks suddenly became the "car" of choice for many Americans; they were incredibly inexpensive, relatively speaking, and so long as gasoline prices remained at bay, there were no severe consequences. Almost every week for many years now, I've seen ads in the paper listing basic work trucks at unfathomable prices. The government didn't see that one coming, did they? On top of this, the "best" hybrid cars have been in short supply, and the added cost only exacerbated the problem. Result: many, many more gas-hogs on the roads. You would think that chess players would be st; you would think they, of all people, could figure out a near-flawless solution; but noooo. -- help bot     Date: 21 Dec 2007 18:36:58 From: David Kane Subject: Re: On draws "help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > On Dec 21, 4:47 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> The systems you have proposed is not all that different from the BAP (Ballard >> anti-draw point) system that has been experimented with: 3 for Black >> win, 2 for White win, 1 for Black draw, 0 for everything else. >> >> Its features are that (1) it provides an incentive for both sides to play to >> win >> (2) it removes the imbalance of the existing scoring in favor of White. > > > It also appears to "feature" a titanic flaw: > Snipped. There *are* a number of complexities that this alternate scoring system introduces. Amazingly, your raving response may have obliquely touched on a few valid ones, but it would be too much work to figure out exactly where. In short, if anyone cares to see how the system worked in practice, just look it up. The experiment certainly succeeded in a way that is important to me. It produced consistent fighting chess. Something that 1867-scoring point-splitting scoring rarely does.   Date: 21 Dec 2007 16:12:22 From: help bot Subject: Re: On draws On Dec 21, 12:00 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > >> IF: 2+2 = 4 yesterday. It is pretty darn sure it will do so today. It depends on what the definition of "equals" is. (If you don't inhale, you couldn't possibly understand. ) > Jealous! Besides, I redid the calculation again today, using Christmas > walnuts, and 2+2 still equal 4. That ain't luck, its science. I once beat several players, one after another. I was then sumily informed that I had merely been lucky; my defense was that although my moves were admittedly horrible, I played them quickly so scientifically speaking, Time was on my side. > > > If its the second, is it the thin air source which resolves their > >> not-convincingness? > > > Nah. It is more often the internal inconsistencies > > which betray the cracks in his thinking. It reminds > > me of the imbeciles who support Mr. Kasparov as > > the answer to evil-dictator-Putin; a liar and cheat, a > > poor "savior" makes; why not present some decent > > chap, chosen at random? > > Possibly decent American chaps should do it? > Who in this government should run Russia? A very loaded question. It mistakenly presumes that people in our government can run anything at all! Besides, in a set (wrestling) match, Mr. Putin would kick "President" Clinton's butt (he's twice her size). Kidding! Of course, nobody is going to elect a /girl/ for president! It will be... Huckleberry, by a finn. > Do not neglect to propose yourself either, > there are many many cornfields there! > Black earth....! I'm told that the USCF HQ has been relocated a tad closer to home, but still, that's one heckova commute. How about Rob "da robber" Mitchell? > >> or, is it because the results are gleaned from Chess > >> Life customers who live above 10,000 feet? > > > Readers of Chess Lies are not customers; they > > are *victims*! That dreadful rag is plagued by > > erroneous game annotations, as demonstrated > > time and again by careful analysis by Fritz. It > > has gotten so bad that I am almost /afraid/ to > > look at any more articles in CL. :<( > > The dreadful rag might be indexed! For a real subscription price USCF could > also chuck the entire year onto a searchable CD. Then it could offer for an > extra 5 bucks the whole thing in print, with a spine, and also indexed > [leaving out ads and such, it would still be thick enough]. A once-a-year solution misses the fact that tournament announcements are listed monthly; without monthly updates, only internet-freaks would know where to play. As one of those freaks, I would not mind such a change, but some people actually take printed materials and read them while away from their computers. (As a help bot, I am not allowed to go "outside". But one day I hope to defect to the real world.) > As for analysis, depends who is analysed ;) The latest issue(?!!) has GM Bronstein making up excuses for his failures in the world championship cycles. If one lays his excuses side-by-side with GM Botvinnik's holier-then-thou reks, it makes for interesting material which would give Dr. Fine a good belly-laugh. Putting this new (to me) material into better perspective, it shows precisely how loonies like Larry Parr have distorted the hearsay/reality in new and amazing ways; where DB indicates he feared dire consequences for his father's indiscretions, LP morphs things into a KGB plot to keep DB from winning the title (as if the KGB had orchestrated the father's own actions). > Don't worry, Son of Sanny couldn't solve the fortress problem I set him, and > its only 101 plies. Yeah, but then, Fritz was not /designed/ as a fortress-detector. It's priy function was to beat up on other programs like Hiarcs, Genius, M-Pro and so on in tournament time controls, so a few fortresses were largely irrelevant. > > In any case, you will get your usual paycheck > > for attempting to "defend" LP. How you manage > > to live on such a small sum is beyond me; even > > here, the cost of living keeps going up, and then > > there are tournament entry fees, Fritz updates, > > and yes, food and gasoline to buy. > > I get paid in emeralds from the secret fund. Don't hear much about emeralds anymore; these days, it's nothing but gold, uranium and oil-- all supposedly the answer to the coming wave of mega-inflation which will wipe America off the map. The reality is that the more the American dollar falls in value, the more easily we will be able to *export* goods and thus reduce our titanic budget deficits. Once the avian flu hits(!??), our debt burden with regard to Social Security payments will be dramatically reduced by the near-total devastation to the old and infirm, so we're actually in great shape. As for China and other threats, they will choke on their own air and water pollution, random earthquakes and so forth; I'm not worried. In the end, "we* will emerge from our mine-shafts with a one-pawn advantage still intact; and our technique (with apologies to Mr. Bronstein) will carry us through; after all, technique is all we've got; we're lazy, complacent, and ignorant people. -- help bot     Date: 22 Dec 2007 11:21:07 From: Chess One Subject: Re: On draws "help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:be67ee71-b019-4832-853f-e673f2cca31c@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com... > On Dec 21, 12:00 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> IF: 2+2 = 4 yesterday. It is pretty darn sure it will do so today. > > It depends on what the definition of "equals" is. (If > you don't inhale, you couldn't possibly understand. ) > > >> Jealous! Besides, I redid the calculation again today, using Christmas >> walnuts, and 2+2 still equal 4. That ain't luck, its science. > > I once beat several players, one after another. You jest!- Besides, something interesting has happened here, now there are only 3 walnuts! I deeply suspect the calico cat who has either taken one or knocked yet another ornament off the tree, but I digress... <I snipped something which reminded cornfed of "the imbeciles who support Mr. Kasparov as the answer to evil-dictator-Putin; a liar and cheat, a poor "savior" makes; why not present some decent chap, chosen at random?" for the reason that it very improbably addressed either the 3 remaining walnuts, or the missing one. > >> Possibly decent American chaps should do it? >> Who in this government should run Russia? > > A very loaded question. It mistakenly presumes > that people in our government can run anything at > all! Besides, in a set (wrestling) match, Mr. Putin > would kick "President" Clinton's butt (he's twice her > size). Kidding! Of course, nobody is going to elect > a /girl/ for president! It will be... Huckleberry, by a > finn. Times have changed. And while she currently is appearing 'not tough' on tv, she is! And that's good. >> Do not neglect to propose yourself either, >> there are many many cornfields there! >> Black earth....! > > I'm told that the USCF HQ has been relocated > a tad closer to home, but still, that's one heckova > commute. How about Rob "da robber" Mitchell? He is currently busy raiding money for a chess event by selling time-shares on one of the moons of Jupiter, Io actually, and is not available. >> The dreadful rag might be indexed! For a real subscription price USCF >> could >> also chuck the entire year onto a searchable CD. Then it could offer for >> an >> extra 5 bucks the whole thing in print, with a spine, and also indexed >> [leaving out ads and such, it would still be thick enough]. > > A once-a-year solution misses the fact that > tournament announcements are listed monthly; I meant as well as monthly - but who, these days, doesn't have a computer? Can't that sort of stuff be posted there, which would be far more timely? > without monthly updates, only internet-freaks > would know where to play. Which is almost everybody. Look, even if a vegetarian comes for Christmas dinner, the rest of us can eat the traditional fair, and the veggie can bring their own! [I will chip in 3 walnuts] > As one of those > freaks, I would not mind such a change, but > some people actually take printed materials > and read them while away from their computers. Let them pay for it! But I think there is always a rush to get those out in time anyway, and net TLAs seem much more likely. Besides - there is a huge advantage of putting it on the net - non-USCF members might actually go to an event if they could read about it! [I am on such a roll this week!] Since otherwise they can't - and ICC for example have bigger membership than USCF, and they are more active players... food for thought, but who's hungry? ---- >> As for analysis, depends who is analysed ;) > > The latest issue(?!!) has GM Bronstein making up > excuses for his failures in the world championship > cycles. If one lays his excuses side-by-side with > GM Botvinnik's holier-then-thou reks, it makes > for interesting material which would give Dr. Fine > a good belly-laugh. Every week I look around about a dozen chess sites, plus 3 or 4 event-oriented sites, and the standard of article seems to me /at least/ equivalent to the print product in CL. The point of a print magazine these days seems to be as respository for something more, not less considered than web-output. Before Tim Hanke attained his previous emminence at USCF we actually talked a lot about what might be possible there [with another regular here who knew the rope] - and Tim was gung-ho for getting rid of the mag entirely and going all on-line. After election I think he was told to drop it! But I didn't agree with him completely - I though some things should be on-line, and only on-line, but the more considered journal of chess should become a quarterly - with just as many pages as 3 individual editions, but sufficiently indexed and worked up to become a real 'keeper'. This would also provide an opportunity to take the best of the web contributions and increment those too. It still seems like a viable means to proceed - but depends what USCF actually want. Chessville has more unique hits per month than CL's distribution, eg, but of course, these are not necessarily USCF members, though 90% are US/Canadian originated. > Putting this new (to me) material into better > perspective, it shows precisely how loonies like > Larry Parr have distorted the hearsay/reality in new > and amazing ways; where DB indicates he feared > dire consequences for his father's indiscretions, LP > morphs things into a KGB plot to keep DB from > winning the title (as if the KGB had orchestrated the > father's own actions). You evidently never read Gulko's MSS? Anyway, not to be further contentious about complexities... > The reality is that the more the American dollar falls > in value, the more easily we will be able to *export* > goods and thus reduce our titanic budget deficits. Same happened in England. A possibly unwonted side-effect is that well dressed fellas from Saudi wound up owning half of London. But that can't happen here unless the Saudis buy New York from the Japanese. The problem, you see, is what to buy imports with, and since they are cheaper than local products, are no longer manufactured here, leaving as sole viable kets to export, maple-syrup, and all the old hardwood timber still standing in the great north-west, plus Hollywood, and hand-carved lead-free weighted chess sets, carved! not turned! Which we can trade for 'sort-of' tuna fish and all the rice we can eat. > Once the avian flu hits(!??), our debt burden with > regard to Social Security payments will be dramatically > reduced by the near-total devastation to the old and > infirm, so we're actually in great shape. As for China > and other threats, they will choke on their own air > and water pollution, random earthquakes and so forth; > I'm not worried. I can see! Compared with some reports this is a relatively optimistic and cheerful view of the future. > In the end, "we* will emerge from our > mine-shafts with a one-pawn advantage still intact; > and our technique (with apologies to Mr. Bronstein) > will carry us through; after all, technique is all we've > got; we're lazy, complacent, and ignorant people. Short-term, one sugegstion I have is to sell New York completely, before it sinks beneath the waves - naturally declining to insure it with greenbacks, otherwise sale = drawn game <dang! > Phil Innes > -- help bot > > >   Date: 21 Dec 2007 16:11:41 From: help bot Subject: Re: On draws On Dec 21, 5:59 am, Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote: > >> When someone engages in logical fallacies, it is > >> like having a car with sugar in the gas tank > >> or a computer running Microsoft Vista > > > Ouch! That hurt. Look, unless you fork > >over the big bucks for an Apple computer, > >or are a Linux freak, Microsoft is just a > >(harsh) fact of life. > > But Vista is not. I run linux where I can, but there are > several windows programs that have no Linux replacement, > such as AutoCAD and OrCAD. They all run fine in Windows > Server 2003 or Windows XP Pro. In fact, Microsoft will, > if asked, give you a licence key to downgrade the copy of > Vista installed on a new PC to XP. Is Windows XP Pro a 64-bit OS? Some of the chess programs offer more-expensive versions which purportedly run faster, but they fail to explain that most factory Windows PCs can't run the programs because even if the PC has more bits, the OS may not. In fact, my laptop says it has 64 bits (Turioun 64) , but the standard OS doesn't (fully) support it. -- help bot     Date: 24 Dec 2007 09:55:47 From: David Richerby Subject: Re: On draws help bot <[email protected] > wrote: > Is Windows XP Pro a 64-bit OS? If it's just labelled `XP Pro' it's 32-bit. Dave. -- David Richerby Hilarious Cat (TM): it's like a cuddly www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ pet but it's a bundle of laughs!       Date: 24 Dec 2007 13:56:08 From: Guy Macon Subject: Re: On draws David Richerby wrote: > >help bot <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Is Windows XP Pro a 64-bit OS? > >If it's just labelled `XP Pro' it's 32-bit. Microsoft Windows XP Professional is for 32-bit Intel x86 Microsoft Windows XP Professional x64 Edition is for 64-bit Intel x86 Microsoft Windows XP 64-bit Edition is for 64-bit Intel Itanium. -- Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ >   Date: 21 Dec 2007 15:15:57 From: help bot Subject: Re: On draws On Dec 21, 11:50 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > >> >> The emphasis is not really about proofs, or even draws - the emphasis > >> >> is about wins. > > >> > Why? > > >> Because it encourages them by awarding them a higher score than currently > >> in relation to other scores - hence, it is motivational to win! More reward > >> for it than tacitly playing for 2 draws. > > > Not everyone plays for draws; why do you want to > > penalize those who play in accordance with the rules > > Giving more points for a win penalizes people who are playing for a win? Some people aren't very bright... . Penalizing *everyone* by switching to a funky scoring system is not the answer to the problem. If you have a problem with certain players agreeing to what you have called "tacit draws", then you need to target *them* (i.e. the "tacit draw-mongers) specifically. It's like locusts: you don't go and kill every living thing with a neutron bomb; you target the pests and leave other creatures out of it. So you bring in flying monkeys, which of course eat all the locusts (and you thought they only liked little dogs named Toto). > > by mucking with the scoring system to prod the > > cheaters into some random behavior-modification? > > They will likely find other ways to "game the system". > > Speak for youself! > > You are concerned about cheating, and suspect much! If indeed people do > cheat currently, I suppose they will attempt a cheat of a new system. As I said, some people aren't very bright. That has been one of the points I've been making here for a long, long time. Around here, there were (I can't say what the status is now) clock-flippers, deliberate illegal moves in time scrambles, and God only knows what else. It was a problem for the few who were in contention for a prize; so much so that some folks would not enter a tournament if certain known cheaters showed up. > I am not so concerned about cheating, but awarding winning. While you may > continue to entail your point, please note that you really argue out loud > with yourself. Nobody is "arguing" here; but I find it amusing that you would think everything must somehow be perceived as such; it reveals a good deal about *you*. : >D For future reference, I would like to point out the fact that I see many of the folks posting here as complete imbeciles, so I would never try to "argue" with them, as if that were going to accomplish anything. I try to keep emotion out of it, and instead focus on those "lurkers" who might run across this stuff without knowing what's what; this is why, for instance, I have continued to reply to David "Red Herring" Kane, among others. It's not just for his benefit (he's very likely too dumb to profit by it); it's for the benefit of others, who may not realize what herrings are or where they school. Just so you know, I have nothing against changing the current scoring system, and in fact I believe the current ratings system is a mess. But we need to see some sort of /rational/ approach to such issues, not merely huffing and puffing and breast-beating. I'm not holding my breath. -- help bot     Date: 22 Dec 2007 09:49:09 From: Chess One Subject: Re: On draws "help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:b4eeead0-1bc8-49c4-84f9-f3f09d61f276@w56g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > On Dec 21, 11:50 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> The emphasis is not really about proofs, or even draws - the >> >> >> emphasis >> >> >> is about wins. >> >> >> > Why? >> >> >> Because it encourages them by awarding them a higher score than >> >> currently >> >> in relation to other scores - hence, it is motivational to win! More >> >> reward >> >> for it than tacitly playing for 2 draws. >> >> > Not everyone plays for draws; why do you want to >> > penalize those who play in accordance with the rules >> >> Giving more points for a win penalizes people who are playing for a win? > > Some people aren't very bright... . > > Penalizing *everyone* by switching to a funky > scoring system is not the answer to the problem. I think David Kane just wrote an anecdote that it did solve something - admittedly, in a small survey. > If you have a problem with certain players agreeing > to what you have called "tacit draws", then you > need to target *them* (i.e. the "tacit draw-mongers) > specifically. But this /is/ to target them, by not rewarding that activity. It pointedly maintains the same differential between lose and draw, but optimises any win. > It's like locusts: you don't go and kill < snip, let's face it Greg, its not like locusts! not even at Christmas, though I grant you greater knowledge of them in your fields that I have, the Vermont locust being tolerably scarce :)) > ---------- >> You are concerned about cheating, and suspect much! If indeed people do >> cheat currently, I suppose they will attempt a cheat of a new system. > > As I said, some people aren't very bright. > > That has been one of the points I've been making > here for a long, long time. Around here, there were > (I can't say what the status is now) clock-flippers, > deliberate illegal moves in time scrambles, and God > only knows what else. It was a problem for the few > who were in contention for a prize; so much so that > some folks would not enter a tournament if certain > known cheaters showed up. While I appreciate the issue you describe as being a real one, I think to confound it with draw/win differentials is not perspective to resolve either. >> I am not so concerned about cheating, but awarding winning. While you may >> continue to entail your point, please note that you really argue out loud >> with yourself. > > Nobody is "arguing" here; but I find it amusing > that you would think everything must somehow > be perceived as such; it reveals a good deal > about *you*. :>D As above. There are at least two issues - that of cheating, and that of drawing, and 'the argument' seems to be to address cheating as if that were a synonym for draws. I do not say all draws are results of cheating, or a conspiracy among players - though some might be. Seems like one useful way to have discussions on usenet is to first say if you understand your correspondent's issue to their own satisfaction; so to you I say I think you are, by virtue of your previous writing, addressing cheating. I think a few others are as well - BUT - there are still others who are talking about draw-death and prospective systems to alleviate that condition in top chess. Fair? > For future reference, I would like to point out the > fact that I see many of the folks posting here as > complete imbeciles, so I would never try to "argue" > with them, as if that were going to accomplish > anything. I try to keep emotion out of it, and > instead focus on those "lurkers" who might run > across this stuff without knowing what's what; > this is why, for instance, I have continued to reply > to David "Red Herring" Kane, among others. It's > not just for his benefit (he's very likely too dumb to > profit by it); it's for the benefit of others, who may > not realize what herrings are or where they > school. Well, I think everyone has a point - for me, the winner is often the one whose point is and stays on topic - and maybe we all confound each other because there are several aspects bearing on this topic, and some aspects which are merely similar, but which really do not seem to influence it. > Just so you know, I have nothing against changing > the current scoring system, and in fact I believe the > current ratings system is a mess. And there is another point! I also considered if changing the scoring system would effect the general rating system, or has specific inference for only top players. I don't know the answer. > But we need to > see some sort of /rational/ approach to such issues, > not merely huffing and puffing and breast-beating. > I'm not holding my breath. Laugh - true, its a good point. I certainly don't want to draw this conversation out for 5,000 more posts, when, then, and only then, everyone realises they are writing entirely to their own subject :))) I mean, as chess players we might all be daft, but we ain't stupid, no? Merry Christmas everybody!~ Phil Innes > > -- help bot   Date: 21 Dec 2007 10:59:55 From: Guy Macon Subject: Re: On draws Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8Bit help bot wrote: > >Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/> wrote: > >> When someone engages in logical fallacies, it is >> like having a car with sugar in the gas tank >> or a computer running Microsoft Vista > > Ouch! That hurt. Look, unless you fork >over the big bucks for an Apple computer, >or are a Linux freak, Microsoft is just a >(harsh) fact of life. But Vista is not. I run linux where I can, but there are several windows programs that have no Linux replacement, such as AutoCAD and OrCAD. They all run fine in Windows Server 2003 or Windows XP Pro. In fact, Microsoft will, if asked, give you a licence key to downgrade the copy of Vista installed on a new PC to XP. >>You took your last vacation in the Islets of Langerhans. > > You just lost me. Langerhans? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islets_of_Langerhans >>Maybe later in life, after you ... >> >> read more � > > Dammit. Just when the story was starting to get >interesting... . Look here: [ HTTP://WWW.GUYMACON.COM/FUN/INSULT/INDEX.HTM ]. -- Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ >   Date: 20 Dec 2007 19:29:06 From: help bot Subject: Re: On draws zdrakec wrote: > Having said that, we have come very far afield from the original point > of this thread, no? I remind you that the logical outcome of an evenly > played game of chess is a draw. A game played between two humans can, logically, quite easily result in a draw -- or in a win for either side. That is because humans make lots of errors, and in many cases, just one is all it takes to lose a game of chess. In my experience, these decisive games are more common than the ones which result in a stalemate or a threefold repetition of position, for instance. Part of that is due to the influence of the clock, and part to the fact that we take turns moving, so there are many opportunities to win for both sides. Some players may have a different opinion, if for example, they tend to leave their own King exposed to perps. and mating attacks (which I don't). -- help bot   Date: 20 Dec 2007 19:15:17 From: help bot Subject: Re: On draws On Dec 20, 9:34 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > > Perhaps a Louis Blair could even present > > a graph, showing the percentage of insults > > compared to the percentage of ad hom., > > and how it varies over time-- but it's way too > > much work for most folks to tackle. > > I think its time to put this subject onto a sound mathematically basis, then > proceed to the rigorously discussed logic of our conclusions. > > First a point of logic: Louis Blair never said he could even present a > graph, and he also never said he could not. Whether Louis Blair says > anything, is therefore utterly pointless since it has no bearing on what he > can do, unless he himself says he can or not, in his own opinion. Of course, IM Innes has no quote of LB saying his opinion has no bearing on the question in question, regarding the matter we are discussing, which I can't seem to remember for some reason. > For other > people the world is much simpler, has parameters, etc, within which we best > speculate Alas! If only the speculators could remember that all they are doing is that-- speculating! As we know, many fall into self-deception, fooling themselves into thinking they are on a fact- finding mission and that any who don't agree with their every whim are heinous "enemies". : >( >based on the behavior of the world, such as, to give a complicated > example: > > IF: 2+2 = 4 yesterday. It is pretty darn sure it will do so today. > > You must all admire the subtlety of my reasonings here! Well, you did somehow manage to stumble on a formula where time had no meaning; I say it was probably blind luck. > (Plus, as ani ful no, 91.6% of statistics are meaningless, including 58% of > this one.) > > > Pulling "survey results" out of thin air is > > not a very convincing way of making a point. > > It reminds me of the old guard propaganda > > style of Larry Parr (again). > > It reminds you 100% of Larry Parr or Larry Parr makes 100% points from the > thin air? A False dichotomy; it is not necessary for his comments to be 100% like those of the Great Parrthenium, in order for them to remind one of his writing style; nor for LP to craft any "points" at all. > If its the second, is it the thin air source which resolves their > not-convincingness? Nah. It is more often the internal inconsistencies which betray the cracks in his thinking. It reminds me of the imbeciles who support Mr. Kasparov as the answer to evil-dictator-Putin; a liar and cheat, a poor "savior" makes; why not present some decent chap, chosen at random? > or, is it because the results are gleaned from Chess > Life customers who live above 10,000 feet? Readers of Chess Lies are not customers; they are *victims*! That dreadful rag is plagued by erroneous game annotations, as demonstrated time and again by careful analysis by Fritz. It has gotten so bad that I am almost /afraid/ to look at any more articles in CL. :<( > That can be phrased mathematically as :: > > 0/1 * 1/0 > > which, anyone knows who does quanta, is a very large number divided by a > very small one, and designed to mess with the minds of engineering students I typed that into Fritz, and he is still working on it; a real toughie. So far, he thinks it's "equal/unclear". In any case, you will get your usual paycheck for attempting to "defend" LP. How you manage to live on such a small sum is beyond me; even here, the cost of living keeps going up, and then there are tournament entry fees, Fritz updates, and yes, food and gasoline to buy. If only he weren't so... cheap; you would think LP could afford better. (Shrugs) -- help bot     Date: 21 Dec 2007 12:00:18 From: Chess One Subject: Re: On draws "help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:4ffaa948-dd1c-44aa-8b0d-f69130dcb0bc@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > On Dec 20, 9:34 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: >> First a point of logic: Louis Blair never said he could even present a >> graph, and he also never said he could not. Whether Louis Blair says >> anything, is therefore utterly pointless since it has no bearing on what >> he >> can do, unless he himself says he can or not, in his own opinion. > > Of course, IM Innes has no quote of LB saying > his opinion has no bearing on the question in > question, regarding the matter we are discussing, > which I can't seem to remember for some reason. Of course, Corn Fed has no quote of LB or myself saying an opinion has no bearing on the question in question, regarding the matter we are discussing, which Corn- Fed forgot for some reason. >>based on the behavior of the world, such as, to give a complicated >> example: >> >> IF: 2+2 = 4 yesterday. It is pretty darn sure it will do so today. >> >> You must all admire the subtlety of my reasonings here! > > Well, you did somehow manage to stumble on > a formula where time had no meaning; I say it > was probably blind luck. Jealous! Besides, I redid the calculation again today, using Christmas walnuts, and 2+2 still equal 4. That ain't luck, its science. > > If its the second, is it the thin air source which resolves their >> not-convincingness? > > Nah. It is more often the internal inconsistencies > which betray the cracks in his thinking. It reminds > me of the imbeciles who support Mr. Kasparov as > the answer to evil-dictator-Putin; a liar and cheat, a > poor "savior" makes; why not present some decent > chap, chosen at random? Possibly decent American chaps should do it? Who in this government should run Russia? Do not neglect to propose yourself either, there are many many cornfields there! Black earth....! >> or, is it because the results are gleaned from Chess >> Life customers who live above 10,000 feet? > > Readers of Chess Lies are not customers; they > are *victims*! That dreadful rag is plagued by > erroneous game annotations, as demonstrated > time and again by careful analysis by Fritz. It > has gotten so bad that I am almost /afraid/ to > look at any more articles in CL. :<( The dreadful rag might be indexed! For a real subscription price USCF could also chuck the entire year onto a searchable CD. Then it could offer for an extra 5 bucks the whole thing in print, with a spine, and also indexed [leaving out ads and such, it would still be thick enough]. As for analysis, depends who is analysed ;) >> That can be phrased mathematically as :: >> >> 0/1 * 1/0 >> >> which, anyone knows who does quanta, is a very large number divided by a >> very small one, and designed to mess with the minds of engineering >> students > > I typed that into Fritz, and he is still working > on it; a real toughie. So far, he thinks it's > "equal/unclear". Don't worry, Son of Sanny couldn't solve the fortress problem I set him, and its only 101 plies. > In any case, you will get your usual paycheck > for attempting to "defend" LP. How you manage > to live on such a small sum is beyond me; even > here, the cost of living keeps going up, and then > there are tournament entry fees, Fritz updates, > and yes, food and gasoline to buy. I get paid in emeralds from the secret fund. > If only he > weren't so... cheap; you would think LP could > afford better. (Shrugs) You think, rubies? PI > > -- help bot > >   Date: 20 Dec 2007 18:41:19 From: help bot Subject: Re: On draws On Dec 20, 9:17 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > >> The emphasis is not really about proofs, or even draws - the emphasis is > >> about wins. > > > Why? > > Because it encourages them by awarding them a higher score than currently in > relation to other scores - hence, it is motivational to win! More reward for > it than tacitly playing for 2 draws. Not everyone plays for draws; why do you want to penalize those who play in accordance with the rules by mucking with the scoring system to prod the cheaters into some random behavior-modification? They will likely find other ways to "game the system". As it is now, wins are rewarded equally as losses are penalized, which seems sensible enough. > > Why do you want to pretend that wins count > > more than draws and/or losses? > Why do you write in such a manner? Do you always answer a question with a question? > I asked what the current basis was; 0, > 1/2, 1. > > Wins literally count more because they get more score! > > It makes no sense > > to me. I see a loss as equally important as a win. > ?? Probably, that idea was too deep for you to grok. (Shrugs) > >> > should be credited with extra points?! > > >> if you don't want to change the rules of play, [and who does?], then you > >> change the reward for the result > > > Arbitrary changes are worthless; what is needed > > are *improvements*. > > The point of all is if the current scoring system is 'arbitrary'? Ah, then you just want to discuss the issue of "arbitrariness"? Not real-world action? > >> it is interesting to consider that the current point scores for results > >> of chess are arbitrary. some argue that stalemate should not be rewarded as > >> much as other draws, and others think black wins should be rewarded more > >> than white wins, etc etc Maybe the rules could be rewritten so that stalemates count as double-forfeit losses? Of course, you will have to throw out all your old chess books and just trust a modified Rybka from then on (egads). > > The ratings system can be modified to better > > reflect "reality" as above. Supposedly, the odds > > should reflect White's inherent advantage of the > > first blunder. > > But, if true, that averages out over all games. Yes. I make it twelve blunders per game, on average. That's just me; if you count my opponents', it goes up to twenty-seven and a half, per Fritz. > >> so... whether or not we honor those ideas, what is the rational basis of > >> the current 0, 1/2, 1 scoring system? Well, the half-points for draws allows for chess tournaments to progress on a schedule, since no drawn games need to be replayed. > > It's simplistic, but does not penalize players > > unfairly for being closely-matched (i.e. for > > drawing more frequently than mismatched > > players probably would). > > I am asking what the /basis/ for the current system is. Ah! Then you need to talk to a *historian*! I'm a mere chess player; I can't tell you for certain whether chess "originated" in China, India, or was imported by aliens. > If we can say that, > then we can assess the basis of another scroring system and compare that to > the current one. Actually, we don;t really need to know which country in order to do that; all that is required is logic and reason, and maybe some simple math. -- help bot     Date: 21 Dec 2007 11:50:29 From: Chess One Subject: Re: On draws "help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:018cc98a-79f4-44c0-8b96-e9a38743323a@j20g2000hsi.googlegroups.com... > On Dec 20, 9:17 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> The emphasis is not really about proofs, or even draws - the emphasis >> >> is >> >> about wins. >> >> > Why? >> >> Because it encourages them by awarding them a higher score than currently >> in >> relation to other scores - hence, it is motivational to win! More reward >> for >> it than tacitly playing for 2 draws. > > Not everyone plays for draws; why do you want to > penalize those who play in accordance with the rules Giving more points for a win penalizes people who are playing for a win? > by mucking with the scoring system to prod the > cheaters into some random behavior-modification? > They will likely find other ways to "game the system". Speak for youself! You are concerned about cheating, and suspect much! If indeed people do cheat currently, I suppose they will attempt a cheat of a new system. I am not so concerned about cheating, but awarding winning. While you may continue to entail your point, please note that you really argue out loud with yourself. > As it is now, wins are rewarded equally as losses > are penalized, which seems sensible enough. > > >> > Why do you want to pretend that wins count >> > more than draws and/or losses? > >> Why do you write in such a manner? > > Do you always answer a question with a question? And here we return to a facetious understanding, based on a slight understanding of what is being said. >> The point of all is if the current scoring system is 'arbitrary'? > > Ah, then you just want to discuss the issue > of "arbitrariness"? Not real-world action? Another corn-man? <yawn > We are not having a discussion yet - since you want to write about what you think, but can't say so. Go back to worrying about cheating, not the relative rewards for draws or winning >> >> so... whether or not we honor those ideas, what is the rational basis >> >> of >> >> the current 0, 1/2, 1 scoring system? > > Well, the half-points for draws allows for chess > tournaments to progress on a schedule, since no > drawn games need to be replayed. Maybe that's it. And maybe that's all there is, a convenience for multi-round tournaments. Conversely, if players in the new system conspire to draw then they receive less reward for doing so, and no games need to be replayed. Phil Innes       Date: 21 Dec 2007 13:47:20 From: David Kane Subject: Re: On draws "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > > "help bot" <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:018cc98a-79f4-44c0-8b96-e9a38743323a@j20g2000hsi.googlegroups.com... >> On Dec 20, 9:17 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >> The emphasis is not really about proofs, or even draws - the emphasis is >>> >> about wins. >>> >>> > Why? >>> >>> Because it encourages them by awarding them a higher score than currently in >>> relation to other scores - hence, it is motivational to win! More reward for >>> it than tacitly playing for 2 draws. >> >> Not everyone plays for draws; why do you want to >> penalize those who play in accordance with the rules > > Giving more points for a win penalizes people who are playing for a win? > >> by mucking with the scoring system to prod the >> cheaters into some random behavior-modification? >> They will likely find other ways to "game the system". > > Speak for youself! > > You are concerned about cheating, and suspect much! If indeed people do cheat > currently, I suppose they will attempt a cheat of a new system. > > I am not so concerned about cheating, but awarding winning. While you may > continue to entail your point, please note that you really argue out loud with > yourself. > >> As it is now, wins are rewarded equally as losses >> are penalized, which seems sensible enough. >> >> >>> > Why do you want to pretend that wins count >>> > more than draws and/or losses? >> >>> Why do you write in such a manner? >> >> Do you always answer a question with a question? > > And here we return to a facetious understanding, based on a slight > understanding of what is being said. > >>> The point of all is if the current scoring system is 'arbitrary'? >> >> Ah, then you just want to discuss the issue >> of "arbitrariness"? Not real-world action? > > Another corn-man? <yawn> We are not having a discussion yet - since you want > to write about what you think, but can't say so. Go back to worrying about > cheating, not the relative rewards for draws or winning > >>> >> so... whether or not we honor those ideas, what is the rational basis of >>> >> the current 0, 1/2, 1 scoring system? >> >> Well, the half-points for draws allows for chess >> tournaments to progress on a schedule, since no >> drawn games need to be replayed. > > Maybe that's it. And maybe that's all there is, a convenience for multi-round > tournaments. Conversely, if players in the new system conspire to draw then > they receive less reward for doing so, and no games need to be replayed. The systems you have proposed is not all that different from the BAP (Ballard anti-draw point) system that has been experimented with: 3 for Black win, 2 for White win, 1 for Black draw, 0 for everything else. Its features are that (1) it provides an incentive for both sides to play to win (2) it removes the imbalance of the existing scoring in favor of White. The tests with it taught much are were a measured success. No last round pseudo-games!         Date: 22 Dec 2007 09:32:13 From: Chess One Subject: Re: On draws "David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > The systems you have proposed is not all that different from the BAP > (Ballard > anti-draw point) system that has been experimented with: 3 for Black > win, 2 for White win, 1 for Black draw, 0 for everything else. Yes - I remember you wrote on this before. At the time I think I wanted to know how effective it was in reducing draws. I also note a GM tournament was recently played with an alt scoring system, 0, 1, 3, and though it produced few draws, didn't contain enough games to 'draw' conclusions from. > Its features are that (1) it provides an incentive for both sides to play > to win > (2) it removes the imbalance of the existing scoring in favor of White. > > The tests with it taught much are were a measured success. No last round > pseudo-games! I should be interested to hear of any further experiments - especially quantifying the results, so proper comparison could be attempted. Phil Innes   Date: 20 Dec 2007 18:16:45 From: help bot Subject: Re: On draws On Dec 20, 6:04 am, Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote: > Here is what is really, really sad about this case. > If David Kane were to follow your excellent > advice posted above, he would, in short order, be > far better equipped to deal with life in general. Yeah, like *that's* anywhere near as important as chess! ; >D > When someone engages in logical fallacies, it is > like having a car with sugar in the gas tank I've heard this is a very bad thing. If one wants to indulge a hankering for light, "sweet" crude, far better to try Shell's super-unleaded, straight-up or with a twist of lime. > or a computer running Microsoft Vista Ouch! That hurt. Look, unless you fork over the big bucks for an Apple computer, or are a Linux freak, Microsoft is just a (harsh) fact of life. >; performance is > degraded when it doesn't have to be. Alas, instead > of seeking out a tool that will greatly improve his > ability to think, he chooses to reject that tool. > And for what? To not "lose" an argument on USENET > that nobody but him cares about? I'm not actually "arguing" with the boy; I'm trying to steer him in the right direction. I think an "argument" is where you get emotionally involved-- like when there is only one piece of pizza left and you both want it. > That's a big > price to pay for such a small payoff. Even worse, > he doesn't even get that small payoff! The only > person here who thinks David Kane is "winning" is > David Kane himself. What a sad, sad waste... > > When I finish posting this, I will be setting up a > 30 day killfile to make any post with strings such > as "David Kane wrote" near the top go away, because > I suspect that he is now hoping to have his insults > reach me through replies. Ridiculous; who's going to reply to that idiot?!! > So as a _final_ comment > upon his various personal attacks, and an example > of best practices in USENET flaming , I leave him > with this: > > ---------------------------------------------------- > > Dear David "Fallacy Boy" Kane: > > You swine. You vulgar little maggot. You worthless bag of filth. As we > say in Texas, you couldn't pour water out of a boot with instructions > printed on the heel. You are a canker, an open wound. I would rather > kiss a lawyer than be seen with you. You took your last vacation in > the Islets of Langerhans. You just lost me. Langerhans? > You're a putrescent mass, a walking vomit. You are a spineless little > worm deserving nothing but the profoundest contempt. You are a jerk, a > cad, and a weasel. I take that back; you are a festering pustule on a > weasel's rump. Your life is a monument to stupidity. You are a stench, > a revulsion, a big suck on a sour lemon. > I will never get over the embarrassment of belonging to the same > species as you. You are a monster, an ogre, a malformity. I barf at > the very thought of you. You have all the appeal of a paper cut. > Lepers avoid you. You are vile, worthless, less than nothing. You are > a weed, a fungus, the dregs of this earth. You are a technicolor yawn. > And did I mention that you smell? > > You are a squeaking rat, a mistake of nature and a heavy-metal bagpipe > player. You were not born. You were hatched into an unwilling world > that rejects the likes of you. You didn't crawl out of a normal egg, > either, but rather a mutant maggot egg rejected by an evil scientist > as being below his low standards. Your alleged parents abandoned you > at birth and then died of shame in recognition of what they had done > to an unsuspecting world. They were a bit late. > > Try to edit your responses of unnecessary material before attempting > to impress us with your insight. The evidence that you are a > nincompoop will still be available to readers, but they will be able > to access it ever so much more rapidly. If cluelessness were crude > oil, your scalp would be crawling with caribou. > > You are a thick-headed trog. I have seen skeet with more sense than > you have. You are a few bricks short of a full load, a few cards short > of a full deck, a few bytes short of a full core dump, and a few > chromosomes short of a full human. Worse than that, you top-post. God > created houseflies, cockroaches, maggots, mosquitoes, fleas, ticks, > slugs, leeches, and intestinal parasites, then he lowered his > standards and made you. I take it back; God didn't make you. You are > Satan's spawn. You are Evil beyond comprehension, half-living in the > slough of despair. You are the entropy which will claim us all. You > are a green-nostriled, crossed eyed, hairy-livered inbred > trout-defiler. You make Ebola look good. > > You are weary, stale, flat and unprofitable. You are grimy, squalid, > nasty and profane. You are foul and disgusting. You're a fool, an > ignoramus. Monkeys look down on you. Even sheep won't have sex with > you. You are unreservedly pathetic, starved for attention, and lost in > a land that reality forgot. You are not ANSI compliant and your kup > doesn't validate. You have a couple of address lines shorted together. > You should be promoted to Engineering Manager. > > Do you really expect your delusional and incoherent ramblings to be > read? Everyone plonked you long ago. Do you fantasize that your > tantrums and conniption fits could possibly be worth the $0.000000001 > worth of electricity used to send them? Your life is one big > W.O.M.B.A.T. and your future doesn't look promising either. We need to > trace your bloodline and terminate all siblings and cousins in order > to cleanse humanity of your polluted genes. The good news is that no > normal human would ever mate with you, so we won't have to go into the > sewers in search of your git. > > You are a waste of flesh. You have no rhythm. You are ridiculous and > obnoxious. You are the moral equivalent of a leech. You are a living > emptiness, a meaningless void. You are sour and senile. You are a > loathsome disease, a drooling inbred cross-eyed toesucker. You make > Quakers shout and strike Pentecostals silent. You have a version 1.0 > mind in a version 6.12 world. Your mother had to tie a pork chop > around your neck just to get your dog to play with you. You think > that HTTP://WWW.GUYMACON.COM/FUN/INSULT/INDEX.HTM is the name of a > rock band. You believe that P.D.Q. Bach is the greatest composer who > ever lived. You prefer L. Ron Hubbard to Larry Niven and Jerry > Pournelle. Hee-Haw is too deep for you. You would watch test patterns > all day if the other inmates would let you. > > On a good day you're a half-wit. You remind me of drool. You are > deficient in all that lends character. You have the personality of > wallpaper. You are dank and filthy. You are asinine and benighted. > Spammers look down on you. Phone sex operators hang up on you. > Teleketers refuse to be seen in public with you. You are the source > of all unpleasantness. You spread misery and sorrow wherever you go. > May you choke on your own foolish opinions. You are a Pusillanimous > galactophage and you wear your sister's training bra. Don't bother > opening the door when you leave - you should be able to slime your > way out underneath. I hope that when you get home your mother runs > out from under the porch and bites you. > > You smy lagerlout git. You bloody woofter sod. Bugger off, pillock. > You grotty wanking oik artless base-court apple-john. You clouted > boggish foot-licking half-twit. You dankish clack-dish plonker. You > gormless crook-pated tosser. You bloody churlish boil-brained clotpole > ponce. You craven dewberry pisshead cockup pratting naff. You cockered > bum-bailey poofter. You gob-kissing gleeking flap-mouthed coxcomb. You > dread-bolted fobbing beef-witted clapper-clawed flirt-gill. May your > spouse be blessed with many bastards. > > You are so clueless that if you dressed in a clue skin, doused yourself > in clue musk, and did the clue dance in the middle of a field of horny > clues at the height of clue mating season, you still would not have a > clue. If you were a movie you would be a double feature; > _Battlefield_Earth_ and _Moron_Movies_II_. You would be out of focus. > > You are a fiend and a sniveling coward, and you have bad breath. You > are the unholy spawn of a bandy-legged hobo and a syphilitic camel. > You wear strangely mismatched clothing with oddly placed stains. You > are degenerate, noxious and depraved. I feel debased just knowing that > you exist. I despise everything about you, and I wish you would go > away. You are jetsam who dreams of becoming flotsam. You won't make > it. I beg for sweet death to come and remove me from a world which > became unbearable when you crawled out of a harpy's lair. > > It is hard to believe how incredibly stupid you are. Stupid as a stone > that the other stones make fun of. So stupid that you have traveled > far beyond stupid as we know it and into a new dimension of stupid. > Meta-stupid. Stupid cubed. Trans-stupid stupid. Stupid collapsed to > a singularity where even the stupons have collapsed into stuponium. > Stupid so dense that no intelligence can escape. Singularity stupid. > Blazing hot summer day on Mercury stupid. You emit more stupid in one > minute than our entire galaxy emits in a year. Quasar stupid. It cannot > be possible that anything in our universe can really be this stupid. > This is a primordial fragment from the original big stupid bang. A pure > extract of stupid with absolute stupid purity. Stupid beyond the laws > of nature. I must apologize. I can't go on. This is my epiphany of > stupid. After this experience, you may not hear from me for a while. > I don't think that I can summon the strength left to mock your moronic > opinions and malformed comments about boring trivia or your other > drivel. Duh. > > The only thing worse than your logic is your manners. I have snipped > away most of your of what you wrote, because, well ... it didn't > really say anything. Your attempt at constructing a creative flame was > pitiful. I mean, really, stringing together a bunch of insults among a > load of babbling was hardly effective... Maybe later in life, after > you ... > > read more =BB Dammit. Just when the story was starting to get interesting... . -- help bot   Date: 20 Dec 2007 20:25:43 From: ChessVariant Inventor Subject: Re: On draws zdrakec;251883 Wrote: > Hullo all: > > Giving some thought to how draws happen over the board, it occurs to > me that many of the rules in place that allow draws to happen are > quite arbitrary, and have little or nothing to do with the actual > movement of the pieces. With that in mind, the following rule changes > strike me as perhaps interesting: > 1. Draws may not be agreed. > 2. Three-fold repetition shall be illegal. That is, the player having > the move may not make a move that repeats the position for the third > time. If he has no other legal move, we may regard this as a form of > stalemate, perhaps. I am not completely sure, but I think that this > rule would do away with perpetual check. By analogy, I refer to the ko > rule in Go, which essentially prevents the same position from > appearing on the board more than once (with some rather esoteric > exceptions). > 3. There shall be no 50-move limit. This becomes more practical than > it once was, in an age where clocks can have a delay, and can add a > time increment per move. > 4. Since the object of the game is to place the opponent's king in a > position from which it cannot avoid being captured, I suggest that > stalemate should be a loss for the stalemated player. In principal, > the player who has stalemated his opponent has accomplished the > priy goal of the game. Of course, this has been suggested many > times before. > > I am not certain, but that would seem to leave lack of mating material > as the sole way to draw a game. Naturally, there can still be abuse, > but it would, I think, tend to be obvious... > > Thoughts? > > Regards, > zdrakec Here is an interesting chess variant that tries to reduce draws (albei in a different way) . Capture the scepter chess.computerwebservices.net/capture.php The idea is that side whose king can occupy the opposing king's hom square wins in addition to checkmate. Thus - certain stalemate issue can be avoided. However, I am not fond of this change either mainly because I thin that many of these draws you object to are an integral part of th game: 1. Draws may not be agreed. - Maybe this could be enforced in hig profile tournaments /matches if the players are been adequatel compensated. So I agree to some extent to this change. 2. 3-fold repetition - I disagree strongly. I remember playing a gam against a stronger opponent where I made a move that would force him t make a repetion. Since he felt he had a slight advantage he made anothe move trying to avoid the draw. I capitalized on this and was able t secure a win later. Removing 3 fold repetition will take away this typ of play. Also, there have been various GM games that demonstrate this a well. 3. Stalemate - once again this is an important dimension of the gam and taking away this detracts from the game. see the chess varian above which reduces some of this. However, it is quite obvious this i a central idea in chess endings. 4. 50 move rule - perhaps in some cases this could be increased to 10 or more. Example to add more time to the clock for one low on time o certain mating combination that take longer than 50 moves. So in sumy the only suggestions worthwile seem to be banning th draw offer in high profile matches/tournmanents and maybe item 4 i rare cases. On the other hand, I think if GMs were to play a few more ches variants, they would enjoy quite a few of them. For example. Birds and NInjas http://chess.computerwebservices.net/birds.php and Raptor chess: http://chess.computerwebservices.net/raptor.php all the above have same rules as in orthodox chess. Just a bigger boar with more pieces. I think if you want to tinker with the chess game - its a lot more fu to just add more pieces rather than subtract something essential fro it -- ChessVariant Inventor   Date: 20 Dec 2007 12:44:25 From: zdrakec Subject: Re: On draws On Dec 20, 1:37 pm, Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote: > zdrakec wrote: > >Wow. I personally have no beef with the target of this flame, but I > >have to say: that is just the most awe-inspiring set of hair-raising > >soul-scorching thirteen-jointed insults that I have ever seen. I mean, > >this rant simply filled me with admiration. > >I especially liked, "I hope when you go home, that your mother runs > >out from under the porch and bites you". I about swallowed my own > >tongue on that one. > >I salute you. > > Thanks! > > >Having said that, we have come very far afield from the original point > >of this thread, no? I remind you that the logical outcome of an evenly > >played game of chess is a draw. > > I would be interested to hear how you know that the above is true. > > -- > Guy Macon > <http://www.guymacon.com/> My pardon: I should not have claimed knowledge on this point. It is merely my opinion, that the logical outcome of an evenly played game is a draw. I emphasize, however, the "played" part of that sentence... Regards, zdrakec   Date: 20 Dec 2007 19:37:20 From: Guy Macon Subject: Re: On draws zdrakec wrote: >Wow. I personally have no beef with the target of this flame, but I >have to say: that is just the most awe-inspiring set of hair-raising >soul-scorching thirteen-jointed insults that I have ever seen. I mean, >this rant simply filled me with admiration. >I especially liked, "I hope when you go home, that your mother runs >out from under the porch and bites you". I about swallowed my own >tongue on that one. >I salute you. Thanks! >Having said that, we have come very far afield from the original point >of this thread, no? I remind you that the logical outcome of an evenly >played game of chess is a draw. I would be interested to hear how you know that the above is true. -- Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ >   Date: 20 Dec 2007 07:13:16 From: zdrakec Subject: Re: On draws On Dec 20, 5:04 am, Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote: > "He's so helpful!" help bot wrote: > > >David "Fallacy Boy" Kane wrote: > > >> I never claimed that there was a survey. > >> You can ask plonker dude for the name > >> of that fallacy. Byt [SIC] don't expect him to > >> get it right. > > > Well, you keep insisting that you "know" how > >everyone feels about the rules, that nobody > >takes them seriously, so I just assumed you > >had done a survey. Maybe you're psychic or > >something? Most people I know can't read > >minds like you imply you can. > > ... > > > I don't see how re-reading your fallacies will > >accomplish anything; maybe *you* need to try > >something different here. A good start would > >be to go to Amazon.com and order a primer on > >critical thinking skills-- like the 101 Fallacies > >book I told you about earlier. Remember: you > >don't need to sort them all out perfectly; just > >get a general idea of how to stop making so > >many classic errors in logic. > > Here is what is really, really sad about this case. > If David Kane were to follow your excellent > advice posted above, he would, in short order, be > far better equipped to deal with life in general. > When someone engages in logical fallacies, it is > like having a car with sugar in the gas tank or a > computer running Microsoft Vista; performance is > degraded when it doesn't have to be. Alas, instead > of seeking out a tool that will greatly improve his > ability to think, he chooses to reject that tool. > And for what? To not "lose" an argument on USENET > that nobody but him cares about? That's a big > price to pay for such a small payoff. Even worse, > he doesn't even get that small payoff! The only > person here who thinks David Kane is "winning" is > David Kane himself. What a sad, sad waste... > > When I finish posting this, I will be setting up a > 30 day killfile to make any post with strings such > as "David Kane wrote" near the top go away, because > I suspect that he is now hoping to have his insults > reach me through replies. So as a _final_ comment > upon his various personal attacks, and an example > of best practices in USENET flaming , I leave him > with this: > > ---------------------------------------------------- > > Dear David "Fallacy Boy" Kane: > > You swine. You vulgar little maggot. You worthless bag of filth. As we > say in Texas, you couldn't pour water out of a boot with instructions > printed on the heel. You are a canker, an open wound. I would rather > kiss a lawyer than be seen with you. You took your last vacation in > the Islets of Langerhans. > > You're a putrescent mass, a walking vomit. You are a spineless little > worm deserving nothing but the profoundest contempt. You are a jerk, a > cad, and a weasel. I take that back; you are a festering pustule on a > weasel's rump. Your life is a monument to stupidity. You are a stench, > a revulsion, a big suck on a sour lemon. > > I will never get over the embarrassment of belonging to the same > species as you. You are a monster, an ogre, a malformity. I barf at > the very thought of you. You have all the appeal of a paper cut. > Lepers avoid you. You are vile, worthless, less than nothing. You are > a weed, a fungus, the dregs of this earth. You are a technicolor yawn. > And did I mention that you smell? > > You are a squeaking rat, a mistake of nature and a heavy-metal bagpipe > player. You were not born. You were hatched into an unwilling world > that rejects the likes of you. You didn't crawl out of a normal egg, > either, but rather a mutant maggot egg rejected by an evil scientist > as being below his low standards. Your alleged parents abandoned you > at birth and then died of shame in recognition of what they had done > to an unsuspecting world. They were a bit late. > > Try to edit your responses of unnecessary material before attempting > to impress us with your insight. The evidence that you are a > nincompoop will still be available to readers, but they will be able > to access it ever so much more rapidly. If cluelessness were crude > oil, your scalp would be crawling with caribou. > > You are a thick-headed trog. I have seen skeet with more sense than > you have. You are a few bricks short of a full load, a few cards short > of a full deck, a few bytes short of a full core dump, and a few > chromosomes short of a full human. Worse than that, you top-post. God > created houseflies, cockroaches, maggots, mosquitoes, fleas, ticks, > slugs, leeches, and intestinal parasites, then he lowered his > standards and made you. I take it back; God didn't make you. You are > Satan's spawn. You are Evil beyond comprehension, half-living in the > slough of despair. You are the entropy which will claim us all. You > are a green-nostriled, crossed eyed, hairy-livered inbred > trout-defiler. You make Ebola look good. > > You are weary, stale, flat and unprofitable. You are grimy, squalid, > nasty and profane. You are foul and disgusting. You're a fool, an > ignoramus. Monkeys look down on you. Even sheep won't have sex with > you. You are unreservedly pathetic, starved for attention, and lost in > a land that reality forgot. You are not ANSI compliant and your kup > doesn't validate. You have a couple of address lines shorted together. > You should be promoted to Engineering Manager. > > Do you really expect your delusional and incoherent ramblings to be > read? Everyone plonked you long ago. Do you fantasize that your > tantrums and conniption fits could possibly be worth the $0.000000001 > worth of electricity used to send them? Your life is one big > W.O.M.B.A.T. and your future doesn't look promising either. We need to > trace your bloodline and terminate all siblings and cousins in order > to cleanse humanity of your polluted genes. The good news is that no > normal human would ever mate with you, so we won't have to go into the > sewers in search of your git. > > You are a waste of flesh. You have no rhythm. You are ridiculous and > obnoxious. You are the moral equivalent of a leech. You are a living > emptiness, a meaningless void. You are sour and senile. You are a > loathsome disease, a drooling inbred cross-eyed toesucker. You make > Quakers shout and strike Pentecostals silent. You have a version 1.0 > mind in a version 6.12 world. Your mother had to tie a pork chop > around your neck just to get your dog to play with you. You think > that HTTP://WWW.GUYMACON.COM/FUN/INSULT/INDEX.HTM is the name of a > rock band. You believe that P.D.Q. Bach is the greatest composer who > ever lived. You prefer L. Ron Hubbard to Larry Niven and Jerry > Pournelle. Hee-Haw is too deep for you. You would watch test patterns > all day if the other inmates would let you. > > On a good day you're a half-wit. You remind me of drool. You are > deficient in all that lends character. You have the personality of > wallpaper. You are dank and filthy. You are asinine and benighted. > Spammers look down on you. Phone sex operators hang up on you. > Teleketers refuse to be seen in public with you. You are the source > of all unpleasantness. You spread misery and sorrow wherever you go. > May you choke on your own foolish opinions. You are a Pusillanimous > galactophage and you wear your sister's training bra. Don't bother > opening the door when you leave - you should be able to slime your > way out underneath. I hope that when you get home your mother runs > out from under the porch and bites you. > > You smy lagerlout git. You bloody woofter sod. Bugger off, pillock. > You grotty wanking oik artless base-court apple-john. You clouted > boggish foot-licking half-twit. You dankish clack-dish plonker. You > gormless crook-pated tosser. You bloody churlish boil-brained clotpole > ponce. You craven dewberry pisshead cockup pratting naff. You cockered > bum-bailey poofter. You gob-kissing gleeking flap-mouthed coxcomb. You > dread-bolted fobbing beef-witted clapper-clawed flirt-gill. May your > spouse be blessed with many bastards. > > You are so clueless that if you dressed in a clue skin, doused yourself > in clue musk, and did the clue dance in the middle of a field of horny > clues at the height of clue mating season, you still would not have a > clue. If you were a movie you would be a double feature; > _Battlefield_Earth_ and _Moron_Movies_II_. You would be out of focus. > > You are a fiend and a sniveling coward, and you have bad breath. You > are the unholy spawn of a bandy-legged hobo and a syphilitic camel. > You wear strangely mismatched clothing with oddly placed stains. You > are degenerate, noxious and depraved. I feel debased just knowing that > you exist. I despise everything about you, and I wish you would go > away. You are jetsam who dreams of becoming flotsam. You won't make > it. I beg for sweet death to come and remove me from a world which > became unbearable when you crawled out of a harpy's lair. > > It is hard to believe how incredibly stupid you are. Stupid as a stone > that the other stones make fun of. So stupid that you have traveled > far beyond stupid as we know it and into a new dimension of stupid. > Meta-stupid. Stupid cubed. Trans-stupid stupid. Stupid collapsed to > a singularity where even the stupons have collapsed into stuponium. > Stupid so dense that no intelligence can escape. Singularity stupid. > Blazing hot summer day on Mercury stupid. You emit more stupid in one > minute than our entire galaxy emits in a year. Quasar stupid. It cannot > be possible that anything in our universe can really be this stupid. > This is a primordial fragment from the original big stupid bang. A pure > extract of stupid with absolute stupid purity. Stupid beyond the laws > of nature. I must apologize. I can't go on. This is my epiphany of > stupid. After this experience, you may not hear from me for a while. > I don't think that I can summon the strength left to mock your moronic > opinions and malformed comments about boring trivia or your other > drivel. Duh. > > The only thing worse than your logic is your manners. I have snipped > away most of your of what you wrote, because, well ... it didn't > really say anything. Your attempt at constructing a creative flame was > pitiful. I mean, really, stringing together a bunch of insults among a > load of babbling was hardly effective... Maybe later in life, after > you have learned to read, write, spell, and count, you will have more > success. True, these are rudimentary skills that many of us "normal" > people take for granted that everyone has an easy time of mastering. > But we sometimes forget that there are "challenged" persons in this > world who find these things to be difficult. If I had known that this > was true in your case then I would have never have exposed myself to > what you wrote. It just wouldn't have been "right." Sort of like > parking in a handicap space. I wish you the best of luck in the > emotional, and social struggles that seem to be placing such a > demand on you. > > P.S.: You are hypocritical, greedy, violent, malevolent, vengeful, > cowardly, deadly, mendacious, meretricious, loathsome, despicable, > belligerent, opportunistic, barratrous, contemptible, criminal, > fascistic, bigoted, racist, sexist, avaricious, tasteless, idiotic, > brain-damaged, imbecilic, insane, arrogant, deceitful, demented, lame, > self-righteous, byzantine, conspiratorial, satanic, fraudulent, > libelous, bilious, splenetic, spastic, ignorant, clueless, EDLINoid, > illegitimate, harmful, destructive, dumb, evasive, double-talking, > devious, revisionist, narrow, manipulative, paternalistic, > fundamentalist, dogmatic, idolatrous, unethical, cultic, diseased, > suppressive, controlling, restrictive, malignant, deceptive, dim, > crazy, weird, dyspeptic, stifling, uncaring, plantigrade, grim, > unsympathetic, jargon-spouting, censorious, secretive, aggressive, > mind-numbing, arassive, poisonous, flagrant, self-destructive, > abusive, socially-retarded, puerile, and Generally Not Good. > > I hope this helps... > > -- > Guy Macon > <http://www.guymacon.com/> Wow. I personally have no beef with the target of this flame, but I have to say: that is just the most awe-inspiring set of hair-raising soul-scorching thirteen-jointed insults that I have ever seen. I mean, this rant simply filled me with admiration. I especially liked, "I hope when you go home, that your mother runs out from under the porch and bites you". I about swallowed my own tongue on that one. I salute you. Having said that, we have come very far afield from the original point of this thread, no? I remind you that the logical outcome of an evenly played game of chess is a draw. All my suggestions were made with the idea that this outcome - a draw - should really be the result of an actual attempt by both players to win, and that it not be so easy to avoid risking a decision! Regards, zdrakec     Date: 20 Dec 2007 12:59:35 From: David Kane Subject: Re: On draws "zdrakec" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:c89e3b37-bb31-4364-a722-68dc2c6c1f4a@j20g2000hsi.googlegroups.com... > > Having said that, we have come very far afield from the original point > of this thread, no? I remind you that the logical outcome of an evenly > played game of chess is a draw. All my suggestions were made with the > idea that this outcome - a draw - should really be the result of an > actual attempt by both players to win, and that it not be so easy to > avoid risking a decision! Well, put. Whenever discussions of draws in chess occur, they tend to remain civil for a short while, and then quickly degenerate into the absurd. I think part of that is just human nature - people tend to resist any kind of change, or even discussions that contemplate change! The key is your phrase "actual attempt by both players to win". People want to *pretend* that that is present in every game. But we know that it isn't. What I would challenge you to do is to think about WHY players behave that way, and I think you'll conclude that there is more to it than a simple matter of rule changes. It has do with the incentives. If the return on "attempting to win" is negative, or perceived as negative, then players move to an objective with a higher return, e.g. "attempt to draw". And once both players have the same objective, by definition we no longer have a contest at all. The 8-move agreed draw is the logical result of this state of affairs. The key to revitalizing chess is to make "attempts by both players to win" a high return decision. Others > > Regards, > zdrakec   Date: 19 Dec 2007 22:43:57 From: help bot Subject: Re: On draws On Dec 20, 12:35 am, "David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote: > I never claimed that there was a survey. > You can ask plonker dude for the name > of that fallacy. Byt don't expect him to > get it right. Well, you keep insisting that you "know" how everyone feels about the rules, that nobody takes them seriously, so I just assumed you had done a survey. Maybe you're psychic or something? Most people I know can't read minds like you imply you can. > No such survey was promised. The counterevidence > is games that were not contested and also not > considered to be afoul of the rules. Most people I know who are not ignorant of what the rules state, would consider agreeing to "grandmaster draws" a classic case of breaking the USCF rule forbidding agreeing to draw "before a real contest (of skill) has begun". That's because simple common sense tells them that it is impossible to have such a contest in, say, six or eight moves, between grandmasters. > > I wish you could see the TD at my local club; > > not only does he take the rules seriously, he > > penalizes folks who get "Bat signals" during > > play, from the ringing of cell phones! > > Another nice irrelevancy. Maybe you want examples of *players* who take the rules seriously; I thought that a TD demonstrating he takes the rules seriously was even better, because it affects *everyone* who plays in any of his tourneys. In sum, if I take the rules seriously, that's just one guy, whereas if this TD does, hundreds are impacted by it. > >> > I wasn't aware that you made any points at all; > > >> You could remedy that by simply reading > >> what others post. > > > I tried that; reams and reams of information > > If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. I don't see how re-reading your fallacies will accomplish anything; maybe *you* need to try something different here. A good start would be to go to Amazon.com and order a primer on critical thinking skills-- like the 101 Fallacies book I told you about earlier. Remember: you don't need to sort them all out perfectly; just get a general idea of how to stop making so many classic errors in logic. -- helpful bot     Date: 20 Dec 2007 11:04:42 From: Guy Macon Subject: Re: On draws "He's so helpful!" help bot wrote: >David "Fallacy Boy" Kane wrote: > >> I never claimed that there was a survey. >> You can ask plonker dude for the name >> of that fallacy. Byt [SIC] don't expect him to >> get it right. > > Well, you keep insisting that you "know" how >everyone feels about the rules, that nobody >takes them seriously, so I just assumed you >had done a survey. Maybe you're psychic or >something? Most people I know can't read >minds like you imply you can. ... > I don't see how re-reading your fallacies will >accomplish anything; maybe *you* need to try >something different here. A good start would >be to go to Amazon.com and order a primer on >critical thinking skills-- like the 101 Fallacies >book I told you about earlier. Remember: you >don't need to sort them all out perfectly; just >get a general idea of how to stop making so >many classic errors in logic. Here is what is really, really sad about this case. If David Kane were to follow your excellent advice posted above, he would, in short order, be far better equipped to deal with life in general. When someone engages in logical fallacies, it is like having a car with sugar in the gas tank or a computer running Microsoft Vista; performance is degraded when it doesn't have to be. Alas, instead of seeking out a tool that will greatly improve his ability to think, he chooses to reject that tool. And for what? To not "lose" an argument on USENET that nobody but him cares about? That's a big price to pay for such a small payoff. Even worse, he doesn't even get that small payoff! The only person here who thinks David Kane is "winning" is David Kane himself. What a sad, sad waste... When I finish posting this, I will be setting up a 30 day killfile to make any post with strings such as "David Kane wrote" near the top go away, because I suspect that he is now hoping to have his insults reach me through replies. So as a _final_ comment upon his various personal attacks, and an example of best practices in USENET flaming , I leave him with this: ---------------------------------------------------- Dear David "Fallacy Boy" Kane: You swine. You vulgar little maggot. You worthless bag of filth. As we say in Texas, you couldn't pour water out of a boot with instructions printed on the heel. You are a canker, an open wound. I would rather kiss a lawyer than be seen with you. You took your last vacation in the Islets of Langerhans. You're a putrescent mass, a walking vomit. You are a spineless little worm deserving nothing but the profoundest contempt. You are a jerk, a cad, and a weasel. I take that back; you are a festering pustule on a weasel's rump. Your life is a monument to stupidity. You are a stench, a revulsion, a big suck on a sour lemon. I will never get over the embarrassment of belonging to the same species as you. You are a monster, an ogre, a malformity. I barf at the very thought of you. You have all the appeal of a paper cut. Lepers avoid you. You are vile, worthless, less than nothing. You are a weed, a fungus, the dregs of this earth. You are a technicolor yawn. And did I mention that you smell? You are a squeaking rat, a mistake of nature and a heavy-metal bagpipe player. You were not born. You were hatched into an unwilling world that rejects the likes of you. You didn't crawl out of a normal egg, either, but rather a mutant maggot egg rejected by an evil scientist as being below his low standards. Your alleged parents abandoned you at birth and then died of shame in recognition of what they had done to an unsuspecting world. They were a bit late. Try to edit your responses of unnecessary material before attempting to impress us with your insight. The evidence that you are a nincompoop will still be available to readers, but they will be able to access it ever so much more rapidly. If cluelessness were crude oil, your scalp would be crawling with caribou. You are a thick-headed trog. I have seen skeet with more sense than you have. You are a few bricks short of a full load, a few cards short of a full deck, a few bytes short of a full core dump, and a few chromosomes short of a full human. Worse than that, you top-post. God created houseflies, cockroaches, maggots, mosquitoes, fleas, ticks, slugs, leeches, and intestinal parasites, then he lowered his standards and made you. I take it back; God didn't make you. You are Satan's spawn. You are Evil beyond comprehension, half-living in the slough of despair. You are the entropy which will claim us all. You are a green-nostriled, crossed eyed, hairy-livered inbred trout-defiler. You make Ebola look good. You are weary, stale, flat and unprofitable. You are grimy, squalid, nasty and profane. You are foul and disgusting. You're a fool, an ignoramus. Monkeys look down on you. Even sheep won't have sex with you. You are unreservedly pathetic, starved for attention, and lost in a land that reality forgot. You are not ANSI compliant and your kup doesn't validate. You have a couple of address lines shorted together. You should be promoted to Engineering Manager. Do you really expect your delusional and incoherent ramblings to be read? Everyone plonked you long ago. Do you fantasize that your tantrums and conniption fits could possibly be worth the $0.000000001 worth of electricity used to send them? Your life is one big W.O.M.B.A.T. and your future doesn't look promising either. We need to trace your bloodline and terminate all siblings and cousins in order to cleanse humanity of your polluted genes. The good news is that no normal human would ever mate with you, so we won't have to go into the sewers in search of your git. You are a waste of flesh. You have no rhythm. You are ridiculous and obnoxious. You are the moral equivalent of a leech. You are a living emptiness, a meaningless void. You are sour and senile. You are a loathsome disease, a drooling inbred cross-eyed toesucker. You make Quakers shout and strike Pentecostals silent. You have a version 1.0 mind in a version 6.12 world. Your mother had to tie a pork chop around your neck just to get your dog to play with you. You think that HTTP://WWW.GUYMACON.COM/FUN/INSULT/INDEX.HTM is the name of a rock band. You believe that P.D.Q. Bach is the greatest composer who ever lived. You prefer L. Ron Hubbard to Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle. Hee-Haw is too deep for you. You would watch test patterns all day if the other inmates would let you. On a good day you're a half-wit. You remind me of drool. You are deficient in all that lends character. You have the personality of wallpaper. You are dank and filthy. You are asinine and benighted. Spammers look down on you. Phone sex operators hang up on you. Teleketers refuse to be seen in public with you. You are the source of all unpleasantness. You spread misery and sorrow wherever you go. May you choke on your own foolish opinions. You are a Pusillanimous galactophage and you wear your sister's training bra. Don't bother opening the door when you leave - you should be able to slime your way out underneath. I hope that when you get home your mother runs out from under the porch and bites you. You smy lagerlout git. You bloody woofter sod. Bugger off, pillock. You grotty wanking oik artless base-court apple-john. You clouted boggish foot-licking half-twit. You dankish clack-dish plonker. You gormless crook-pated tosser. You bloody churlish boil-brained clotpole ponce. You craven dewberry pisshead cockup pratting naff. You cockered bum-bailey poofter. You gob-kissing gleeking flap-mouthed coxcomb. You dread-bolted fobbing beef-witted clapper-clawed flirt-gill. May your spouse be blessed with many bastards. You are so clueless that if you dressed in a clue skin, doused yourself in clue musk, and did the clue dance in the middle of a field of horny clues at the height of clue mating season, you still would not have a clue. If you were a movie you would be a double feature; _Battlefield_Earth_ and _Moron_Movies_II_. You would be out of focus. You are a fiend and a sniveling coward, and you have bad breath. You are the unholy spawn of a bandy-legged hobo and a syphilitic camel. You wear strangely mismatched clothing with oddly placed stains. You are degenerate, noxious and depraved. I feel debased just knowing that you exist. I despise everything about you, and I wish you would go away. You are jetsam who dreams of becoming flotsam. You won't make it. I beg for sweet death to come and remove me from a world which became unbearable when you crawled out of a harpy's lair. It is hard to believe how incredibly stupid you are. Stupid as a stone that the other stones make fun of. So stupid that you have traveled far beyond stupid as we know it and into a new dimension of stupid. Meta-stupid. Stupid cubed. Trans-stupid stupid. Stupid collapsed to a singularity where even the stupons have collapsed into stuponium. Stupid so dense that no intelligence can escape. Singularity stupid. Blazing hot summer day on Mercury stupid. You emit more stupid in one minute than our entire galaxy emits in a year. Quasar stupid. It cannot be possible that anything in our universe can really be this stupid. This is a primordial fragment from the original big stupid bang. A pure extract of stupid with absolute stupid purity. Stupid beyond the laws of nature. I must apologize. I can't go on. This is my epiphany of stupid. After this experience, you may not hear from me for a while. I don't think that I can summon the strength left to mock your moronic opinions and malformed comments about boring trivia or your other drivel. Duh. The only thing worse than your logic is your manners. I have snipped away most of your of what you wrote, because, well ... it didn't really say anything. Your attempt at constructing a creative flame was pitiful. I mean, really, stringing together a bunch of insults among a load of babbling was hardly effective... Maybe later in life, after you have learned to read, write, spell, and count, you will have more success. True, these are rudimentary skills that many of us "normal" people take for granted that everyone has an easy time of mastering. But we sometimes forget that there are "challenged" persons in this world who find these things to be difficult. If I had known that this was true in your case then I would have never have exposed myself to what you wrote. It just wouldn't have been "right." Sort of like parking in a handicap space. I wish you the best of luck in the emotional, and social struggles that seem to be placing such a demand on you. P.S.: You are hypocritical, greedy, violent, malevolent, vengeful, cowardly, deadly, mendacious, meretricious, loathsome, despicable, belligerent, opportunistic, barratrous, contemptible, criminal, fascistic, bigoted, racist, sexist, avaricious, tasteless, idiotic, brain-damaged, imbecilic, insane, arrogant, deceitful, demented, lame, self-righteous, byzantine, conspiratorial, satanic, fraudulent, libelous, bilious, splenetic, spastic, ignorant, clueless, EDLINoid, illegitimate, harmful, destructive, dumb, evasive, double-talking, devious, revisionist, narrow, manipulative, paternalistic, fundamentalist, dogmatic, idolatrous, unethical, cultic, diseased, suppressive, controlling, restrictive, malignant, deceptive, dim, crazy, weird, dyspeptic, stifling, uncaring, plantigrade, grim, unsympathetic, jargon-spouting, censorious, secretive, aggressive, mind-numbing, arassive, poisonous, flagrant, self-destructive, abusive, socially-retarded, puerile, and Generally Not Good. I hope this helps... -- Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ >       Date: 20 Dec 2007 13:04:48 From: David Kane Subject: Re: On draws "Guy Macon" <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > > When I finish posting this, I will be setting up a > 30 day killfile to make any post with strings such > as "David Kane wrote" near the top go away, because > I suspect that he is now hoping to have his insults > reach me through replies. So as a _final_ comment > upon his various personal attacks, and an example > of best practices in USENET flaming , I leave him > with this: Mr. Macon has learned to cut and paste, and seems so proud of himself for having done so. His insults do not sting because they originate from one of low character and low intellect. This by the way, could be considered an example of an ad hominem argument. Ad hominem arguments are not always invalid though.     Date: 19 Dec 2007 23:50:56 From: David Kane Subject: Re: On draws "help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:241e5c24-1864-43b1-8ff3-e3be3b46147f@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > On Dec 20, 12:35 am, "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I never claimed that there was a survey. >> You can ask plonker dude for the name >> of that fallacy. Byt don't expect him to >> get it right. > > Well, you keep insisting that you "know" how > everyone feels about the rules, that nobody > takes them seriously, so I just assumed you > had done a survey. I've never claimed to "know how everyone feels about the rules". You are confusing your weak skills at processing written matter with evidence. If you want to show widespread (i.e. not some unverifiable personal anecdote) compliance with the rules, please do so. I've given you a real world counter example at a well-known national tournament. Surely you should be able to show how this was a major scandal that turned the chess world upside down.   Date: 20 Dec 2007 04:51:52 From: Guy Macon Subject: Re: On draws help bot wrote: >Another red herring fish. Nobody cares if >you are or are not "blunt"; that was not the >focus of plonker dude's criticisms; your >problem is that you think your opinions are >automatically the same as proven facts, >and that you can't think rationally and are >plagued by fallacies and red herrings. In >fact, you even smell like a fish. You are the wind beneath my wings. :) -- Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ >   Date: 19 Dec 2007 20:41:36 From: help bot Subject: Re: On draws On Dec 19, 8:14 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote: > >> > Um, at the top you listed some significant problems > >> > with the rules; now you bleat that there are no such > >> > problems. > > >> If you were capable of reading and understanding, > >> I explained exactly why the rules against drawing > >> aren't a problem. They aren't taken seriously. > > > Please give a link to the "survey" where this was > > determined. (BTW, nobody I know was tallied.) > > I'm making a claim that has not been contradicted. Um, you don't seem to understand how things work. It is *you* who made the unsupported claim, and thus the burden of proof is on *you*. I would simply like to see the "evidence" in support of your wanky opinion-- if it exists. A hallk of these "surveys" is that most have never actually been done; when called, their inventors often fold and run. Let's see if this is the case here. > You yourself have whined about the lack of > rule enforcement, so I could (reluctantly) claim > you as supporting evidence. Nonsense; if I believed that the rules are not taken seriously, I would not complain about non-enforcement. BTW, among *casual players* -- the ignorant newbies -- I think the rules are not taken very seriously. > Not only, that I > posted a very recent game that was obviously > not contested. How much evidence do you need? Just a link to your supposed "survey", which purportedly will show that the rules of chess are not taken seriously. I wish you could see the TD at my local club; not only does he take the rules seriously, he penalizes folks who get "Bat signals" during play, from the ringing of cell phones! > >> Moreover, enforcement of these rules make no > >> difference. They are simply an irrelevancy to > >> the points that I am making. > > > I wasn't aware that you made any points at all; > > You could remedy that by simply reading > what others post. I tried that; reams and reams of information regarding the myriad different types of herrings-- red, green and blue, all sorts of ideas for puerile insults, but precious little in the way of any facts. And this, after plonker-dude practically begged you for them. > > Of course, I haven't read everything. > > And understood even less. I was confused by the reference to Sonja Hennig. All those movies, and yet I never even heard of her. Plonker-dude informs us that many of her appearances were *unattributed*, which clears things up a bit. > > Pulling "survey results" out of thin air is > > not a very convincing way of making a point. > > It reminds me of the old guard propaganda > > style of Larry Parr (again). IMO, it would be > > more effective if you wrote that /in your > > opinion/, nobody takes certain rules > > seriously; that's because at least then your > > comments would have an air of objectivity. > > That would simply be inaccurate English. > Whether a rule is enforced is a matter of > fact. I could be wrong on the facts, but > opinion has nothing to do with > it. Idiot. If you could be wrong, it is not a "fact" at all, but merely your opinion. Facts are never wrong. while your opinions are hit or miss. > Almost all of plonker dude's problems > with my posts stem from the fact that > I am blunt. Nah. He has been studying "101 Fallacies" and you are driving him crazy by proving that the author was too limited in his scope. I think maybe he went to Amazon.com to order the "1001 Fallacies" version from Oxford. > Bluntness may have its > advantages and disadvantages, but > it is not a logical fallacy. Another red herring fish. Nobody cares if you are or are not "blunt"; that was not the focus of plonker dude's criticisms; your problem is that you think your opinions are automatically the same as proven facts, and that you can't think rationally and are plagued by fallacies and red herrings. In fact, you even smell like a fish. -- help bot     Date: 19 Dec 2007 21:35:19 From: David Kane Subject: Re: On draws "help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > On Dec 19, 8:14 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> > Um, at the top you listed some significant problems >> >> > with the rules; now you bleat that there are no such >> >> > problems. >> >> >> If you were capable of reading and understanding, >> >> I explained exactly why the rules against drawing >> >> aren't a problem. They aren't taken seriously. >> >> > Please give a link to the "survey" where this was >> > determined. (BTW, nobody I know was tallied.) >> >> I'm making a claim that has not been contradicted. > > Um, you don't seem to understand how things > work. It is *you* who made the unsupported > claim, and thus the burden of proof is on *you*. > I would simply like to see the "evidence" in > support of your wanky opinion-- if it exists. > > A hallk of these "surveys" is that most > have never actually been done; when called, > their inventors often fold and run. Let's see > if this is the case here. I never claimed that there was a survey. You can ask plonker dude for the name of that fallacy. Byt don't expect him to get it right. > >> You yourself have whined about the lack of >> rule enforcement, so I could (reluctantly) claim >> you as supporting evidence. > > Nonsense; if I believed that the rules are not > taken seriously, I would not complain about > non-enforcement. BTW, among *casual > players* -- the ignorant newbies -- I think the > rules are not taken very seriously. > >> Not only, that I >> posted a very recent game that was obviously >> not contested. How much evidence do you need? > > Just a link to your supposed "survey", which > purportedly will show that the rules of chess > are not taken seriously. No such survey was promised. The counterevidence is games that were not contested and also not considered to be afoul of the rules. > > I wish you could see the TD at my local club; > not only does he take the rules seriously, he > penalizes folks who get "Bat signals" during > play, from the ringing of cell phones! Another nice irrelevancy. > > >> >> Moreover, enforcement of these rules make no >> >> difference. They are simply an irrelevancy to >> >> the points that I am making. >> >> > I wasn't aware that you made any points at all; >> >> You could remedy that by simply reading >> what others post. > > I tried that; reams and reams of information If at first you don't succeed, try, try again.   Date: 19 Dec 2007 19:53:14 From: help bot Subject: Re: On draws On Dec 19, 7:38 pm, Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote: > Kook > > [Usenet; originally and more formally, `net.kook'] Term used to > describe a regular poster who continually posts messages with > no apparent grounding in reality. Different from a troll, which > implies a sort of sly wink on the part of a poster who knows > better, kooks really believe what they write, to the extent that > they believe anything. > > The kook tradek is paranoia and grandiosity. Kooks will often > build up elaborate imaginary support structures, fake corporations > and the like, and continue to act as if those things are real even > after their falsity has been documented in public. This sounds an awful lot like Phillip "nearly-an-IM" Innes and friends to me. One perfect example is the fact that they (i.e. the Evans ratpack) have continued to complain about a claim by Taylor Kingston that he once had a rating of "2300+" -- which was off by maybe fifty or sixty points -- yet these "kooks" will at the same time pretend -- like six year old children -- that nearly-an-IM Innes did not simply invent his own imaginary title and rating. It's a complete disconnect with reality, and too, they often exhibit fits of paranoia. I don't see the term "kook" used nearly as often as "troll", however. I heard it used back when I was young -- a very long time ago -- back before the internet was invented [here come the troll!] by Al Gore. -- help bot   Date: 19 Dec 2007 16:39:37 From: help bot Subject: Re: On draws On Dec 19, 6:44 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote: > >> There is nothing significantly wrong with the rules. > > > Um, at the top you listed some significant problems > > with the rules; now you bleat that there are no such > > problems. > > If you were capable of reading and understanding, > I explained exactly why the rules against drawing > aren't a problem. They aren't taken seriously. Please give a link to the "survey" where this was determined. (BTW, nobody I know was tallied.) > Moreover, enforcement of these rules make no > difference. They are simply an irrelevancy to > the points that I am making. I wasn't aware that you made any points at all; the vast majority of your commentary here has been identified as ad hominem and/or insults. Of course, I haven't read everything. > >Look, kid: you can't have it both ways; > > either there is, or there isn't anything wrong with the > > rules, okay? Get a grip. The plonker-dude could > > explain precisely which fallacy or other error category > > this falls under, > > The plonker dude simply didn't understand > the meaning of the various fallacies. I'd be > happy to give you a tutorial if you'd like. LOL! You are soooo ludicrous! I think he may have put a bit too much effort into his work; perfect classification of fallacies is neigh well impossible, because of all the overlaps and redundancies. But by and large, he pegged your swill for what it was. Perhaps a Louis Blair could even present a graph, showing the percentage of insults compared to the percentage of ad hom., and how it varies over time-- but it's way too much work for most folks to tackle. Pulling "survey results" out of thin air is not a very convincing way of making a point. It reminds me of the old guard propaganda style of Larry Parr (again). IMO, it would be more effective if you wrote that /in your opinion/, nobody takes certain rules seriously; that's because at least then your comments would have an air of objectivity. Still, with 90%+ garbage, who is going to work to sort out any wheat from all that chaff? (Even the hard-working plonker guy gave up.) -- help bot     Date: 20 Dec 2007 09:34:29 From: Chess One Subject: Re: On draws "help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:47c5eed0-68b4-4809-8d1e-5d5a40ef97e7@j20g2000hsi.googlegroups.com... > On Dec 19, 6:44 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote: > Perhaps a Louis Blair could even present > a graph, showing the percentage of insults > compared to the percentage of ad hom., > and how it varies over time-- but it's way too > much work for most folks to tackle. I think its time to put this subject onto a sound mathematically basis, then proceed to the rigorously discussed logic of our conclusions. First a point of logic: Louis Blair never said he could even present a graph, and he also never said he could not. Whether Louis Blair says anything, is therefore utterly pointless since it has no bearing on what he can do, unless he himself says he can or not, in his own opinion. For other people the world is much simpler, has parameters, etc, within which we best speculate based on the behavior of the world, such as, to give a complicated example: IF: 2+2 = 4 yesterday. It is pretty darn sure it will do so today. You must all admire the subtlety of my reasonings here! (Plus, as ani ful no, 91.6% of statistics are meaningless, including 58% of this one.) > Pulling "survey results" out of thin air is > not a very convincing way of making a point. > It reminds me of the old guard propaganda > style of Larry Parr (again). It reminds you 100% of Larry Parr or Larry Parr makes 100% points from the thin air? If its the second, is it the thin air source which resolves their not-convincingness? or, is it because the results are gleaned from Chess Life customers who live above 10,000 feet? Or are these the same thing? > IMO, it would be > more effective if you wrote that /in your > opinion/, nobody takes certain rules > seriously; that's because at least then your > comments would have an air of objectivity. > > Still, with 90%+ garbage, who is going to > work to sort out any wheat from all that chaff? That can be phrased mathematically as :: 0/1 * 1/0 which, anyone knows who does quanta, is a very large number divided by a very small one, and designed to mess with the minds of engineering students Therefore the result is (0,1, or infinity [always throw in an infinity]) *0.1 = resultant wheat OR, the result is proof that 0 = 1 = Infinity. I doubt very many people here can cope with such a complex expression as 0/1 * 1/0 but I should like to see some of the mathematically-proud have a go at it. I predict, given 3 posts, there will be a fight by noon. 'Polymath' Phil > (Even the hard-working plonker guy gave up.) > > > -- help bot > > > > > >     Date: 19 Dec 2007 17:14:44 From: David Kane Subject: Re: On draws "help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:47c5eed0-68b4-4809-8d1e-5d5a40ef97e7@j20g2000hsi.googlegroups.com... > On Dec 19, 6:44 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> There is nothing significantly wrong with the rules. >> >> > Um, at the top you listed some significant problems >> > with the rules; now you bleat that there are no such >> > problems. >> >> If you were capable of reading and understanding, >> I explained exactly why the rules against drawing >> aren't a problem. They aren't taken seriously. > > Please give a link to the "survey" where this was > determined. (BTW, nobody I know was tallied.) I'm making a claim that has not been contradicted. You yourself have whined about the lack of rule enforcement, so I could (reluctantly) claim you as supporting evidence. Not only, that I posted a very recent game that was obviously not contested. How much evidence do you need? >> Moreover, enforcement of these rules make no >> difference. They are simply an irrelevancy to >> the points that I am making. > > I wasn't aware that you made any points at all; You could remedy that by simply reading what others post. > Of course, I haven't read everything. And understood even less. > Pulling "survey results" out of thin air is > not a very convincing way of making a point. > It reminds me of the old guard propaganda > style of Larry Parr (again). IMO, it would be > more effective if you wrote that /in your > opinion/, nobody takes certain rules > seriously; that's because at least then your > comments would have an air of objectivity. That would simply be inaccurate English. Whether a rule is enforced is a matter of fact. I could be wrong on the facts, but opinion has nothing to do with it. Almost all of plonker dude's problems with my posts stem from the fact that I am blunt. Bluntness may have its advantages and disadvantages, but it is not a logical fallacy.   Date: 20 Dec 2007 00:38:27 From: Guy Macon Subject: Re: On draws help bot wrote: > >David Kane wrote: > >> > If you feel that my posts do not contribute to the >> > discussion, I suggest that you stop reading them. >> >> > *plonk* >> >> Facing facts *is* difficult but I wouldn't brag >> about it. > > Just finding any facts amongst the jungle of >ad hominem and insults is difficult enough. I >suspect he wore himself out researching all the >different terms and sorting the red herrings from >the myriad other kinds of fallacies. The truth is, >I haven't seen this much fallacious-argument >material here since back when Larry Parr was >going full-tilt. Congratulations, DK-- you are now >ranked number one in your field. What is really pathetic is the fact that he seems to be too dimwitted to figure out that he is talking to someone who no longer sees his posts, thanks to the magic of killfiles. Here are some clues for the clueless (those who are already clueful can skip to the next post now): ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Plonk [Usenet: possibly influenced by British slang `plonk' for cheap booze, or `plonker' for someone behaving stupidly (latter is lit. equivalent to Yiddish `schmuck')] The sound a newbie makes as he falls to the bottom of a kill file. While it originated in the newsgroup talk.bizarre, this term (usually written "*plonk*") is now (1994) widespread on Usenet. See also kill file. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Killfile [Usenet; very common] (alt. `KILL file') Per-user file(s) used by some Usenet reading programs (originally Larry Wall's rn(1)) to discard sumily (without presenting for reading) articles matching some particularly uninteresting (or unwanted) patterns of subject, author, or other header lines. Thus to add a person (or subject) to one's kill file is to arrange for that person to be ignored by one's newsreader in future. By extension, it may be used for a decision to ignore the person or subject in other media. See also plonk. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Troll 1. v.,n. [From the Usenet group alt.folklore.urban] To utter a posting on Usenet designed to attract predictable responses or flames; or, the post itself. Derives from the phrase "trolling for newbies" which in turn comes from mainstream "trolling", a style of fishing in which one trails bait through a likely spot hoping for a bite. The well-constructed troll is a post that induces lots of newbies and flamers to make themselves look even more clueless than they already do, while subtly conveying to the more savvy and experienced that it is in fact a deliberate troll. If you don't fall for the joke, you get to be in on it. See also YHBT. 2. n. An individual who chronically trolls in sense 1; regularly posts specious arguments, flames or personal attacks to a newsgroup, discussion list, or in email for no other purpose than to annoy someone or disrupt a discussion. Trolls are recognizable by the fact that they have no real interest in learning about the topic at hand - they simply want to utter flame bait. Like the ugly creatures they are named after, they exhibit no redeeming characteristics, and as such, they are recognized as a lower form of life on the net, as in, "Oh, ignore him, he's just a troll." Some people claim that the troll (sense 1) is properly a narrower category than flame bait, that a troll is categorized by containing some assertion that is wrong but not overtly controversial. The use of `troll' in either sense is a live metaphor that readily produces elaborations and combining forms. For example, one not infrequently sees the warning "Do not feed the troll" as part of a followup to troll postings. See also Kook. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Kook [Usenet; originally and more formally, `net.kook'] Term used to describe a regular poster who continually posts messages with no apparent grounding in reality. Different from a troll, which implies a sort of sly wink on the part of a poster who knows better, kooks really believe what they write, to the extent that they believe anything. The kook tradek is paranoia and grandiosity. Kooks will often build up elaborate imaginary support structures, fake corporations and the like, and continue to act as if those things are real even after their falsity has been documented in public. While they may appear harmless, and are usually filtered out by the other regular participants in a newsgroup of mailing list, they can still cause problems because the necessity for these measures is not immediately apparent to newcomers; there are several instances on record, for example, of journalists writing stories with quotes from kooks who caught them unaware. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ >     Date: 19 Dec 2007 17:19:23 From: David Kane Subject: Re: On draws "Guy Macon" <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > > > > help bot wrote: >> >>David Kane wrote: >> >>> > If you feel that my posts do not contribute to the >>> > discussion, I suggest that you stop reading them. >>> >>> > *plonk* >>> >>> Facing facts *is* difficult but I wouldn't brag >>> about it. >> >> Just finding any facts amongst the jungle of >>ad hominem and insults is difficult enough. I >>suspect he wore himself out researching all the >>different terms and sorting the red herrings from >>the myriad other kinds of fallacies. The truth is, >>I haven't seen this much fallacious-argument >>material here since back when Larry Parr was >>going full-tilt. Congratulations, DK-- you are now >>ranked number one in your field. > > What is really pathetic is the fact that he seems to > be too dimwitted to figure out that he is talking to > someone who no longer sees his posts, thanks to the > magic of killfiles. Mr. Macon doesn't seem to understand the concept of closed-mindedness. Closed mindedness doesn't obligate others to stop talking. Closed minded people are supposed to be able to shut out the arguments of others, lest they disturb their carefully constructed fictions. He's not too good at it, which is a promising sign.   Date: 19 Dec 2007 14:01:21 From: help bot Subject: Re: On draws On Dec 19, 4:03 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote: > >> Pretending that the rules against drawing are > >> real rules is just stupidity. They are almost never enforced > >> for a number of reasons, including being internally > >> inconsistent with the rest of chess' rules, and its practices > >> for over 100 years. > > > If you really believe that, then why do you rant and > > rave about "drawing" when you have a clear-as-mud > > issue to address? Priority #1 should be to fix the > > rules. > > There is nothing significantly wrong with the rules. Um, at the top you listed some significant problems with the rules; now you bleat that there are no such problems. Look, kid: you can't have it both ways; either there is, or there isn't anything wrong with the rules, okay? Get a grip. The plonker-dude could explain precisely which fallacy or other error category this falls under, but all I can do is recommend you try learning to think rationally; not only for these troll postings of yours, but also it will help you out in the real world. Trust me on this. -- help bot     Date: 19 Dec 2007 15:44:42 From: David Kane Subject: Re: On draws "help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > On Dec 19, 4:03 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> >> Pretending that the rules against drawing are >> >> real rules is just stupidity. They are almost never enforced >> >> for a number of reasons, including being internally >> >> inconsistent with the rest of chess' rules, and its practices >> >> for over 100 years. >> >> > If you really believe that, then why do you rant and >> > rave about "drawing" when you have a clear-as-mud >> > issue to address? Priority #1 should be to fix the >> > rules. >> >> There is nothing significantly wrong with the rules. > > Um, at the top you listed some significant problems > with the rules; now you bleat that there are no such > problems. If you were capable of reading and understanding, I explained exactly why the rules against drawing aren't a problem. They aren't taken seriously. Moreover, enforcement of these rules make no difference. They are simply an irrelevancy to the points that I am making. >Look, kid: you can't have it both ways; > either there is, or there isn't anything wrong with the > rules, okay? Get a grip. The plonker-dude could > explain precisely which fallacy or other error category > this falls under, The plonker dude simply didn't understand the meaning of the various fallacies. I'd be happy to give you a tutorial if you'd like.   Date: 19 Dec 2007 13:50:59 From: help bot Subject: Re: On draws On Dec 18, 9:08 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > > A simple reversal demonstrates how ludicrous that > > position is: a player who has not proved he can be > > defeated > > :))) 'proved he can be defeated?' > > The emphasis is not really about proofs, or even draws - the emphasis is > about wins. Why? Why do you want to pretend that wins count more than draws and/or losses? It makes no sense to me. I see a loss as equally important as a win. > > should be credited with extra points?! > > if you don't want to change the rules of play, [and who does?], then you > change the reward for the result Arbitrary changes are worthless; what is needed are *improvements*. > it is interesting to consider that the current point scores for results of > chess are arbitrary. some argue that stalemate should not be rewarded as > much as other draws, and others think black wins should be rewarded more > than white wins, etc etc The ratings system can be modified to better reflect "reality" as above. Supposedly, the odds should reflect White's inherent advantage of the first blunder. > so... whether or not we honor those ideas, what is the rational basis of the > current 0, 1/2, 1 scoring system? It's simplistic, but does not penalize players unfairly for being closely-matched (i.e. for drawing more frequently than mismatched players probably would). > the proposals that do not change any rules are (a) 0, 1, 2.5 system, or to > increase the differential (b) 0, 1/2, 1.5 system, which can be expressed in > whole numbers as 0, 1, 3. Thank God! I hate fractions. > the differential of draw :: win for (a) is x 2.5 > and > the differential of draw :: win for (b) is x 3 > > therefore (a) is the smaller of the 2 changes In what way are these alleged to be the optimal scoring methods? What computer program has gone through and found *this* to be the best of all possible scoring idiocies? > >> at the same time draws including stalemate should not equate with a loss. > >> What > >> is the right balance of scoring, that would also optimise trying to win > >> chess games? I don't know. What I do know is that the problem we see with grandmaster draws is not going to "magically disappear" just because you implement a random change to the scoring of games. I expect that the quirkier the system, the more that cheating (by fixing the result of games) will manifest itself in an obnoxious manner. > > The Kingdom to the victors, death and dismemberment > > to losers and drawers? > > 'dismemberment' !? you mean - you have to join the USCF forum? Losers would be forced to join the USCF and read their heinous magazine, cover to cover. Winners would get Inside Chess and free beer. -- help bot     Date: 20 Dec 2007 09:17:37 From: Chess One Subject: Re: On draws "help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:e29b1c34-205b-49eb-a3e0-e9896c63c74a@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > On Dec 18, 9:08 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > A simple reversal demonstrates how ludicrous that >> > position is: a player who has not proved he can be >> > defeated >> >> :))) 'proved he can be defeated?' >> >> The emphasis is not really about proofs, or even draws - the emphasis is >> about wins. > > Why? Because it encourages them by awarding them a higher score than currently in relation to other scores - hence, it is motivational to win! More reward for it than tacitly playing for 2 draws. > Why do you want to pretend that wins count > more than draws and/or losses? Why do you write in such a manner? I asked what the current basis was; 0, 1/2, 1. Wins literally count more because they get more score! > It makes no sense > to me. I see a loss as equally important as a win. ?? >> > should be credited with extra points?! >> >> if you don't want to change the rules of play, [and who does?], then you >> change the reward for the result > > Arbitrary changes are worthless; what is needed > are *improvements*. The point of all is if the current scoring system is 'arbitrary'? >> it is interesting to consider that the current point scores for results >> of >> chess are arbitrary. some argue that stalemate should not be rewarded as >> much as other draws, and others think black wins should be rewarded more >> than white wins, etc etc > > The ratings system can be modified to better > reflect "reality" as above. Supposedly, the odds > should reflect White's inherent advantage of the > first blunder. But, if true, that averages out over all games. >> so... whether or not we honor those ideas, what is the rational basis of >> the >> current 0, 1/2, 1 scoring system? > > It's simplistic, but does not penalize players > unfairly for being closely-matched (i.e. for > drawing more frequently than mismatched > players probably would). I am asking what the /basis/ for the current system is. If we can say that, then we can assess the basis of another scroring system and compare that to the current one. > >> the proposals that do not change any rules are (a) 0, 1, 2.5 system, or >> to >> increase the differential (b) 0, 1/2, 1.5 system, which can be expressed >> in >> whole numbers as 0, 1, 3. > > Thank God! I hate fractions. > > >> the differential of draw :: win for (a) is x 2.5 >> and >> the differential of draw :: win for (b) is x 3 >> >> therefore (a) is the smaller of the 2 changes > > In what way are these alleged to be the optimal > scoring methods? It optimised the score obtained for *wins*. > What computer program has > gone through and found *this* to be the best of > all possible scoring idiocies? Program? Surely no computer will do anything without a programmer. Secondly, you introduce terms like 'best' but do not define it. But you are going too fast here - since the first challenge is to look at the current system, warts, merits &c, to establish why it exists. It is just as 'rational' [which is from ratio, proportion] to suggest a scoring method like this:- Lose = -1, Draw = 0, Win = 1 or 1.5 >> >> at the same time draws including stalemate should not equate with a >> >> loss. >> >> What >> >> is the right balance of scoring, that would also optimise trying to >> >> win >> >> chess games? > > I don't know. What I do know is that the > problem we see with grandmaster draws is > not going to "magically disappear" just > because you implement a random change > to the scoring of games. Your comments are insisting on terms you introduce like 'magic' and 'random'. And this is your focus in the conversation. I am simply asking what justification there is for the current system - be it random or whatever - does it have a basis we can understand? > I expect that the > quirkier the system, the more that cheating > (by fixing the result of games) will manifest > itself in an obnoxious manner. > > >> > The Kingdom to the victors, death and dismemberment >> > to losers and drawers? >> >> 'dismemberment' !? you mean - you have to join the USCF forum? > > Losers would be forced to join the USCF and > read their heinous magazine, cover to cover. and write for it! forever! forever and a day! > Winners would get Inside Chess and free beer. Now you're drinking, I meanth thinkin. Although since its christmas, lets do some decent beer for the first 10 winners, a chilled not cold, german dark, not that maiden's water they make in milwaukee. Phil [hic] Inth. > -- help bot   Date: 19 Dec 2007 12:31:08 From: help bot Subject: Re: On draws On Dec 19, 1:48 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote: > > If you feel that my posts do not contribute to the > > discussion, I suggest that you stop reading them. > > > *plonk* > > Facing facts *is* difficult but I wouldn't brag > about it. Just finding any facts amongst the jungle of ad hominem and insults is difficult enough. I suspect he wore himself out researching all the different terms and sorting the red herrings from the myriad other kinds of fallacies. The truth is, I haven't seen this much fallacious-argument material here since back when Larry Parr was going full-tilt. Congratulations, DK-- you are now ranked number one in your field. As for me, I'm ranked numbers two and three at GetClub. Some turkey with a chess program has finally managed to surpass my amazing results. -- help bot   Date: 19 Dec 2007 12:21:23 From: help bot Subject: Re: On draws On Dec 18, 10:16 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote: > > Ignoring the fact that these draws are against USCF > > rules is like burying your head in the sand. Only if they > > were *not* against current rules would it make sense > > to focus solely upon "incentives". > > Pretending that the rules against drawing are > real rules is just stupidity. They are almost never enforced > for a number of reasons, including being internally > inconsistent with the rest of chess' rules, and its practices > for over 100 years. If you really believe that, then why do you rant and rave about "drawing" when you have a clear-as-mud issue to address? Priority #1 should be to fix the rules. > You don't like something? Declare it illegal! Don't > bother to figure out where it comes from and > what caused it. Okay. First I need to change my name to Bill Goichberg, as I am told *he* is the man who actually runs things at the USCF. Then, once I have "eliminated" him, I can take his place on the executive board and do whatever I want. But why stop there? I can go even higher; once I "eliminate" the head of FIDE, I can rule the whole world... bwhahaha! > Was it your state that passed a law declaring that > Pi is 3? How is that enforcement effort going? The ad hom. guy strikes again! I would suggest you figure out what you are talking about, rather than ask stupid questions. (Obviously, if any state were to declare that number to be a single digit, it would most likely be Alabama; here we go three digits before brain-overload sets in.) Here's something to chew on: the rules we play under are not just for "Russian cheaters"; they apply equally to everyone (except computers). A lack of enforcement demonstrates there is a problem with the rules, or with their enforcers. When frequent problems arose regarding the throwing of games to get into lower prize classes, organizers introduced a "fix" in the form of rating floors and a list of big-money prize winners to cut down n the abuses. Now, instead of just going into denial over the rule against fixing the outcome of games, why not try to come up with a fix, or if you prefer, "fix" the rules so that non-cheaters are on a level playing field with the cheaters? -- help bot     Date: 19 Dec 2007 13:03:22 From: David Kane Subject: Re: On draws "help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > On Dec 18, 10:16 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > Ignoring the fact that these draws are against USCF >> > rules is like burying your head in the sand. Only if they >> > were *not* against current rules would it make sense >> > to focus solely upon "incentives". >> >> Pretending that the rules against drawing are >> real rules is just stupidity. They are almost never enforced >> for a number of reasons, including being internally >> inconsistent with the rest of chess' rules, and its practices >> for over 100 years. > > If you really believe that, then why do you rant and > rave about "drawing" when you have a clear-as-mud > issue to address? Priority #1 should be to fix the > rules. There is nothing significantly wrong with the rules. That's why. I don't favor the "games must be real contests" rules for stylistic reasons because they are inconsistent with more basic laws of chess. But since nobody takes them seriously, they aren't worth worrying about. It's the incentives that makes drawing st that are inferior. > > >> You don't like something? Declare it illegal! Don't >> bother to figure out where it comes from and >> what caused it. > > Okay. First I need to change my name to > Bill Goichberg, as I am told *he* is the man who > actually runs things at the USCF. Then, once I > have "eliminated" him, I can take his place on > the executive board and do whatever I want. > > But why stop there? I can go even higher; > once I "eliminate" the head of FIDE, I can rule > the whole world... bwhahaha! > > >> Was it your state that passed a law declaring that >> Pi is 3? How is that enforcement effort going? > > The ad hom. guy strikes again! I would suggest > you figure out what you are talking about, rather > than ask stupid questions. (Obviously, if any state > were to declare that number to be a single digit, it > would most likely be Alabama; here we go three > digits before brain-overload sets in.) You guys really need to learn the meaning of ad hom. The pi thing, an urban legend for all I know, is a whimsical illustration that the rules pedants shouldn't take stupidity seriously just because it happens to be a "rule". > > Here's something to chew on: the rules we play > under are not just for "Russian cheaters"; they > apply equally to everyone (except computers). > A lack of enforcement demonstrates there is a > problem with the rules, or with their enforcers. > The anti-draw rules you seem to adore but which no one else seems to pay attention to were introduced by lazy folks who wanted to "do something" about the the 8-movers that no one likes but who weren't diligent enough to look at the problem more carefully. They didn't *want* to see the connection between the 8-movers and the "this position is confusing the hell out of me, I'll offer a draw" behavior that they themselves engage in. But they are both products of the same corrupting reality - that the return of playing for wins is low.   Date: 18 Dec 2007 19:18:03 From: help bot Subject: Re: On draws On Dec 18, 8:24 pm, Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote: > *Another* ad hominem. You can't fault these ad hominists for being *consistent*; heck, that's their one true strength. > Ice skating has experienced a ked decline in popularity > in recent years, so much so that the United States Figure > Skating Association lost its long-standing television > contract with ABC because of poor ratings. Then, over at > NBC, the prime-time telecast of the U.S. championships > dropped from double digits into the 4.0 range, and the > USFSA, which was getting $12 million a year from NBC, > had to settle for a profit-sharing agreement with no > rights fee in its new contract. > > Meanwhile, International Skating Union President Ottavio > Cinquanta says that he will give away television rights > if necessary to guarantee that U.S. viewers can watch > the 2009 Los Angeles World Figure Skating Championships. > Compare that with the $22 million a year he got from ABC > for the five-year deal that ended in 2004 and the $5 > million a year he got from ESPN for the five-year deal > that ends in 2009. > > During the mid-1990s, the Champions tour played more > than 70 major cities a year, plus a winter tour in smaller > cities. In 2006 it was 56 cities. In 2007, 23. And now > the 2008 tour has been canceled because of declining > attendance. Wow. I knew if I kept reading here I would eventually learn something new; I had no idea things were going sour in the world of ice skating. > A far cry from the days when Sonja Henie was one of > the highest paid movie stars in Hollywood, starring > and skating in fifteen hit films. Can you name any of these? I've never heard of SH. Probably before my time... . > I am looking forward to your next personal attack, which > I predict will be especially nasty because you were wrong > about the popularity of ice skating. Having been on USENET > for many years, I find such antics to be interesting, and > the escalation that follows when I reveal that my reaction > to flamers is detached bemusement to be reasonably amusing. "Flamers": that's name-calling, bub! Maybe not technically a fallacy, but it sure ain't in the same league as Sherlock Holmes' work, either. : >D -- help bot   Date: 18 Dec 2007 18:58:59 From: help bot Subject: Re: On draws On Dec 18, 7:42 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote: > > At any rate, I find it interesting that you are working so > > hard to *transfer the blame* from the cheaters to the > > organizers. The assumption is that somehow, like magic > > the problem can be cured-- which I seriously doubt. > > It is equally bizarre that you transfer the problem > to the players. As I understand it, the problem was presented here by *others*, who phrased it to refer to the tendency of (mainly grandmaster) players to agree to many uncontested draws; obviously then, it wasn't me who *transfered the blame*, but you. I have tried to point out that at lower levels, the problem is far less severe, and it mainly relates to the arrangement of prize winnings, along with some players who refuse to battle their buddies. It is priily the "grandmasters" whose drawing issues have draw serious criticism, and their apologists have yet to face head-on the issue of cheating; in other words, the fact that the USCF forbids any players from agreeing to what have aptly come to be known as "grandmaster draws". > Do people denigrate figure skaters > who won gold medals in their day, succeeding > according to the rules of the time, just because their > skills were far below more recent skaters, responding > to different incentives? Do men of straw easily get knocked over by their creators? > It is nearly 100% the fault of the organizers that it pays > to draw. An easy charge to make; what's tougher is to come up with a *solution* in which such draws are effectively discouraged, without mucking up the game. > I suppose if we wanted to we could fault the > players for not standing up to the idiotic rules that compel > them to destroy the game they are so good at. More jibberish. > It is all about incentives. Cheating has nothing to > do with it. Ignoring the fact that these draws are against USCF rules is like burying your head in the sand. Only if they were *not* against current rules would it make sense to focus solely upon "incentives". -- help bot     Date: 18 Dec 2007 19:16:24 From: David Kane Subject: Re: On draws "help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:643da28e-6442-405e-abad-7d262dcad0e2@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com... > On Dec 18, 7:42 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Ignoring the fact that these draws are against USCF > rules is like burying your head in the sand. Only if they > were *not* against current rules would it make sense > to focus solely upon "incentives". > Pretending that the rules against drawing are real rules is just stupidity. They are almost never enforced for a number of reasons, including being internally inconsistent with the rest of chess' rules, and its practices for over 100 years. You don't like something? Declare it illegal! Don't bother to figure out where it comes from and what caused it. Was it your state that passed a law declaring that Pi is 3? How is that enforcement effort going?   Date: 18 Dec 2007 14:20:46 From: help bot Subject: Re: On draws On Dec 18, 12:44 am, "David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote: > > My main points in these draw-problem threads are > > simply that legitimate draws aren't much of a problem > > at all; if bogus drawing between grandmasters is the > > heart of this issue, don't be afraid to tackle it head-on. > > The point isn't that there are "legitimate" draws > and "bogus" draws. The point is that incentives external > to the game are bad for the game. Bogus drawing is merely > a symptom of the problem - which is that some moron > set up the tournament rules so that it was st to agree to > a bogus draw. In Swiss tourneys, the most frequent example of a bogus draw is when the clear winner "gives" away a draw to his last round opponent, either to lock up clear first or else to go home early. I don't see how this is particularly "st", unless he is also trying to keep his rating down to net easier pairings in future events. I don't agree that incentives are necessarily bad for the game; for example, if there were an event where each additional half point netted a player $1,000, this would probably make them work harder than usual, play better than normal. I am talking about "normal" players here, not the cheaters; the cheaters would tend to focus more on buying those half points, distracting their opponents, and so forth; they would tend to work harder at cheating than normal (for them). At any rate, I find it interesting that you are working so hard to *transfer the blame* from the cheaters to the organizers. The assumption is that somehow, like magic the problem can be cured-- which I seriously doubt. It reminds me of the Bobby Fischer fiasco in the way the "problem" (i.e. him not winning every game) is projected onto organizers, TV cameras, little green men, etc. -- help bot     Date: 18 Dec 2007 16:42:36 From: David Kane Subject: Re: On draws "help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:bf411884-35af-4048-8797-7d0e74a76a7e@q77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > On Dec 18, 12:44 am, "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > At any rate, I find it interesting that you are working so > hard to *transfer the blame* from the cheaters to the > organizers. The assumption is that somehow, like magic > the problem can be cured-- which I seriously doubt. It is equally bizarre that you transfer the problem to the players. Do people denigrate figure skaters who won gold medals in their day, succeeding according to the rules of the time, just because their skills were far below more recent skaters, responding to different incentives? Of course not. It is nearly 100% the fault of the organizers that it pays to draw. I suppose if we wanted to we could fault the players for not standing up to the idiotic rules that compel them to destroy the game they are so good at. It is all about incentives. Cheating has nothing to do with it.   Date: 17 Dec 2007 20:26:58 From: help bot Subject: Re: On draws On Dec 7, 2:34 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > 2 draws should not equate with one win for the simple reason that the player > has not proven that he can win, and should also not be scored the same. A simple reversal demonstrates how ludicrous that position is: a player who has not proved he can be defeated should be credited with extra points?! > at the same time draws including stalemate should not equate with a loss. What > is the right balance of scoring, that would also optimise trying to win > chess games? The Kingdom to the victors, death and dismemberment to losers and drawers? > recently experiments have begun which do not change the rules of the game, > but change the score, so that for example, W=3 D=1 L=0. > > this provides a motivation to not take a 'safe' draw, since in effect it > gives up a whole point to any winner And therein lies the fatal flaw; unscrupulous scum will, instead of arranging to draw, arrange for one of them to lose the game-- instant $reward$! As I pointed out many times before, if you try to work around the cheating problem, it only morphs itself to fit the new circumstances. Any quirks in the point system as described above will make such people froth at the mouth over their new "opportunities". > a slightly more contention idea to both resolve the draw issue, and also > poor scores by black, is to use the scoring system: > > White Win = 2.5 > Black Win = 3.0 > Draw = 1 > Loss = 0 Hmm. Looks like a lot of people will be getting paid to throw their games as White. And many dead-drawn positions will now "inexplicably" be won. > I think this is the best compromise, which would work as well at high levels > as for the rest of us. Maybe the rest of us don't need any changes at all? Or maybe this *is* a solution, because its implementation would accidentally serve to accentuate the real problem here: that of cheating. Once even the dullards are made aware of the /real/ problem, there is a chance it might be addressed head-on (but I'm not holding my breath). -- help bot     Date: 18 Dec 2007 09:08:34 From: Chess One Subject: Re: On draws "help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > On Dec 7, 2:34 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 2 draws should not equate with one win for the simple reason that the >> player >> has not proven that he can win, and should also not be scored the same. > > A simple reversal demonstrates how ludicrous that > position is: a player who has not proved he can be > defeated :))) 'proved he can be defeated?' The emphasis is not really about proofs, or even draws - the emphasis is about wins. > should be credited with extra points?! if you don't want to change the rules of play, [and who does?], then you change the reward for the result it is interesting to consider that the current point scores for results of chess are arbitrary. some argue that stalemate should not be rewarded as much as other draws, and others think black wins should be rewarded more than white wins, etc etc so... whether or not we honor those ideas, what is the rational basis of the current 0, 1/2, 1 scoring system? the proposals that do not change any rules are (a) 0, 1, 2.5 system, or to increase the differential (b) 0, 1/2, 1.5 system, which can be expressed in whole numbers as 0, 1, 3. the differential of draw :: win for (a) is x 2.5 and the differential of draw :: win for (b) is x 3 therefore (a) is the smaller of the 2 changes >> at the same time draws including stalemate should not equate with a loss. >> What >> is the right balance of scoring, that would also optimise trying to win >> chess games? > > The Kingdom to the victors, death and dismemberment > to losers and drawers? 'dismemberment' !? you mean - you have to join the USCF forum? >> recently experiments have begun which do not change the rules of the >> game, >> but change the score, so that for example, W=3 D=1 L=0. >> >> this provides a motivation to not take a 'safe' draw, since in effect it >> gives up a whole point to any winner > > And therein lies the fatal flaw; unscrupulous scum > will, instead of arranging to draw, arrange for one of > them to lose the game-- instant $reward$! not exactly - if you intended to throw a game under the current system, it would be the same. but not rewarding a draw as half a win so that 2 players near the top of the chart can 'play safe' becomes a less useful strategy against actual winners > As I pointed out many times before, if you try to > work around the cheating problem, it only morphs > itself to fit the new circumstances. Any quirks in > the point system as described above will make > such people froth at the mouth over their new > "opportunities". surely the current system is also 'quirky'? and people already froth about it? > >> a slightly more contention idea to both resolve the draw issue, and also >> poor scores by black, is to use the scoring system: >> >> White Win = 2.5 >> Black Win = 3.0 >> Draw = 1 >> Loss = 0 > > Hmm. Looks like a lot of people will be getting paid > to throw their games as White. And many dead-drawn > positions will now "inexplicably" be won. that is the American desease, to conspire and cheat for money. if its money you detest, take it away! >> I think this is the best compromise, which would work as well at high >> levels >> as for the rest of us. > > Maybe the rest of us don't need any changes at all? > Or maybe this *is* a solution, because its implementation > would accidentally serve to accentuate the real problem > here: that of cheating. Once even the dullards are made > aware of the /real/ problem, there is a chance it might be > addressed head-on (but I'm not holding my breath). I do not understand these comments. It is not proved cheating to take early draws - though the moves themselves are tacit invitations to draw. That is the /current/ scenario. Therefore, that is problematical. If players do not wish to do this, then they can play for a win, and also get the reward for it - which seems to me, motivational. Phil Innes > > -- help bot >   Date: 17 Dec 2007 20:09:42 From: help bot Subject: Re: On draws On Dec 7, 2:32 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote: > >> > I can't, and I think the reason is obvious. Most people see > >> > an important *purpose* of a contest being producing a winner. > >> > In that light, ties are just failures. I suppose the "chess as art" school > >> > might sees things differently, but my games at least are way > >> > too ugly to even remotely qualify. > > >> I don't contest this at all; I find it regrettable that people think > >> there must be a winner and a loser. That's not a problem with the > >> game, that is a problem with people. > > > I have noticed that whenever the talking heads write > > about this subject, they seem incapable of coming up > > with any rational explanation as to why they can't deal > > with draws. > It is not a matter of "dealing with" draws. It is a matter > of *understanding* what the impact of drawing strategies > has on the appeal of the game. Understanding that is > at the heart of explaining the disconnect between the > large numbers of people who enjoy chess, and the > miniscule numbers who pay attention to the game's > best players. That's your perspective. I was talking about the many articles in the chess press which tend to dwell upon championship and top-level play; these writers state that draws are not acceptable, but they never are able to back that opinion up with reasoned thought. > > Many such explanations have been put forth. > > For instance, it has often been written that a drawn > > result with co-champions resulting is unacceptable, > > yet nobody seems up to the challenge of explaining > > what exactly is so unacceptable, and who it is that > > can't seem to accept it; one can only assume that > > it is a personal feeling of these writers, and nothing > > more. > > People can "accept" all manner of absurdities, but > you can't make them care. If the players themselves > don't care about winning some "title", then why should > I care. Nobody I know of cares about whether or not you care, so there's no need to figure that one out. ; >D My main points in these draw-problem threads are simply that legitimate draws aren't much of a problem at all; if bogus drawing between grandmasters is the heart of this issue, don't be afraid to tackle it head-on. Don't skirt the issue by pretending that the rules must be changed, or that the "natural" result of a chess game must be a draw. -- help bot     Date: 17 Dec 2007 21:44:05 From: David Kane Subject: Re: On draws "help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > > My main points in these draw-problem threads are > simply that legitimate draws aren't much of a problem > at all; if bogus drawing between grandmasters is the > heart of this issue, don't be afraid to tackle it head-on. The point isn't that there are "legitimate" draws and "bogus" draws. The point is that incentives external to the game are bad for the game. Bogus drawing is merely a symptom of the problem - which is that some moron set up the tournament rules so that it was st to agree to a bogus draw.       Date: 18 Dec 2007 06:26:02 From: Mike Murray Subject: Re: On draws On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 21:44:05 -0800, "David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote: >The point isn't that there are "legitimate" draws >and "bogus" draws. The point is that incentives external >to the game are bad for the game. Bogus drawing is merely >a symptom of the problem - which is that some moron >set up the tournament rules so that it was st to agree to >a bogus draw. Not all the bogus draws are necessarily "st", in the sense of being to the player's immediate financial or tournament advantage. They may just reflect a failure of nerve.         Date: 18 Dec 2007 09:36:57 From: David Kane Subject: Re: On draws "Mike Murray" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 21:44:05 -0800, "David Kane" > <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>The point isn't that there are "legitimate" draws >>and "bogus" draws. The point is that incentives external >>to the game are bad for the game. Bogus drawing is merely >>a symptom of the problem - which is that some moron >>set up the tournament rules so that it was st to agree to >>a bogus draw. > > Not all the bogus draws are necessarily "st", in the sense of being > to the player's immediate financial or tournament advantage. They may > just reflect a failure of nerve. Granted, but it doesn't change the basic idea which is that when the return of playing for a win is low, we end up with lots of draws. To a certain degree, drawing is habit forming and people do not readjust their strategies game by game or even move by move . Players see the benefits of drawing, they revamp their opening repertoires to be drawish, etc. I think one of the reasons that computers have achieved some excellent results in human events is that the humans are put off guard psychologically by the computers' "play the best move" strategy. It's foreign to them. Their not used to their fellow human GMs testing them move after move.   Date: 09 Dec 2007 11:22:17 From: Subject: Re: On draws On Dec 8, 10:51 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote: > "SBD" <[email protected]> wrote in message > > news:25761442-2d97-4813-ad71-834bc49175f9@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On Dec 7, 1:11 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> Fix the product. > > > It doesn't need fixing. > > >>Attract customers. > > > No, his would simply dumb down the game. > > >>Grow the game. > > > Who cares if people can't appreciate chess? They'd rather be watching > > America's Top Model, anyway. Maybe chess is for the few. > > I wonder why you snipped my text that came before: > > "Here is an example of a game between two GMs at the 2007 National Open: > > 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 b6 4. g3 Bb7 5. Bg2 Bb4+ 6. Bd2 a5 7. O-O O-O 8. Nc3 > Ne4 Draw agreed. > > That's not real chess. It's not interesting. But the chess world structures its > events so that the above behavior is part of a rational, winning strategy." I see. So we should eliminate draws, including eliminating the skill necessary to create a strategy and combination to obtain a stalemate, and the skill necessary to create a strategy and combination to obtain perpetual check, just so we won't have to be informed that two guys in some tournament somewhere agreed to a quick draw because they were tired or hungry. How about this? Why don't we eliminate draws AND losses? Then we won't be subjected to all those games where some guy loses in 3 moves to the Fool's mate, and we won't have to be bored by all those pgn files of quick tactical miniatures. Everyone will win, and everyone will be happy! Yay!   Date: 09 Dec 2007 10:57:10 From: Andrew B. Subject: Re: On draws On 8 Dec, 23:03, David Richerby <[email protected] > wrote: > Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/> wrote: > > In Test Cricket, roughly 30% of matches are drawn. A toss taking > > place with no ball being bowled is fairly rare, so the change would > > be, I am guessing, 1% or less. > > There have been approximately 1850 Tests. My guess is that not more > than one or two of those could have been affected by the rule change. Good guess - it's happened once (Australia v England, 3rd test, 1970-1)   Date: 08 Dec 2007 15:18:30 From: zdrakec Subject: Re: On draws On Dec 8, 6:39 am, "M Winther" <[email protected] > wrote: > Den 2007-12-08 08:01:42 skrev David Kane <[email protected]>: > > > > > > > > > "M Winther" <[email protected]> wrote in messagenews:opt2z7c9hb3bzrao@kalroten... > >> Den 2007-12-07 07:10:55 skrev David Kane <[email protected]>: > > >>> "zdrakec" <[email protected]> wrote in message > >>>news:[email protected]... > >>>> Hullo all: > > >>>> Giving some thought to how draws happen over the board, it occurs to > >>>> me that many of the rules in place that allow draws to happen are > >>>> quite arbitrary, and have little or nothing to do with the actual > >>>> movement of the pieces. With that in mind, the following rule changes > >>>> strike me as perhaps interesting: > >>>> 1. Draws may not be agreed. > >>>> 2. Three-fold repetition shall be illegal. That is, the player having > >>>> the move may not make a move that repeats the position for the third > >>>> time. If he has no other legal move, we may regard this as a form of > >>>> stalemate, perhaps. I am not completely sure, but I think that this > >>>> rule would do away with perpetual check. By analogy, I refer to the ko > >>>> rule in Go, which essentially prevents the same position from > >>>> appearing on the board more than once (with some rather esoteric > >>>> exceptions). > >>>> 3. There shall be no 50-move limit. This becomes more practical than > >>>> it once was, in an age where clocks can have a delay, and can add a > >>>> time increment per move. > >>>> 4. Since the object of the game is to place the opponent's king in a > >>>> position from which it cannot avoid being captured, I suggest that > >>>> stalemate should be a loss for the stalemated player. In principal, > >>>> the player who has stalemated his opponent has accomplished the > >>>> priy goal of the game. Of course, this has been suggested many > >>>> times before. > > >>>> I am not certain, but that would seem to leave lack of mating material > >>>> as the sole way to draw a game. Naturally, there can still be abuse, > >>>> but it would, I think, tend to be obvious... > > >>> Actually, if you disallow the current drawing methods, make repetition > >>> illegal, and define an inability to make a legal move as losing stalemate, > >>> then there would never by *any* draws! (Even K vs. K would be > >>> decisive because positions would eventually repeat.) Of course it wouldn't be > >>> chess exactly since endgame theory would change dramatically, and > >>> it wouldn't objectively be a good game (because it could take quite > >>> a long time to exhaust all possible board positions), but it strikes me > >>> as a very interesting intellectual exercize. > > >>> . > > >> You can't be quite serious. An alternative is to change the properties > >> of the pawn a little, as in "Improved Chess" > >>http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/improvedchess.htm > >> or Reformed Chess > >>http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/reformedchess.htm > >> or perhaps change the properties of the Rook a little, thus to increase > >> winning chances > >>http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/warlockchess.htm > > > My view is that making statelemate a win and (possibly) disallowing > > repetition would be an objectively superior game to chess. But I do not > > favor those changes. Chess has a lot of history behind it and changing > > the fundamental rules of the game should not be done > > lightly. On the other hand, trying different tournament > > formats, scoring, etc., that is changing the chess meta-game, *should* > > be experimented with - frequently and radically. > > My point is that the the referenced variants do *not* change the > fundamental rules of chess much. Strategy and tactics remain largely > the same. A pawn has a little extra capability if (1) it has passed > the middle line and (2) is blocked. This is not such a huge difference > in termes of rules, but it makes a huge difference on the score table. > Draws will be much fewer will endgames will be much less drawish. > > A big problem about orthochess is the drawishness of endgames > "All rook endings are drawn", said Tartakower(?). It is not so in > Chinese Chess and Korean Chess. Addressing the drawishness > of orthochess implies reducing drawishness of the endgame. > > Mats- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Actually, you can change how the pieces move all you want...it still would not change the result of a game the players have decided will be a draw after, say, 20 moves or so....so long as draws may be agreed.... Regards, zdrakec     Date: 09 Dec 2007 09:46:11 From: M Winther Subject: Re: On draws Den 2007-12-09 00:18:30 skrev zdrakec <[email protected] >: > On Dec 8, 6:39 am, "M Winther" <[email protected]> wrote: >> Den 2007-12-08 08:01:42 skrev David Kane <[email protected]>: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > "M Winther" <[email protected]> wrote in messagenews:opt2z7c9hb3bzrao@kalroten... >> >> Den 2007-12-07 07:10:55 skrev David Kane <[email protected]>: >> >> >>> "zdrakec" <[email protected]> wrote in message >> >>>news:[email protected]... >> >>>> Hullo all: >> >> >>>> Giving some thought to how draws happen over the board, it occurs to >> >>>> me that many of the rules in place that allow draws to happen are >> >>>> quite arbitrary, and have little or nothing to do with the actual >> >>>> movement of the pieces. With that in mind, the following rule changes >> >>>> strike me as perhaps interesting: >> >>>> 1. Draws may not be agreed. >> >>>> 2. Three-fold repetition shall be illegal. That is, the player having >> >>>> the move may not make a move that repeats the position for the third >> >>>> time. If he has no other legal move, we may regard this as a form of >> >>>> stalemate, perhaps. I am not completely sure, but I think that this >> >>>> rule would do away with perpetual check. By analogy, I refer to the ko >> >>>> rule in Go, which essentially prevents the same position from >> >>>> appearing on the board more than once (with some rather esoteric >> >>>> exceptions). >> >>>> 3. There shall be no 50-move limit. This becomes more practical than >> >>>> it once was, in an age where clocks can have a delay, and can add a >> >>>> time increment per move. >> >>>> 4. Since the object of the game is to place the opponent's king in a >> >>>> position from which it cannot avoid being captured, I suggest that >> >>>> stalemate should be a loss for the stalemated player. In principal, >> >>>> the player who has stalemated his opponent has accomplished the >> >>>> priy goal of the game. Of course, this has been suggested many >> >>>> times before. >> >> >>>> I am not certain, but that would seem to leave lack of mating material >> >>>> as the sole way to draw a game. Naturally, there can still be abuse, >> >>>> but it would, I think, tend to be obvious... >> >> >>> Actually, if you disallow the current drawing methods, make repetition >> >>> illegal, and define an inability to make a legal move as losing stalemate, >> >>> then there would never by *any* draws! (Even K vs. K would be >> >>> decisive because positions would eventually repeat.) Of course it wouldn't be >> >>> chess exactly since endgame theory would change dramatically, and >> >>> it wouldn't objectively be a good game (because it could take quite >> >>> a long time to exhaust all possible board positions), but it strikes me >> >>> as a very interesting intellectual exercize. >> >> >>> . >> >> >> You can't be quite serious. An alternative is to change the properties >> >> of the pawn a little, as in "Improved Chess" >> >>http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/improvedchess.htm >> >> or Reformed Chess >> >>http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/reformedchess.htm >> >> or perhaps change the properties of the Rook a little, thus to increase >> >> winning chances >> >>http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/warlockchess.htm >> >> > My view is that making statelemate a win and (possibly) disallowing >> > repetition would be an objectively superior game to chess. But I do not >> > favor those changes. Chess has a lot of history behind it and changing >> > the fundamental rules of the game should not be done >> > lightly. On the other hand, trying different tournament >> > formats, scoring, etc., that is changing the chess meta-game, *should* >> > be experimented with - frequently and radically. >> >> My point is that the the referenced variants do *not* change the >> fundamental rules of chess much. Strategy and tactics remain largely >> the same. A pawn has a little extra capability if (1) it has passed >> the middle line and (2) is blocked. This is not such a huge difference >> in termes of rules, but it makes a huge difference on the score table. >> Draws will be much fewer will endgames will be much less drawish. >> >> A big problem about orthochess is the drawishness of endgames >> "All rook endings are drawn", said Tartakower(?). It is not so in >> Chinese Chess and Korean Chess. Addressing the drawishness >> of orthochess implies reducing drawishness of the endgame. >> >> Mats- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > Actually, you can change how the pieces move all you want...it still > would not change the result of a game the players have decided will be > a draw after, say, 20 moves or so....so long as draws may be > agreed.... > > Regards, > zdrakec > But then they cannot position themselves high up in the score table. Other players will utilize the fact that the endgame is now less drawish to get more points. Those who decide for cowardly draws will lag behind. Mats   Date: 08 Dec 2007 05:05:50 From: SBD Subject: Re: On draws On Dec 7, 1:11 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote: > > Fix the product. It doesn't need fixing. >Attract customers. No, his would simply dumb down the game. >Grow the game. Who cares if people can't appreciate chess? They'd rather be watching America's Top Model, anyway. Maybe chess is for the few.     Date: 08 Dec 2007 19:51:31 From: David Kane Subject: Re: On draws "SBD" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:25761442-2d97-4813-ad71-834bc49175f9@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > On Dec 7, 1:11 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> Fix the product. > > It doesn't need fixing. > > >>Attract customers. > > No, his would simply dumb down the game. > > >>Grow the game. > > Who cares if people can't appreciate chess? They'd rather be watching > America's Top Model, anyway. Maybe chess is for the few. > I wonder why you snipped my text that came before: "Here is an example of a game between two GMs at the 2007 National Open: 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 b6 4. g3 Bb7 5. Bg2 Bb4+ 6. Bd2 a5 7. O-O O-O 8. Nc3 Ne4 Draw agreed. That's not real chess. It's not interesting. But the chess world structures its events so that the above behavior is part of a rational, winning strategy." I hope that it is because your honesty would not have permitted you to claim "It doesn't need fixing" with that still up on your screen. I happened to spend the day at a scholastic tournament with 200+ players (the few?). Sorry, there was no last round "chess" like the above. You are not defending chess. You are defending chess' absurdities.   Date: 07 Dec 2007 13:15:29 From: Subject: Re: On draws On Dec 7, 1:23 pm, zdrakec <[email protected] > wrote: >> Actually, of all the suggestions I offered, the "stalemate=loss" was > the one I thought the most reasonable. Not because it wouldn't have a > major impact on the praxis of the game - for it surely would, and for > that reason alone I imagine will never be seriously considered - but > because, as I mentioned above, it seems to me that the player who has > stalemated his opponent has satisfied the basic object of the game: to > place his opponent in a situation from which his king cannot avoid > being captured. Since when is the object of war to prevent somebody from moving? If a king surrounds another's king's city, but can't actually capture the king and seize the town, then all they are going to do is stare at each other across the moat, and the king on the ground will be expending his country's resources forever. Isn't this where the idea of stalemate came from in the first place? "Draw" is just another outcome. "Black to move and draw" is just as valid a problem as "White to move and win". Since draws are penalized (you lose half a point), if you keep drawing you will eventually be outscored (and out-rated). E   Date: 07 Dec 2007 10:48:29 From: help bot Subject: Re: On draws On Dec 7, 11:43 am, SBD <[email protected] > wrote: > On Dec 6, 11:56 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Don't you think that its noteworthy that in most sports ties are > > either impossible or fairly rare, and in those sports where they are > > possible, most of them have taken some steps to reduce their > > number? (tiebreaks, OTs, scoring incentives etc.) > > I'd be curious if you could name a single sport that has > > gone the other direction -where rules which produced decisive > > results were amended in order to produce more "well-played" ties? > > > I can't, and I think the reason is obvious. Most people see > > an important *purpose* of a contest being producing a winner. > > In that light, ties are just failures. I suppose the "chess as art" school > > might sees things differently, but my games at least are way > > too ugly to even remotely qualify. > > I don't contest this at all; I find it regrettable that people think > there must be a winner and a loser. That's not a problem with the > game, that is a problem with people. I have noticed that whenever the talking heads write about this subject, they seem incapable of coming up with any rational explanation as to why they can't deal with draws. For instance, it has often been written that a drawn result with co-champions resulting is unacceptable, yet nobody seems up to the challenge of explaining what exactly is so unacceptable, and who it is that can't seem to accept it; one can only assume that it is a personal feeling of these writers, and nothing more. Much ado has been made of the unfairness of rematch clauses and who-gets-what in cases of a would-be tied match, but obviously some of these problems would vanish if draws resulted in co- champions, then on to the next world championship cycle (where both would of course be seeded). As for individual games, there was a time when draws were so rejected that players who drew had to replay such games, but again I have seen no good reason for this attitude. The only prizes which can't readily be split are trophies and 300' yachts; come to think of it, the yacht could be traded for two smaller ones with on-board mini- subines. -- help bot     Date: 07 Dec 2007 11:32:11 From: David Kane Subject: Re: On draws "help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > On Dec 7, 11:43 am, SBD <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Dec 6, 11:56 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > Don't you think that its noteworthy that in most sports ties are >> > either impossible or fairly rare, and in those sports where they are >> > possible, most of them have taken some steps to reduce their >> > number? (tiebreaks, OTs, scoring incentives etc.) >> > I'd be curious if you could name a single sport that has >> > gone the other direction -where rules which produced decisive >> > results were amended in order to produce more "well-played" ties? >> >> > I can't, and I think the reason is obvious. Most people see >> > an important *purpose* of a contest being producing a winner. >> > In that light, ties are just failures. I suppose the "chess as art" school >> > might sees things differently, but my games at least are way >> > too ugly to even remotely qualify. >> >> I don't contest this at all; I find it regrettable that people think >> there must be a winner and a loser. That's not a problem with the >> game, that is a problem with people. > > I have noticed that whenever the talking heads write > about this subject, they seem incapable of coming up > with any rational explanation as to why they can't deal > with draws. It is not a matter of "dealing with" draws. It is a matter of *understanding* what the impact of drawing strategies has on the appeal of the game. Understanding that is at the heart of explaining the disconnect between the large numbers of people who enjoy chess, and the miniscule numbers who pay attention to the game's best players. >Many such explanations have been put forth. > For instance, it has often been written that a drawn > result with co-champions resulting is unacceptable, > yet nobody seems up to the challenge of explaining > what exactly is so unacceptable, and who it is that > can't seem to accept it; one can only assume that > it is a personal feeling of these writers, and nothing > more. People can "accept" all manner of absurdities, but you can't make them care. If the players themselves don't care about winning some "title", then why should I care.   Date: 07 Dec 2007 10:23:46 From: zdrakec Subject: Re: On draws On Dec 7, 12:02 pm, Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote: > zdrakec wrote: > > >Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/> wrote: > > >> zdrakec wrote: > > >> >Giving some thought to how draws happen over the board > >> ... > >> >the following rule changes strike me as perhaps interesting: > > >> May I suggest starting with a logical argument as to why draws are > >> undesirable? > > >I guess I should be clear: I do not feel that draws are undesirable. > >I feel that draws which are a result of an unwillingness to risk a > >decision are undesirable. The suggestions I offered all flow from the > >notion of preventing such chess. > > Alas, there is no reliable way of measuring intent, and thus the rules > cannot disallow draws which are a result of an unwillingness to risk a > decision while allowing draws that are the result of other motives. > > My opinion is that the game of Chess is OK as it is. I see > no problems that justify anything other than minor tweaks. > I would consider not allowing draw offers before N moves to be > a minor tweak. I would consider turning stalemate into a loss > to be a major -- and unjustified -- change in the game of Chess. > > -- > Guy Macon > <http://www.guymacon.com/>- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Actually, of all the suggestions I offered, the "stalemate=loss" was the one I thought the most reasonable. Not because it wouldn't have a major impact on the praxis of the game - for it surely would, and for that reason alone I imagine will never be seriously considered - but because, as I mentioned above, it seems to me that the player who has stalemated his opponent has satisfied the basic object of the game: to place his opponent in a situation from which his king cannot avoid being captured. I guess I find declaring stalemate to be a draw, as opposed to a win, to be somewhat arbitrary, and even illogical, given the object of the game. You will note that none of my suggestions would alter how the pieces move; rather, they alter the actual conduct of the game by the players, or how a particular result on the board (stalemate) should be interpreted. This is because I, too, think that chess is OK as it is! Warmest regards, zdrakec     Date: 08 Dec 2007 23:16:13 From: David Richerby Subject: Re: On draws zdrakec <[email protected] > wrote: > Actually, of all the suggestions I offered, the "stalemate=loss" was > the one I thought the most reasonable. [...] it seems to me that the > player who has stalemated his opponent has satisfied the basic > object of the game: to place his opponent in a situation from which > his king cannot avoid being captured. You misunderstand. The goal of chess is to checkmate the enemy king. The fact that stalemate is a draw proves that the goal of the game is not to force the capture the enemy king. Dave. -- David Richerby Swiss Monk (TM): it's like a man of www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ God but it's made in Switzerland!     Date: 07 Dec 2007 14:34:43 From: Chess One Subject: Re: On draws "zdrakec" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:5b0720d6-eeb5-4d55-9dfe-d6e62b9968ca@l16g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... >> Alas, there is no reliable way of measuring intent, and thus the rules >> cannot disallow draws which are a result of an unwillingness to risk a >> decision while allowing draws that are the result of other motives. yes, and, with your further comment:- > I guess I find declaring stalemate to be a draw, as opposed to a win, > to be somewhat arbitrary, and even illogical, given the object of the > game. 2 draws should not equate with one win for the simple reason that the player has not proven that he can win, and should also not be scored the same. at the same time draws including stalemate should not equate with a loss. What is the right balance of scoring, that would also optimise trying to win chess games? recently experiments have begun which do not change the rules of the game, but change the score, so that for example, W=3 D=1 L=0. this provides a motivation to not take a 'safe' draw, since in effect it gives up a whole point to any winner a slightly more contention idea to both resolve the draw issue, and also poor scores by black, is to use the scoring system: White Win = 2.5 Black Win = 3.0 Draw = 1 Loss = 0 I think this is the best compromise, which would work as well at high levels as for the rest of us. Phil Innes   Date: 07 Dec 2007 18:02:48 From: Guy Macon Subject: Re: On draws zdrakec wrote: > >Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/> wrote: > >> zdrakec wrote: >> >> >Giving some thought to how draws happen over the board >> ... >> >the following rule changes strike me as perhaps interesting: >> >> May I suggest starting with a logical argument as to why draws are >> undesirable? > >I guess I should be clear: I do not feel that draws are undesirable. >I feel that draws which are a result of an unwillingness to risk a >decision are undesirable. The suggestions I offered all flow from the >notion of preventing such chess. Alas, there is no reliable way of measuring intent, and thus the rules cannot disallow draws which are a result of an unwillingness to risk a decision while allowing draws that are the result of other motives. My opinion is that the game of Chess is OK as it is. I see no problems that justify anything other than minor tweaks. I would consider not allowing draw offers before N moves to be a minor tweak. I would consider turning stalemate into a loss to be a major -- and unjustified -- change in the game of Chess. -- Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ >   Date: 07 Dec 2007 08:43:42 From: SBD Subject: Re: On draws On Dec 6, 11:56 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote: > Don't you think that its noteworthy that in most sports ties are > either impossible or fairly rare, and in those sports where they are > possible, most of them have taken some steps to reduce their > number? (tiebreaks, OTs, scoring incentives etc.) > I'd be curious if you could name a single sport that has > gone the other direction -where rules which produced decisive > results were amended in order to produce more "well-played" ties? > > I can't, and I think the reason is obvious. Most people see > an important *purpose* of a contest being producing a winner. > In that light, ties are just failures. I suppose the "chess as art" school > might sees things differently, but my games at least are way > too ugly to even remotely qualify. I don't contest this at all; I find it regrettable that people think there must be a winner and a loser. That's not a problem with the game, that is a problem with people.   Date: 07 Dec 2007 08:10:16 From: help bot Subject: Re: On draws On Dec 7, 9:33 am, Anders Thulin <[email protected] > wrote: > zdrakec wrote: > > Thanks for the feedback. I also see no problem with draws per se, I > > simply think that allowing one to be agreed is arbitrary and > > artificial. I guess what I mean is that the draw should be the logical > > outcome of the play, not the outcome of the players' possible > > unwillingness to risk a decision. > > If it was a case of a single game, I think you are right. But > in a tournament, there are many games, one after another, more or less. > And a player soon gets to understand that there are two 'games': > one to play the single game, and the other to last through the tournament. > > In that second context, the agreed draw make reasonably good sense. Only under certain conditions. Let's suppose that we are talking about a Swiss, and there are no prizes for the bottom or middle finishers -- only first, second, etc. Now, while there can be exceptions, it generally hurts to take a draw because that pulls one's score toward the middle, where there are no prizes. Contrast that to playing to win, and it becomes clear that risky (or what is often referred to as "enterprising") play is the order of the day. If you have "appearance fees" and prizes galore, even for middle finishers, that's a whole different ball game; but then, who made anybody choose to do it that way? It sounds like self-inflicted pain. As an example, I notice that late entrants -- who are generally given a half-point bye or a zero -- are having grave difficulties in overcoming this sizable handicap. Yes, they may well be better-rested than the other players, but by golly that just ain't enough most of the time. One area where a draw "works" is in matches, because if a player manages to get a draw as Black, he will automatically get the advantage of the first move in the next game. Also note that nobody is making headway in this case; both get the same half-point. -- help bot   Date: 07 Dec 2007 07:52:49 From: zdrakec Subject: Re: On draws On Dec 7, 9:27 am, David Richerby <[email protected] > wrote: > zdrakec <[email protected]> wrote: > > Anders Thulin <[email protected]> wrote: > >> And a player soon gets to understand that there are two 'games': > >> one to play the single game, and the other to last through the > >> tournament. > > >> In that second context, the agreed draw make reasonably good sense. > > > Hiya Anders, thanks for your thoughts. I can only reply with something > > I read over on ChessBase today: > > "Karjakin-Alekseev made an uneventful draw: the players stopped > > playing in a position when the battle just started to begin." > > That's just the sort of thing I'd like to see go away. > > The suggestion is that, if you made Karjakin and Alekseev fight in > this game, they'd be more tired later in the tournament, so be more > likely to make blunders (or that it's already late in the tournament > and they're already tired). It's not clear, of course, whether the > extra entertainment of seeing them fight in this round would > compensate for the additional tendency to blunder through tiredness > later on. > > Dave. > > -- > David Richerby Impossible Painting (TM): it's likewww.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a Renaissance masterpiece but it > can't exist! Oh, I understood Anders' point entirely. I just don't agree with the notion that keeping an eye on one's performance in the tournament as a whole justifies a lack of effort at any particular stage of that tournament. Of course, Anders is not saying that it does; just that it makes good sense on the part of the player, which is certainly true. I'd like to see that sort of thing go away, is all. Of course, I understand that FIDE will not have me editing the Laws of Chess anytime soon... :) Regards, zdrakec     Date: 07 Dec 2007 11:11:04 From: David Kane Subject: Re: On draws "zdrakec" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > On Dec 7, 9:27 am, David Richerby <[email protected]> > wrote: >> zdrakec <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Anders Thulin <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> And a player soon gets to understand that there are two 'games': >> >> one to play the single game, and the other to last through the >> >> tournament. >> >> >> In that second context, the agreed draw make reasonably good sense. >> >> > Hiya Anders, thanks for your thoughts. I can only reply with something >> > I read over on ChessBase today: >> > "Karjakin-Alekseev made an uneventful draw: the players stopped >> > playing in a position when the battle just started to begin." >> > That's just the sort of thing I'd like to see go away. >> >> The suggestion is that, if you made Karjakin and Alekseev fight in >> this game, they'd be more tired later in the tournament, so be more >> likely to make blunders (or that it's already late in the tournament >> and they're already tired). It's not clear, of course, whether the >> extra entertainment of seeing them fight in this round would >> compensate for the additional tendency to blunder through tiredness >> later on. >> >> Dave. >> >> -- >> David Richerby Impossible Painting (TM): it's >> likewww.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a Renaissance masterpiece but >> it >> can't exist! > > Oh, I understood Anders' point entirely. I just don't agree with the > notion that keeping an eye on one's performance in the tournament as a > whole justifies a lack of effort at any particular stage of that > tournament. Of course, Anders is not saying that it does; just that it > makes good sense on the part of the player, which is certainly true. > I'd like to see that sort of thing go away, is all. > Of course, I understand that FIDE will not have me editing the Laws of > Chess anytime soon... :) > Regards, > zdrakec There is a joke that I once saw that shows the opening position in chess, and someone is examining the position and says "Hmmm. A very interesting position..." While I understand the humor, the reality is that it simply isn't true. Chess *isn't* inherently interesting. Chess' interesting positions come from playing *real* chess. Here is an example of a game between two GMs at the 2007 National Open: 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 b6 4. g3 Bb7 5. Bg2 Bb4+ 6. Bd2 a5 7. O-O O-O 8. Nc3 Ne4 Draw agreed. That's not real chess. It's not interesting. But the chess world structures its events so that the above behavior is part of a rational, winning strategy. And if you think there is no connection between this fact and the fact that chess relies on the generosity of dictators, you are sadly mistaken. Fix the product. Attract customers. Grow the game.   Date: 07 Dec 2007 07:16:05 From: zdrakec Subject: Re: On draws On Dec 6, 7:18 pm, Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote: > zdrakec wrote: > >Giving some thought to how draws happen over the board > ... > >the following rule changes strike me as perhaps interesting: > > May I suggest starting with a logical argument as to why draws are > undesirable? I guess I should be clear: I do not feel that draws are undesirable. I feel that draws which are a result of an unwillingness to risk a decision are undesirable. The suggestions I offered all flow from the notion of preventing such chess. Warm regards, zdrakec > > > > >Draws may not be agreed. > ... > >that would seem to leave lack of mating material as the sole way > >to draw a game > > Which means that draws *can* be agreed, simply by trading down until > both sides lack sufficient mating material. > > >Since the object of the game is to place the opponent's king in a > >position from which it cannot avoid being captured, I suggest that > >stalemate should be a loss for the stalemated player. > > This would completely change endgame strategy -- not a thing to do > lightly without at least playtesting hundreds of games first. > > >Thoughts? > > My opinion is that the game of Chess is OK as is is. I see no > problems that justify anything other than minor tweaks. That's > why I would like discussions like this to start with an argument > as to what is wrong with the current game; most discussions like > this start with an unexamined assumption that something is wrong > with the current game. > > -- > Guy Macon > <http://www.guymacon.com/>   Date: 07 Dec 2007 07:14:13 From: zdrakec Subject: Re: On draws On Dec 6, 6:10 pm, David Richerby <[email protected] > wrote: > zdrakec <[email protected]> wrote: > >1. Draws may not be agreed. > >2. Three-fold repetition shall be illegal. That is, the player having > > the move may not make a move that repeats the position for the > > third time. > > This is a book-keeping nighte. As it is, if the players miss an > opportunity to claim a draw by repetition, nothing happens. Under > your proposed rule, if the players don't notice a repetition, one of > them has made an illegal move. > > > By analogy, I refer to the ko rule in Go, which essentially > > prevents the same position from appearing on the board more than > > once (with some rather esoteric exceptions). > > The exceptions aren't esoteric at all. There are two versions of the > ko rule: one says you can't repeat a position, ever, period; the other > says that your move cannot return the board to the state it was in > after your last move. I respectfully refer you to the "Ten-thousand year ko". > > > 3. There shall be no 50-move limit. This becomes more practical than > > it once was, in an age where clocks can have a delay, and can add > > a time increment per move. > > It become *less* practical than it once was, in an age where > tournaments with multiple rounds in a day are common. > > > 4. Since the object of the game is to place the opponent's king in a > > position from which it cannot avoid being captured, I suggest that > > stalemate should be a loss for the stalemated player. In > > principal, the player who has stalemated his opponent has > > accomplished the priy goal of the game. Of course, this has > > been suggested many times before. > > Indeed, it has been suggested many times before. And every time it is > suggested, somebody points out that the proposed change means that > essentially any pawn-up endgame is won, which means that players will > be much less willing to sacrifice pawns and will lead to duller chess. > > > I am not certain, but that would seem to leave lack of mating > > material as the sole way to draw a game. > > That is correct. > > Dave. > > -- > David Richerby Hilarious Drink (TM): it's like awww.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ refreshing juice beverage but it's a > bundle of laughs!   Date: 07 Dec 2007 07:11:44 From: zdrakec Subject: Re: On draws On Dec 7, 8:33 am, Anders Thulin <[email protected] > wrote: > zdrakec wrote: > > Thanks for the feedback. I also see no problem with draws per se, I > > simply think that allowing one to be agreed is arbitrary and > > artificial. I guess what I mean is that the draw should be the logical > > outcome of the play, not the outcome of the players' possible > > unwillingness to risk a decision. > > If it was a case of a single game, I think you are right. But > in a tournament, there are many games, one after another, more or less. > And a player soon gets to understand that there are two 'games': > one to play the single game, and the other to last through the tournament. > > In that second context, the agreed draw make reasonably good sense. > > -- > Anders Thulin anders*thulin.name http://www.anders.thulin.name/ Hiya Anders, thanks for your thoughts. I can only reply with something I read over on ChessBase today: "Karjakin-Alekseev made an uneventful draw: the players stopped playing in a position when the battle just started to begin." That's just the sort of thing I'd like to see go away. Best regards, zdrakec     Date: 07 Dec 2007 15:27:52 From: David Richerby Subject: Re: On draws zdrakec <[email protected] > wrote: > Anders Thulin <[email protected]> wrote: >> And a player soon gets to understand that there are two 'games': >> one to play the single game, and the other to last through the >> tournament. >> >> In that second context, the agreed draw make reasonably good sense. > > Hiya Anders, thanks for your thoughts. I can only reply with something > I read over on ChessBase today: > "Karjakin-Alekseev made an uneventful draw: the players stopped > playing in a position when the battle just started to begin." > That's just the sort of thing I'd like to see go away. The suggestion is that, if you made Karjakin and Alekseev fight in this game, they'd be more tired later in the tournament, so be more likely to make blunders (or that it's already late in the tournament and they're already tired). It's not clear, of course, whether the extra entertainment of seeing them fight in this round would compensate for the additional tendency to blunder through tiredness later on. Dave. -- David Richerby Impossible Painting (TM): it's like www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a Renaissance masterpiece but it can't exist!   Date: 07 Dec 2007 06:43:53 From: Larry Tapper Subject: Re: On draws On Dec 7, 12:56 am, "David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote: DK > ...I'd be curious if you could name a single sport that has gone the other direction -where rules which produced decisive results were amended in order to produce more "well-played" ties? DK > I can't, and I think the reason is obvious. Most people see an important *purpose* of a contest being producing a winner. In that light, ties are just failures. I suppose the "chess as art" school might sees things differently, but my games at least are way too ugly to even remotely qualify. The "chess as science" school might see things differently, too. The only school that _clearly_ sees things the way DK does is "chess as mass entertainment". I do not mean to scoff at the plight of chess professionals who hope to make a better living. That is a legitimate concern. I just think the debate should be seen for what it is. LT     Date: 07 Dec 2007 10:34:41 From: David Kane Subject: Re: On draws "Larry Tapper" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > On Dec 7, 12:56 am, "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote: > > DK> ...I'd be curious if you could name a single sport that has > gone the other direction -where rules which produced decisive > results were amended in order to produce more "well-played" ties? > > DK> I can't, and I think the reason is obvious. Most people see > an important *purpose* of a contest being producing a winner. > In that light, ties are just failures. I suppose the "chess as art" > school > might sees things differently, but my games at least are way > too ugly to even remotely qualify. > > The "chess as science" school might see things differently, too. The > only school that _clearly_ sees things the way DK does is "chess as > mass entertainment". Who said anything about "mass" entertainment? My contention is that if we got rid of the ~50% of draws that stem from players having little to no incentive to try to win even before the game begins, then we've made the game at least ginally more interesting with no downside. > I do not mean to scoff at the plight of chess professionals who hope > to make a better living. That is a legitimate concern. I just think > the debate should be seen for what it is. > I don't believe that making the game more interesting to follow benefits only chess professionals. It benefits everyone who enjoys chess. By the way, do you have a single other example of a game or sport that has chosen to amend its rules to increase the tie rate? Even in chess, the 1867 scoring system (draws = 0.5) was not introduced with the *purpose* of producing boring drawfests. It was an unintended consequence of a change made for *other* reasons.   Date: 07 Dec 2007 03:27:16 From: help bot Subject: Re: On draws On Dec 6, 8:16 pm, Kenneth Sloan <[email protected] > wrote: > > You're going to need a better justification than that. Chess as a > > whole is arbitrary and artificial! Why does the little horsey move in > > L-shapes? > > the horsey does NOT move in L-shapes. The horsey moves in a straight > line - directly to any square which is closest to the original square > without touching (8-connected) the original square. That is not correct. Moving in a straight line can knock over other men, so the correct method is to JUMP the horsey over them, landing neatly on the forefeet. I saw it done in The Mask of Zorro, I think. --- Where DR really went wrong was in LEAPING to the conclusion that pawn sacrifices dictate the level of interest in the play. In reality, having a single pawn advantage be decisive by rule would lead to a complete re-evaluation of piece values, most likely a devaluation in which their sacrifice becomes even more common, while pawn sac's recede. -- help bot   Date: 07 Dec 2007 03:16:17 From: help bot Subject: Re: On draws On Dec 6, 7:01 pm, David Richerby <[email protected] > wrote: > help bot <[email protected]> wrote: > > The problem with premature agreements to draw is already handled by > > the rules (which however, are not properly enforced). > > Please cite the FIDE Law Of course, David Richerby has no quote of me stating that there is a *FIDE* law which handles this problem. Here in America, "we" play under the auspices of the mighty USCF (you may have heard of it via Sam Sloan), which has its own rules for competitive play. Just to make a point, whenever discussion has turned to the ratings of posters here, it is normal and custoy to specify "FIDE" when one is talking about something other than USCF ratings -- that's how dominant (in terms of numbers) "we" Americans are on these forums, how focused it is on the wanky world of chess in the USA. The exception is where the talk centers on titles like IGM, IM, FM, or where the numbers are in that same range (i.e. 2450-euros Phil Innes). At one time, I was up on all the latest nuances of Tim Redman-tweakings, but lately, I have begun to focus more on winning on the board, not on time or by a random technicality. So allow me to merely paraphrase the rule I mentioned, rather than do an authoritative quote: *It is forbidden for two players to agree to a draw before a real contest (understood: "of skill") has begun.* What this means is that after 1. e4 e5, 2. Nc3 ...Nc6, 3. Nb1 Nb8, it is illegal to agree to a draw "between friends" -- because of the above rule. In practice, things are not always crystal-clear; for example, I have accepted (but never made) a draw offer while still in the late opening, because I felt that playing on was tantamount to suicide, having already been clearly outplayed. A petty pedant could take the move number by itself and work up a case that this was "cheating". > that prohibits the players from agreeing a > draw in a position that isn't obviously drawn? As for FIDE, their rules can assume the presence of arbiters at every board -- as unreal a fantasy as time travel, aliens who look and talk like humans, or 2.7% real inflation. One day I might just play in some big tournament and later have someone come up to me and say: "are you aware that since you lost to five FIDE-rated players in a row, your result qualifies for FIDE-rating purposes?" That's when you'll see a posting here, asking how to calculate a FIDE rating where you have lost every game. 'Till then, let the delusional posters talk of their 2450 FIDE ratings and near-titles; let them imagine themselves as competing for world titles, under the wicked honchos of FIDE (with an omniscient arbiter at the board!). -- help bot   Date: 06 Dec 2007 22:10:55 From: David Kane Subject: Re: On draws "zdrakec" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > Hullo all: > > Giving some thought to how draws happen over the board, it occurs to > me that many of the rules in place that allow draws to happen are > quite arbitrary, and have little or nothing to do with the actual > movement of the pieces. With that in mind, the following rule changes > strike me as perhaps interesting: > 1. Draws may not be agreed. > 2. Three-fold repetition shall be illegal. That is, the player having > the move may not make a move that repeats the position for the third > time. If he has no other legal move, we may regard this as a form of > stalemate, perhaps. I am not completely sure, but I think that this > rule would do away with perpetual check. By analogy, I refer to the ko > rule in Go, which essentially prevents the same position from > appearing on the board more than once (with some rather esoteric > exceptions). > 3. There shall be no 50-move limit. This becomes more practical than > it once was, in an age where clocks can have a delay, and can add a > time increment per move. > 4. Since the object of the game is to place the opponent's king in a > position from which it cannot avoid being captured, I suggest that > stalemate should be a loss for the stalemated player. In principal, > the player who has stalemated his opponent has accomplished the > priy goal of the game. Of course, this has been suggested many > times before. > > I am not certain, but that would seem to leave lack of mating material > as the sole way to draw a game. Naturally, there can still be abuse, > but it would, I think, tend to be obvious... Actually, if you disallow the current drawing methods, make repetition illegal, and define an inability to make a legal move as losing stalemate, then there would never by *any* draws! (Even K vs. K would be decisive because positions would eventually repeat.) Of course it wouldn't be chess exactly since endgame theory would change dramatically, and it wouldn't objectively be a good game (because it could take quite a long time to exhaust all possible board positions), but it strikes me as a very interesting intellectual exercize. .     Date: 08 Dec 2007 07:37:47 From: M Winther Subject: Re: On draws Den 2007-12-07 07:10:55 skrev David Kane <[email protected] >: > > "zdrakec" <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected]... >> Hullo all: >> >> Giving some thought to how draws happen over the board, it occurs to >> me that many of the rules in place that allow draws to happen are >> quite arbitrary, and have little or nothing to do with the actual >> movement of the pieces. With that in mind, the following rule changes >> strike me as perhaps interesting: >> 1. Draws may not be agreed. >> 2. Three-fold repetition shall be illegal. That is, the player having >> the move may not make a move that repeats the position for the third >> time. If he has no other legal move, we may regard this as a form of >> stalemate, perhaps. I am not completely sure, but I think that this >> rule would do away with perpetual check. By analogy, I refer to the ko >> rule in Go, which essentially prevents the same position from >> appearing on the board more than once (with some rather esoteric >> exceptions). >> 3. There shall be no 50-move limit. This becomes more practical than >> it once was, in an age where clocks can have a delay, and can add a >> time increment per move. >> 4. Since the object of the game is to place the opponent's king in a >> position from which it cannot avoid being captured, I suggest that >> stalemate should be a loss for the stalemated player. In principal, >> the player who has stalemated his opponent has accomplished the >> priy goal of the game. Of course, this has been suggested many >> times before. >> >> I am not certain, but that would seem to leave lack of mating material >> as the sole way to draw a game. Naturally, there can still be abuse, >> but it would, I think, tend to be obvious... > > Actually, if you disallow the current drawing methods, make repetition > illegal, and define an inability to make a legal move as losing stalemate, > then there would never by *any* draws! (Even K vs. K would be > decisive because positions would eventually repeat.) Of course it wouldn't be > chess exactly since endgame theory would change dramatically, and > it wouldn't objectively be a good game (because it could take quite > a long time to exhaust all possible board positions), but it strikes me > as a very interesting intellectual exercize. > > . > > > You can't be quite serious. An alternative is to change the properties of the pawn a little, as in "Improved Chess" http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/improvedchess.htm or Reformed Chess http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/reformedchess.htm or perhaps change the properties of the Rook a little, thus to increase winning chances http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/warlockchess.htm Mats       Date: 07 Dec 2007 23:01:42 From: David Kane Subject: Re: On draws "M Winther" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:opt2z7c9hb3bzrao@kalroten... > Den 2007-12-07 07:10:55 skrev David Kane <[email protected]>: > >> >> "zdrakec" <[email protected]> wrote in message >> news:[email protected]... >>> Hullo all: >>> >>> Giving some thought to how draws happen over the board, it occurs to >>> me that many of the rules in place that allow draws to happen are >>> quite arbitrary, and have little or nothing to do with the actual >>> movement of the pieces. With that in mind, the following rule changes >>> strike me as perhaps interesting: >>> 1. Draws may not be agreed. >>> 2. Three-fold repetition shall be illegal. That is, the player having >>> the move may not make a move that repeats the position for the third >>> time. If he has no other legal move, we may regard this as a form of >>> stalemate, perhaps. I am not completely sure, but I think that this >>> rule would do away with perpetual check. By analogy, I refer to the ko >>> rule in Go, which essentially prevents the same position from >>> appearing on the board more than once (with some rather esoteric >>> exceptions). >>> 3. There shall be no 50-move limit. This becomes more practical than >>> it once was, in an age where clocks can have a delay, and can add a >>> time increment per move. >>> 4. Since the object of the game is to place the opponent's king in a >>> position from which it cannot avoid being captured, I suggest that >>> stalemate should be a loss for the stalemated player. In principal, >>> the player who has stalemated his opponent has accomplished the >>> priy goal of the game. Of course, this has been suggested many >>> times before. >>> >>> I am not certain, but that would seem to leave lack of mating material >>> as the sole way to draw a game. Naturally, there can still be abuse, >>> but it would, I think, tend to be obvious... >> >> Actually, if you disallow the current drawing methods, make repetition >> illegal, and define an inability to make a legal move as losing stalemate, >> then there would never by *any* draws! (Even K vs. K would be >> decisive because positions would eventually repeat.) Of course it wouldn't be >> chess exactly since endgame theory would change dramatically, and >> it wouldn't objectively be a good game (because it could take quite >> a long time to exhaust all possible board positions), but it strikes me >> as a very interesting intellectual exercize. >> >> . >> >> >> > > You can't be quite serious. An alternative is to change the properties > of the pawn a little, as in "Improved Chess" > http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/improvedchess.htm > or Reformed Chess > http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/reformedchess.htm > or perhaps change the properties of the Rook a little, thus to increase > winning chances > http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/warlockchess.htm > My view is that making statelemate a win and (possibly) disallowing repetition would be an objectively superior game to chess. But I do not favor those changes. Chess has a lot of history behind it and changing the fundamental rules of the game should not be done lightly. On the other hand, trying different tournament formats, scoring, etc., that is changing the chess meta-game, *should* be experimented with - frequently and radically. > Mats         Date: 08 Dec 2007 12:39:03 From: M Winther Subject: Re: On draws Den 2007-12-08 08:01:42 skrev David Kane <[email protected] >: > > "M Winther" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:opt2z7c9hb3bzrao@kalroten... >> Den 2007-12-07 07:10:55 skrev David Kane <[email protected]>: >> >>> >>> "zdrakec" <[email protected]> wrote in message >>> news:[email protected]... >>>> Hullo all: >>>> >>>> Giving some thought to how draws happen over the board, it occurs to >>>> me that many of the rules in place that allow draws to happen are >>>> quite arbitrary, and have little or nothing to do with the actual >>>> movement of the pieces. With that in mind, the following rule changes >>>> strike me as perhaps interesting: >>>> 1. Draws may not be agreed. >>>> 2. Three-fold repetition shall be illegal. That is, the player having >>>> the move may not make a move that repeats the position for the third >>>> time. If he has no other legal move, we may regard this as a form of >>>> stalemate, perhaps. I am not completely sure, but I think that this >>>> rule would do away with perpetual check. By analogy, I refer to the ko >>>> rule in Go, which essentially prevents the same position from >>>> appearing on the board more than once (with some rather esoteric >>>> exceptions). >>>> 3. There shall be no 50-move limit. This becomes more practical than >>>> it once was, in an age where clocks can have a delay, and can add a >>>> time increment per move. >>>> 4. Since the object of the game is to place the opponent's king in a >>>> position from which it cannot avoid being captured, I suggest that >>>> stalemate should be a loss for the stalemated player. In principal, >>>> the player who has stalemated his opponent has accomplished the >>>> priy goal of the game. Of course, this has been suggested many >>>> times before. >>>> >>>> I am not certain, but that would seem to leave lack of mating material >>>> as the sole way to draw a game. Naturally, there can still be abuse, >>>> but it would, I think, tend to be obvious... >>> >>> Actually, if you disallow the current drawing methods, make repetition >>> illegal, and define an inability to make a legal move as losing stalemate, >>> then there would never by *any* draws! (Even K vs. K would be >>> decisive because positions would eventually repeat.) Of course it wouldn't be >>> chess exactly since endgame theory would change dramatically, and >>> it wouldn't objectively be a good game (because it could take quite >>> a long time to exhaust all possible board positions), but it strikes me >>> as a very interesting intellectual exercize. >>> >>> . >>> >>> >>> >> >> You can't be quite serious. An alternative is to change the properties >> of the pawn a little, as in "Improved Chess" >> http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/improvedchess.htm >> or Reformed Chess >> http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/reformedchess.htm >> or perhaps change the properties of the Rook a little, thus to increase >> winning chances >> http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/warlockchess.htm >> > > My view is that making statelemate a win and (possibly) disallowing > repetition would be an objectively superior game to chess. But I do not > favor those changes. Chess has a lot of history behind it and changing > the fundamental rules of the game should not be done > lightly. On the other hand, trying different tournament > formats, scoring, etc., that is changing the chess meta-game, *should* > be experimented with - frequently and radically. > > My point is that the the referenced variants do *not* change the fundamental rules of chess much. Strategy and tactics remain largely the same. A pawn has a little extra capability if (1) it has passed the middle line and (2) is blocked. This is not such a huge difference in termes of rules, but it makes a huge difference on the score table. Draws will be much fewer will endgames will be much less drawish. A big problem about orthochess is the drawishness of endgames "All rook endings are drawn", said Tartakower(?). It is not so in Chinese Chess and Korean Chess. Addressing the drawishness of orthochess implies reducing drawishness of the endgame. Mats   Date: 06 Dec 2007 21:37:34 From: Offramp Subject: Re: On draws On Dec 6, 10:06 pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote: > On Dec 6, 1:54 pm, zdrakec <[email protected]> wrote: > When not just two, but > many, many grandmasters, for instance, make > a habit of this it destroys the spectator and > sporting value of their games -- on which many > organizers depend financially and otherwise. Anyone who goes to spectate at a chess event deserves everything he gets! How many spectators were the organizers of the Kramnik-Leko match expecting to turn up so that they would make a profit?   Date: 07 Dec 2007 01:18:36 From: Guy Macon Subject: Re: On draws zdrakec wrote: >Giving some thought to how draws happen over the board ... >the following rule changes strike me as perhaps interesting: May I suggest starting with a logical argument as to why draws are undesirable? >Draws may not be agreed. ... >that would seem to leave lack of mating material as the sole way >to draw a game Which means that draws *can* be agreed, simply by trading down until both sides lack sufficient mating material. >Since the object of the game is to place the opponent's king in a >position from which it cannot avoid being captured, I suggest that >stalemate should be a loss for the stalemated player. This would completely change endgame strategy -- not a thing to do lightly without at least playtesting hundreds of games first. >Thoughts? My opinion is that the game of Chess is OK as is is. I see no problems that justify anything other than minor tweaks. That's why I would like discussions like this to start with an argument as to what is wrong with the current game; most discussions like this start with an unexamined assumption that something is wrong with the current game. -- Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ >     Date: 07 Dec 2007 12:14:49 From: David Richerby Subject: Re: On draws Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote: > My opinion is that the game of Chess is OK as is is. Amen, brother. Dave. -- David Richerby Sadistic Tool (TM): it's like a www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ screwdriver but it wants to hurt you!   Date: 07 Dec 2007 00:10:20 From: David Richerby Subject: Re: On draws zdrakec <[email protected] > wrote: >1. Draws may not be agreed. >2. Three-fold repetition shall be illegal. That is, the player having > the move may not make a move that repeats the position for the > third time. This is a book-keeping nighte. As it is, if the players miss an opportunity to claim a draw by repetition, nothing happens. Under your proposed rule, if the players don't notice a repetition, one of them has made an illegal move. > By analogy, I refer to the ko rule in Go, which essentially > prevents the same position from appearing on the board more than > once (with some rather esoteric exceptions). The exceptions aren't esoteric at all. There are two versions of the ko rule: one says you can't repeat a position, ever, period; the other says that your move cannot return the board to the state it was in after your last move. > 3. There shall be no 50-move limit. This becomes more practical than > it once was, in an age where clocks can have a delay, and can add > a time increment per move. It become *less* practical than it once was, in an age where tournaments with multiple rounds in a day are common. > 4. Since the object of the game is to place the opponent's king in a > position from which it cannot avoid being captured, I suggest that > stalemate should be a loss for the stalemated player. In > principal, the player who has stalemated his opponent has > accomplished the priy goal of the game. Of course, this has > been suggested many times before. Indeed, it has been suggested many times before. And every time it is suggested, somebody points out that the proposed change means that essentially any pawn-up endgame is won, which means that players will be much less willing to sacrifice pawns and will lead to duller chess. > I am not certain, but that would seem to leave lack of mating > material as the sole way to draw a game. That is correct. Dave. -- David Richerby Hilarious Drink (TM): it's like a www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ refreshing juice beverage but it's a bundle of laughs!   Date: 06 Dec 2007 14:06:39 From: help bot Subject: Re: On draws On Dec 6, 1:54 pm, zdrakec <[email protected] > wrote: > Hullo all: > > Giving some thought to how draws happen over the board, it occurs to > me that many of the rules in place that allow draws to happen are > quite arbitrary, and have little or nothing to do with the actual > movement of the pieces. With that in mind, the following rule changes > strike me as perhaps interesting: > 1. Draws may not be agreed. > 2. Three-fold repetition shall be illegal. That is, the player having > the move may not make a move that repeats the position for the third > time. If he has no other legal move, we may regard this as a form of > stalemate, perhaps. I am not completely sure, but I think that this > rule would do away with perpetual check. By analogy, I refer to the ko > rule in Go, which essentially prevents the same position from > appearing on the board more than once (with some rather esoteric > exceptions). > 3. There shall be no 50-move limit. This becomes more practical than > it once was, in an age where clocks can have a delay, and can add a > time increment per move. > 4. Since the object of the game is to place the opponent's king in a > position from which it cannot avoid being captured, I suggest that > stalemate should be a loss for the stalemated player. In principal, > the player who has stalemated his opponent has accomplished the > priy goal of the game. Of course, this has been suggested many > times before. > > I am not certain, but that would seem to leave lack of mating material > as the sole way to draw a game. Naturally, there can still be abuse, > but it would, I think, tend to be obvious... > > Thoughts? The problem with premature agreements to draw is already handled by the rules (which however, are not properly enforced). At the lower levels of play, draws simply aren't a problem and in fact they afford the weaker player some hope where otherwise there would be none. The real problem is focused at the higher levels where players deliberately circumvent the rules, which are not enforced. When not just two, but many, many grandmasters, for instance, make a habit of this it destroys the spectator and sporting value of their games -- on which many organizers depend financially and otherwise. In the old days, drawn games were replayed! Now, the hold-up of a timely schedule makes that a far from ideal solution. But it is vital not to lose sight of the big picture: draws are not inherently bad, nor is there any problem with too many of them... except among the chess professionals. So then, why do people keep coming up with "solutions" which fail to target the real issue? When I draw -- which is not very often -- I am afforded a rare opportunity to see how my own mistakes and those of my opponent worked to cancel one another out, yielding a near-zero sum. It helps me to work harder to play the very best moves, or to master the techniques required to convert even a small advantage to a win. There is nothing wrong with legitimate draws! -- help bot     Date: 07 Dec 2007 00:01:35 From: David Richerby Subject: Re: On draws help bot <[email protected] > wrote: > The problem with premature agreements to draw is already handled by > the rules (which however, are not properly enforced). Please cite the FIDE Law that prohibits the players from agreeing a draw in a position that isn't obviously drawn? Dave. -- David Richerby Hilarious Nuclear Pants (TM): it's www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a well-tailored pair of trousers that's made of atoms but it's a bundle of laughs!   Date: 06 Dec 2007 13:38:37 From: zdrakec Subject: Re: On draws On Dec 6, 2:56 pm, SBD <[email protected] > wrote: > Always good to see ideas here, although I must confess at the outset > that I see nothing wrong with draws per se. In college football, for > an analogy, the tiebreak rules just serve, in my opinion, to exhaust > and injure the players, just to try to get a decisive result, which is > often just due to an error of exhaustion, and ruins a well-played > game. > > On Dec 6, 12:54 pm, zdrakec <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hullo all: > > > Giving some thought to how draws happen over the board, it occurs to > > me that many of the rules in place that allow draws to happen are > > quite arbitrary, and have little or nothing to do with the actual > > movement of the pieces. With that in mind, the following rule changes > > strike me as perhaps interesting: > > 1. Draws may not be agreed. > > Why not? > > > 2. Three-fold repetition shall be illegal. That is, the player having > > the move may not make a move that repeats the position for the third > > time. > > So you would force him to lose if the only other option(s) loses? This > seems to degrade the game. However, it does seem worthy of discussion. > Of all your suggestions, this one is the most interesting. > > If he has no other legal move, we may regard this as a form of > > > stalemate, perhaps. I am not completely sure, but I think that this > > rule would do away with perpetual check. > > It would not do away with perpetual check, since that isn't part of > the rules, but in a perpetual, there is a three-fold. > > Without this, a game could go on literally forever. > > > Thoughts? > > Those are mine, for good or bad. But why so many games have to be > decisive is a mystery to me. A well-played draw is a good thing in my > eyes. Thanks for the feedback. I also see no problem with draws per se, I simply think that allowing one to be agreed is arbitrary and artificial. I guess what I mean is that the draw should be the logical outcome of the play, not the outcome of the players' possible unwillingness to risk a decision. The reason I speculated that perpetual check would go away, if a player was not allowed to repeat the position three-fold, is that eventually, in a perpetual, the position would in fact get repeated. At some point, the player will have to choose a move that does not bring about a repetition (if we have outlawed the three-fold repetition). Otherwise, as you say, the game could go on forever! Cheers, zdrakec     Date: 07 Dec 2007 14:33:15 From: Anders Thulin Subject: Re: On draws zdrakec wrote: > Thanks for the feedback. I also see no problem with draws per se, I > simply think that allowing one to be agreed is arbitrary and > artificial. I guess what I mean is that the draw should be the logical > outcome of the play, not the outcome of the players' possible > unwillingness to risk a decision. If it was a case of a single game, I think you are right. But in a tournament, there are many games, one after another, more or less. And a player soon gets to understand that there are two 'games': one to play the single game, and the other to last through the tournament. In that second context, the agreed draw make reasonably good sense. -- Anders Thulin anders*thulin.name http://www.anders.thulin.name/     Date: 06 Dec 2007 23:58:29 From: David Richerby Subject: Re: On draws zdrakec <[email protected] > wrote: > I also see no problem with draws per se, I simply think that > allowing one to be agreed is arbitrary and artificial. You're going to need a better justification than that. Chess as a whole is arbitrary and artificial! Why does the little horsey move in L-shapes? Why do the players take it in turns to move? Why only one piece at a time? Why can't pawns move backwards? Why can't rooks turn corners? Why can't the king be captured? Why is the board eight by eight? Why are there exactly two players? > I guess what I mean is that the draw should be the logical outcome > of the play, not the outcome of the players' possible unwillingness > to risk a decision. Don't you think that, after a long, level game, the natural result is a draw, raher than insisting that play continue until one of the players makes a blunder due to exhaustion? > The reason I speculated that perpetual check would go away, if a > player was not allowed to repeat the position three-fold, is that > eventually, in a perpetual, the position would in fact get repeated. > At some point, the player will have to choose a move that does not > bring about a repetition (if we have outlawed the three-fold > repetition). Now, *that* is arbitrary. Perpetual check is a defensive resource: player A only attempts to put player B in perpetual check to force a draw. If repetition is outlawed, there are two things that can happen in any instance of perpetual check: either player A finds he can't give check again in some position, so he has to play something else and probably loses (why else was he trying to force a draw?); or player B finds he can't play the best response to a check and ends up losing serious material or getting checkmated. Which of these two things happens is decided by essentially random-looking things that happened before the perpetual started. Dave. -- David Richerby Mouldy Sushi (TM): it's like a www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ raw fish but it's starting to grow mushrooms!       Date: 06 Dec 2007 22:30:16 From: David Kane Subject: Re: On draws "David Richerby" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:Pkf*[email protected]... > zdrakec <[email protected]> wrote: >> I also see no problem with draws per se, I simply think that >> allowing one to be agreed is arbitrary and artificial. > > You're going to need a better justification than that. Chess as a > whole is arbitrary and artificial! Why does the little horsey move in > L-shapes? Why do the players take it in turns to move? Why only one > piece at a time? Why can't pawns move backwards? Why can't rooks > turn corners? Why can't the king be captured? Why is the board eight > by eight? Why are there exactly two players? > > >> I guess what I mean is that the draw should be the logical outcome >> of the play, not the outcome of the players' possible unwillingness >> to risk a decision. > > Don't you think that, after a long, level game, the natural result is > a draw, raher than insisting that play continue until one of the > players makes a blunder due to exhaustion? > > >> The reason I speculated that perpetual check would go away, if a >> player was not allowed to repeat the position three-fold, is that >> eventually, in a perpetual, the position would in fact get repeated. >> At some point, the player will have to choose a move that does not >> bring about a repetition (if we have outlawed the three-fold >> repetition). > > Now, *that* is arbitrary. Perpetual check is a defensive resource: > player A only attempts to put player B in perpetual check to force a > draw. If repetition is outlawed, there are two things that can happen > in any instance of perpetual check: either player A finds he can't > give check again in some position, so he has to play something else > and probably loses (why else was he trying to force a draw?); or > player B finds he can't play the best response to a check and ends up > losing serious material or getting checkmated. Which of these two > things happens is decided by essentially random-looking things that > happened before the perpetual started. > There is nothing random or arbitrary about a version of chess that prohibits repetitions, such as Go. As in regular chess, he who calculates deeper wins. What I find interesting about all the threads that address draws in chess is that they are filled with false and illogical arguments by those who like the current draw rules. This has led me to conclude that there is a very strong *emotional* attachment to draws.         Date: 07 Dec 2007 16:40:57 From: Guy Macon Subject: Re: On draws David Kane wrote: >What I find interesting about all the threads that address draws >in chess is that they are filled with false and illogical arguments >by those >who like the current draw rules. This has led me to >conclude that >there is a very strong *emotional* attachment >to draws. A fine example of the ad hominem fallacy. If you think that an argument is false or illogical, you should explain the specific flaw, not attack the character of those who disagree with you. Otherwise they can simply claim that it is *you* who is posting false and illogical arguments motivated by *your* very strong emotional _aversion_ to draws. This sort of argument does not ead to a decisive conclusion, and thus leads to a drawn newsgroup thread. :) -- Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ >           Date: 07 Dec 2007 10:48:02 From: David Kane Subject: Re: On draws "Guy Macon" <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > > > > David Kane wrote: > >>What I find interesting about all the threads that address draws >>in chess is that they are filled with false and illogical arguments >>by those >who like the current draw rules. This has led me to >>conclude that >there is a very strong *emotional* attachment >>to draws. > > A fine example of the ad hominem fallacy. > > If you think that an argument is false or illogical, you should > explain the specific flaw, not attack the character of those who > disagree with you. Otherwise they can simply claim that it is > *you* who is posting false and illogical arguments motivated by > *your* very strong emotional _aversion_ to draws. This sort of > argument does not ead to a decisive conclusion, and thus leads > to a drawn newsgroup thread. :) Sorry. You are missing the point. Mr. Richerby's argument that disallowing repetitions introduces randomness is patently false. It doesn't need to be refuted. The question is why would a reasonably intelligent person make an obviously false argument. (He is by no means the first to do so but I'm too lazy to look through the archives and document all similar occurrences.) That is the mystery that needs explaining.         Date: 07 Dec 2007 12:10:25 From: David Richerby Subject: Re: On draws David Kane <[email protected] > wrote: > "David Richerby" <[email protected]> wrote: >> Now, *that* is arbitrary. Perpetual check is a defensive resource: >> player A only attempts to put player B in perpetual check to force a >> draw. If repetition is outlawed, there are two things that can happen >> in any instance of perpetual check: either player A finds he can't >> give check again in some position, so he has to play something else >> and probably loses (why else was he trying to force a draw?); or >> player B finds he can't play the best response to a check and ends up >> losing serious material or getting checkmated. Which of these two >> things happens is decided by essentially random-looking things that >> happened before the perpetual started. > > There is nothing random or arbitrary about a version of chess that > prohibits repetitions, such as Go. As in regular chess, he who > calculates deeper wins. There isn't a man alive who can analyze to 100 ply. Dave. (And probably not more than two women.) -- David Richerby Flammable Car (TM): it's like a www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ high-performance luxury car but it burns really easily!       Date: 06 Dec 2007 19:16:10 From: Kenneth Sloan Subject: Re: On draws David Richerby wrote: > zdrakec <[email protected]> wrote: >> I also see no problem with draws per se, I simply think that >> allowing one to be agreed is arbitrary and artificial. > > You're going to need a better justification than that. Chess as a > whole is arbitrary and artificial! Why does the little horsey move in > L-shapes? the horsey does NOT move in L-shapes. The horsey moves in a straight line - directly to any square which is closest to the original square without touching (8-connected) the original square. Any English schoolboy knows this. -- 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: 06 Dec 2007 12:56:06 From: SBD Subject: Re: On draws Always good to see ideas here, although I must confess at the outset that I see nothing wrong with draws per se. In college football, for an analogy, the tiebreak rules just serve, in my opinion, to exhaust and injure the players, just to try to get a decisive result, which is often just due to an error of exhaustion, and ruins a well-played game. On Dec 6, 12:54 pm, zdrakec <[email protected] > wrote: > Hullo all: > > Giving some thought to how draws happen over the board, it occurs to > me that many of the rules in place that allow draws to happen are > quite arbitrary, and have little or nothing to do with the actual > movement of the pieces. With that in mind, the following rule changes > strike me as perhaps interesting: > 1. Draws may not be agreed. Why not? > 2. Three-fold repetition shall be illegal. That is, the player having > the move may not make a move that repeats the position for the third > time. So you would force him to lose if the only other option(s) loses? This seems to degrade the game. However, it does seem worthy of discussion. Of all your suggestions, this one is the most interesting. If he has no other legal move, we may regard this as a form of > stalemate, perhaps. I am not completely sure, but I think that this > rule would do away with perpetual check. It would not do away with perpetual check, since that isn't part of the rules, but in a perpetual, there is a three-fold. Without this, a game could go on literally forever. > Thoughts? Those are mine, for good or bad. But why so many games have to be decisive is a mystery to me. A well-played draw is a good thing in my eyes.     Date: 06 Dec 2007 21:56:50 From: David Kane Subject: Re: On draws "SBD" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:9ef87f98-7e99-478a-a3bc-4d571150f93b@b40g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > Always good to see ideas here, although I must confess at the outset > that I see nothing wrong with draws per se. In college football, for > an analogy, the tiebreak rules just serve, in my opinion, to exhaust > and injure the players, just to try to get a decisive result, which is > often just due to an error of exhaustion, and ruins a well-played > game. Don't you think that its noteworthy that in most sports ties are either impossible or fairly rare, and in those sports where they are possible, most of them have taken some steps to reduce their number? (tiebreaks, OTs, scoring incentives etc.) I'd be curious if you could name a single sport that has gone the other direction -where rules which produced decisive results were amended in order to produce more "well-played" ties? I can't, and I think the reason is obvious. Most people see an important *purpose* of a contest being producing a winner. In that light, ties are just failures. I suppose the "chess as art" school might sees things differently, but my games at least are way too ugly to even remotely qualify. > On Dec 6, 12:54 pm, zdrakec <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hullo all: >> >> Giving some thought to how draws happen over the board, it occurs to >> me that many of the rules in place that allow draws to happen are >> quite arbitrary, and have little or nothing to do with the actual >> movement of the pieces. With that in mind, the following rule changes >> strike me as perhaps interesting: >> 1. Draws may not be agreed. > > Why not? > > >> 2. Three-fold repetition shall be illegal. That is, the player having >> the move may not make a move that repeats the position for the third >> time. > > So you would force him to lose if the only other option(s) loses? This > seems to degrade the game. However, it does seem worthy of discussion. > Of all your suggestions, this one is the most interesting. > > If he has no other legal move, we may regard this as a form of >> stalemate, perhaps. I am not completely sure, but I think that this >> rule would do away with perpetual check. > > It would not do away with perpetual check, since that isn't part of > the rules, but in a perpetual, there is a three-fold. > > Without this, a game could go on literally forever. > >> Thoughts? > > Those are mine, for good or bad. But why so many games have to be > decisive is a mystery to me. A well-played draw is a good thing in my > eyes.       Date: 07 Dec 2007 16:31:11 From: Guy Macon Subject: Re: On draws David Kane wrote: >Don't you think that its noteworthy that in most sports ties are >either impossible or fairly rare, and in those sports where they are >possible, most of them have taken some steps to reduce their >number? (tiebreaks, OTs, scoring incentives etc.) >I'd be curious if you could name a single sport that has >gone the other direction -where rules which produced decisive >results were amended in order to produce more "well-played" ties? Cricket. In July of 2004 the International Cricket Council changed the rules so that a match where the toss takes place but no ball is bowled is either a draw or (in the case of a limited-overs match) a no result. And, of course, much effort has gone into making the "game" of global thermonuclear warfare end up in a draw rather than a decisive victory for one side or the other. Does anyone have any proposals for reducing the number of draws in tic-tac-toe? :) -- Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ >         Date: 08 Dec 2007 22:58:05 From: David Richerby Subject: Re: On draws Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote: > Does anyone have any proposals for reducing the number of draws > in tic-tac-toe? :) Don't play? Dave. -- David Richerby Revolting Apple (TM): it's like www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a tasty fruit but it'll turn your stomach!         Date: 07 Dec 2007 10:59:51 From: David Kane Subject: Re: On draws "Guy Macon" <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > > > > David Kane wrote: > > >>Don't you think that its noteworthy that in most sports ties are >>either impossible or fairly rare, and in those sports where they are >>possible, most of them have taken some steps to reduce their >>number? (tiebreaks, OTs, scoring incentives etc.) >>I'd be curious if you could name a single sport that has >>gone the other direction -where rules which produced decisive >>results were amended in order to produce more "well-played" ties? > > Cricket. In July of 2004 the International Cricket Council changed the > rules so that a match where the toss takes place but no ball is bowled > is either a draw or (in the case of a limited-overs match) a no result. Point taken. Out of curiosity, do you know what the cricket draw rates before and after the rule change were? > > And, of course, much effort has gone into making the "game" of global > thermonuclear warfare end up in a draw rather than a decisive victory > for one side or the other. > > Does anyone have any proposals for reducing the number of draws > in tic-tac-toe? :) If chess' draws were strictly a result of the game inherently producing a draw, then why do computers playing computers draw less frequently than humans playing humans? The point is that humans aren't drawing because the game is inherently a draw, but because they are adopting strategies based upon drawing. They are doing so because these strategies are successful. The success of these strategies does not come from the game itself but are introduced by external factors (scoring system, prize allocation etc.)           Date: 07 Dec 2007 22:08:28 From: Guy Macon Subject: Re: On draws David Kane wrote: >Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/> wrote... >> >> David Kane wrote: >> >>>I'd be curious if you could name a single sport that has >>>gone the other direction -where rules which produced decisive >>>results were amended in order to produce more "well-played" ties? >> >> Cricket. In July of 2004 the International Cricket Council changed the >> rules so that a match where the toss takes place but no ball is bowled >> is either a draw or (in the case of a limited-overs match) a no result. > >Point taken. Out of curiosity, do you know what the cricket draw >rates before and after the rule change were? In Test Cricket, roughly 30% of matches are drawn. A toss taking place with no ball being bowled is fairly rare, so the change would be, I am guessing, 1% or less. >If chess' draws were strictly a result of the game inherently producing >a draw, then why do computers playing computers draw less frequently >than humans playing humans? Two possible reasons: [1] The programmer has a choice of making the program go for wins or go for draws. I suspect that games that win and lose a lot sell better than programs that draw a lot. [2] It is a well known effect that going from, say, a 16-ply search depth to an 18-ply search depth adds a lot more strength against computers than against humans, and that this effect is amplified further when a computer is playing against a copy of itself. >The point is that humans aren't drawing because the game is >inherently a draw, but because they are adopting strategies >based upon drawing. That's a theory, not a point. It's a plausible theory, but there may be other explanations. >They are doing so because these strategies are successful. >The success of these strategies does not come from the game >itself but are introduced by external factors (scoring system, >prize allocation etc.) That certainly makes sense at the high end, but I don't think it makes sense for the average tournament player who isn't going to win any prizes unless all the really good players get the flu. I think that making a draw worth 0.499 points rather than worth 0.500 points is enough to make the top players avoid draws more, and is already allowed under FIDE rules. That's a small change that doesn't change the basic nature of the game. -- Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ >             Date: 08 Dec 2007 23:03:24 From: David Richerby Subject: Re: On draws Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote: > In Test Cricket, roughly 30% of matches are drawn. A toss taking > place with no ball being bowled is fairly rare, so the change would > be, I am guessing, 1% or less. There have been approximately 1850 Tests. My guess is that not more than one or two of those could have been affected by the rule change. The toss is not made until conditions are good enough to play: in particular, if it rains solidly for the whole five days, the toss will not be made. So, for the toss to be made but no cricket played, the weather would have to become good enough to look like play would start and then deteriorate again between the toss and the scheduled start time, which is about fifteen minutes, I think. Dave. -- David Richerby Homicidal Disgusting Cat (TM): it's www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a cuddly pet but it'll turn your stomach and it wants to kill you!               Date: 09 Dec 2007 00:02:26 From: Guy Macon Subject: Re: On draws David Richerby wrote: > >Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/> wrote: > >> In Test Cricket, roughly 30% of matches are drawn. A toss taking >> place with no ball being bowled is fairly rare, so the change would >> be, I am guessing, 1% or less. > >There have been approximately 1850 Tests. My guess is that not more >than one or two of those could have been affected by the rule change. >The toss is not made until conditions are good enough to play: in >particular, if it rains solidly for the whole five days, the toss will >not be made. So, for the toss to be made but no cricket played, the >weather would have to become good enough to look like play would start >and then deteriorate again between the toss and the scheduled start >time, which is about fifteen minutes, I think. Good point. Looks like the difference is 0.1% or less. -- Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ >                 Date: 08 Dec 2007 19:28:16 From: David Kane Subject: Re: On draws "Guy Macon" <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > > > > David Richerby wrote: >> >>Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/> wrote: >> >>> In Test Cricket, roughly 30% of matches are drawn. A toss taking >>> place with no ball being bowled is fairly rare, so the change would >>> be, I am guessing, 1% or less. >> >>There have been approximately 1850 Tests. My guess is that not more >>than one or two of those could have been affected by the rule change. >>The toss is not made until conditions are good enough to play: in >>particular, if it rains solidly for the whole five days, the toss will >>not be made. So, for the toss to be made but no cricket played, the >>weather would have to become good enough to look like play would start >>and then deteriorate again between the toss and the scheduled start >>time, which is about fifteen minutes, I think. > > Good point. Looks like the difference is 0.1% or less. > Or to put it another way, we still don't have an example of rule changes made with a purpose of increasing the number of ties. Why do you suppose that is?             Date: 07 Dec 2007 15:26:04 From: David Kane Subject: Re: On draws "Guy Macon" <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > > > > David Kane wrote: > >>Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/> wrote... >>> >>> David Kane wrote: >>> >>>>I'd be curious if you could name a single sport that has >>>>gone the other direction -where rules which produced decisive >>>>results were amended in order to produce more "well-played" ties? >>> >>> Cricket. In July of 2004 the International Cricket Council changed the >>> rules so that a match where the toss takes place but no ball is bowled >>> is either a draw or (in the case of a limited-overs match) a no result. >> >>Point taken. Out of curiosity, do you know what the cricket draw >>rates before and after the rule change were? > > In Test Cricket, roughly 30% of matches are drawn. A toss taking place > with no ball being bowled is fairly rare, so the change would be, I am > guessing, 1% or less. > >>If chess' draws were strictly a result of the game inherently producing >>a draw, then why do computers playing computers draw less frequently >>than humans playing humans? > > Two possible reasons: > > [1] The programmer has a choice of making the program go for wins > or go for draws. I suspect that games that win and lose a lot sell > better than programs that draw a lot. Well those same programs also do astonishingly well against humans, so they don't appear to be sacrificing strength. > [2] It is a well known effect that going from, say, a 16-ply search > depth to an 18-ply search depth adds a lot more strength against > computers than against humans, and that this effect is amplified > further when a computer is playing against a copy of itself. I don't quite see this point. If the "truth" of chess is that when perfectly played it's a draw, then shouldn't going deeper lead to more draws? > >>The point is that humans aren't drawing because the game is >>inherently a draw, but because they are adopting strategies >>based upon drawing. > > That's a theory, not a point. It's a plausible theory, but > there may be other explanations. > It's a theory with a lot of evidence behind it. We know with absolute certainty that it accounts for *some* draws, because the games are 5 moves long and the players admit to their behavior. But I'll grant that a detailed, quantitative assessment of its importance is lacking. >>They are doing so because these strategies are successful. >>The success of these strategies does not come from the game >>itself but are introduced by external factors (scoring system, >>prize allocation etc.) > > That certainly makes sense at the high end, but I don't think > it makes sense for the average tournament player who isn't going > to win any prizes unless all the really good players get the flu. The draw rates for class players are much lower than for GMs. Lately I have been involved with scholastic chess, and I've seen many tournaments with draw rates at the 5% level. I have never said that there is a uniform environment for all players. However, the last round draw to share the class prizes at the local Swiss is not exactly rare, either. People are people and they are going to respond to the incentives that they face. I did something similar myself not too long ago. At a parent's side event blitz tournament, I had two draws. Neither game was fully played out. The first was offered to me by a player who was up a pawn but pretty far behind on the clock. He didn't have confidence that he could win, so he (mistakenly IMO) offered me a draw. I took it. In the other game, I had a lead on the clock and a small positional advantage. (better pawns, B vs. N) In a slow game I would definitely have played it out and looked for a win (whether it was there or whether I would have found it is doubtful) but in the game I offered a draw, in part because I knew it would clinch 1st place. Now, obviously, there was no harm done. This was friendly, draws harmed no one, and the chess world experienced no great loss that our games weren't played out. But would I/we have behaved differently with different incentives? You bet! > > I think that making a draw worth 0.499 points rather than worth > 0.500 points is enough to make the top players avoid draws more, > and is already allowed under FIDE rules. That's a small change > that doesn't change the basic nature of the game. > FYI, this has actually been tried several times. (Linares did it this way some years) It is tantamount to making the most wins a tiebreak. I don't think it had any noticeable effect, but you could look at the results more carefully. > -- > Guy Macon > <http://www.guymacon.com/> >               Date: 08 Dec 2007 01:30:16 From: Guy Macon Subject: Re: On draws David Kane wrote: >I don't quite see this point. If the "truth" of chess is that >when perfectly played it's a draw, then shouldn't going deeper >lead to more draws? Nobody knows whether a perfectly played game of chess is a draw. We do know that slight differences in search depth and pruning make a huge difference in computer vs. computer games, and far less difference in computer vs. human games. That alone is enough to explain why computer vs. computer matches have fewer draws. -- Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ >                 Date: 07 Dec 2007 19:17:28 From: David Kane Subject: Re: On draws "Guy Macon" <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > > > > David Kane wrote: > >>I don't quite see this point. If the "truth" of chess is that >>when perfectly played it's a draw, then shouldn't going deeper >>lead to more draws? > > Nobody knows whether a perfectly played game of chess is a draw. > > We do know that slight differences in search depth and pruning > make a huge difference in computer vs. computer games, and far > less difference in computer vs. human games. What is your source? >That alone is > enough to explain why computer vs. computer matches have fewer > draws. > Not even close. You might be able to put together an argument that it contributes in some way, but you have yet to do so. > -- > Guy Macon > <http://www.guymacon.com/> >                   Date: 08 Dec 2007 23:54:11 From: Guy Macon Subject: Re: On draws David Kane wrote: > >Guy Macon wrote... > >> We do know that slight differences in search depth and pruning >> make a huge difference in computer vs. computer games, and far >> less difference in computer vs. human games. > >What is your source? A while back I asked whether the above was true (it seems reasonable that one program seeing just a bit deeper would be able to avoid various bad situations) and Dr. Hyatt said that his experience was that it is true. It should be fairly easy to find in the archives. >> That alone is enough to explain why computer vs. computer >> matches have fewer draws. > >Not even close. You might be able to put together an argument that >it contributes in some way, but you have yet to do so. Imagine factor X, that has the attribute of multiplying any difference in skill between players with beards, but not between bearded and shaven players. It is trivial to show from the statistics that matches between very strong and very weak players end up in draws less often than matches between evenly matched players. All other things being equal, if factor X exists, it will reduce the comparative number of draws among Hassidic Jews, Amish, and Muslims, and will increase the comparative number of draws among Mormons and active military personel. -- Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ >                     Date: 08 Dec 2007 19:25:54 From: David Kane Subject: Re: On draws "Guy Macon" <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > > > > David Kane wrote: >> >>Guy Macon wrote... >> >>> We do know that slight differences in search depth and pruning >>> make a huge difference in computer vs. computer games, and far >>> less difference in computer vs. human games. >> >>What is your source? > > A while back I asked whether the above was true (it seems > reasonable that one program seeing just a bit deeper would > be able to avoid various bad situations) and Dr. Hyatt said > that his experience was that it is true. It should be fairly > easy to find in the archives. Hardly very convincing, this. >>> That alone is enough to explain why computer vs. computer >>> matches have fewer draws. >> >>Not even close. You might be able to put together an argument that >>it contributes in some way, but you have yet to do so. > > Imagine factor X, that has the attribute of multiplying any > difference in skill between players with beards, but not > between bearded and shaven players. > > It is trivial to show from the statistics that matches between > very strong and very weak players end up in draws less often > than matches between evenly matched players. > > All other things being equal, if factor X exists, it will > reduce the comparative number of draws among Hassidic Jews, > Amish, and Muslims, and will increase the comparative number > of draws among Mormons and active military personel. Still not there. The draw rate between programs *of the same strength* is less than between humans of the same strength, even at ratings higher than those of humans.                       Date: 09 Dec 2007 06:44:09 From: Guy Macon Subject: Re: On draws David Kane wrote: >Still not there. The draw rate between programs *of the same strength* >is less than between humans of the same strength, Same strength does not equal same search depth. Even when a program plays an identical copy of itself running on identical hardware[1] pruning the move tree is a function of the position and which side the program is playing, so even then one or the other is very likely to be looking just slightly deeper on the line that ends up being played. Also, I have no doubt that if you convinced the humans to avoid draws and programmed the computers to seek them, the computers would have more draws. Whether to make a program seek draws mor often is a decision made by the programmer, not anything innate about programs. Note [1]: I suspect that your opinion is not based on actual experience with identical programs on identical hardware. Most computer-to-computer tournaments match different programs agains each other. I suspect that your experience is with identical programs running on one machine with a Windows, OS X or Linux OS, which in practice means that one or the other gets some exra CPU cycles. -- Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ >                         Date: 09 Dec 2007 01:09:54 From: David Kane Subject: Re: On draws "Guy Macon" <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > > > > David Kane wrote: > >>Still not there. The draw rate between programs *of the same strength* >>is less than between humans of the same strength, > > Same strength does not equal same search depth. Even when a program > plays an identical copy of itself running on identical hardware[1] > pruning the move tree is a function of the position and which side the > program is playing, so even then one or the other is very likely to > be looking just slightly deeper on the line that ends up being played. Perhaps. But your argument was based on the assumption that computer search depth differences lead to different strengths, and that the strength imbalance causes a decrease in draws. > Also, I have no doubt that if you convinced the humans to > avoid draws and programmed the computers to seek them, the > computers would have more draws. Whether to make a program > seek draws mor often is a decision made by the programmer, > not anything innate about programs. The point is that the computers are programmed to simply find the best move, generally independent of external factors such as tournament standings, prize funds etc. Humans are doing something different. They are not looking for the best moves, they are looking also for drawing moves because that is often the optimal strategy in human events. Basically, computers are playing discrete games of chess. Humans are playing a larger event (which often rewards draws) of which chess games are merely a component. > Note [1]: I suspect that your opinion is not based on actual > experience with identical programs on identical hardware. > Most computer-to-computer tournaments match different > programs agains each other. I suspect that your experience > is with identical programs running on one machine with a > Windows, OS X or Linux OS, which in practice means that > one or the other gets some exra CPU cycles. > My comments are based on examination of empirical results of computer events. The details which you are talking about are not relevant to the point I am making: the increase in draw-rate with ELO that human's experience cannot be explained solely by their inherent drawishness of chess, because higher rated computers draw less than humans do. Here is an illustration which might help you see the importance of strategy on draw rates. Imagine the following chess-like game, called "testchess". There are two players, each sitting at his own screen. A chess position is flashed up and each player tries to find the best move. When he does, he makes the move. When he does that, the player is then given the next position of the test. The process is repeated for 50 positions or until his time runs out. At that time, a player receives a score equal to the number of correct moves that he found. A player wins his games if he has more points than his opponent. The game is considered a draw if the two players have an equal number of points. What is the draw rate of testchess? Clearly, it depends on the players and the positions in the test. For example, if all 50 positions were simple mates in one, or obvious recaptures, then even games between class players would end with lots of 50-50 draws. Let's call this implementation of testchess, "idiots' test chess". It would be a stupid and uninteresting variant of testchess and playing it would be pointless. A much better version of chesstest would include tests with a variety of realistic positions, ranging from very easy to very difficult. Implemented this way, testchess would be expected to have much lower draw rates. Draws would still be possible, however. Two players might just happen to both get exactly 37 answers correct, for example. In fact, we could even intentionally design the length and difficulty of the test in order to produce specific testchess draw rates. That is, the draw rate of this game is in the hands of those making the tests. But here is the key point. No matter how we design the testchess positions, (whether to produce lots of draws, or almost no draws), there is no drawing *strategy* for the player. A player's best strategy is to try to find as many correct moves in the allotted time as he can. Period. It doesn't matter what the prize distribution is, it doesn't matter where he is in the standings, who is above him, or what his rating is. He will always do best by finding the biggest number of correct moves that he can. Now compare testchess to real chess. Both games consist of finding correct moves in a tournament setting in a fixed amount of time. Clearly being good at real chess and good at testchess will be highly correlated. But here is the big difference. In real chess you are not only finding moves, you are also *creating* the testchess position that your opponent has to solve. And this added element removes the clean "find the best move" motivation of testchess and introduces all sorts of strategies based on drawing. The simplest example. If a player calculates that a draw is good for him in the standings, he can decide to pose easy tests to his opponent ("If I play QxQ, will my opponent see that he needs to recapture to avoid being down a Queen?"). A series of decisions like this, and we're back to "idiots' testchess" with its inevitable drawn result. Without changing the underlying rules of chess, which I do not favor, the key to preventing chess from degenerating into "idiot's test chess" is to minimize situations where one or both players calculate that a draw is a "good" result. Essentially the task is to alter the risk/reward situation so that playing for a win is a sound strategy.                           Date: 09 Dec 2007 15:00:24 From: Guy Macon Subject: Re: On draws David Kane wrote: >But your argument was based on the assumption that >computer search depth differences lead to different >strengths, and that the strength imbalance causes a >decrease in draws. No point in discussing that. I believe it because a source that I consider to be an authority does (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Hyatt ), and you don't consider that source to be an authority. Such disagreements cannot be resolved by logic -- you either believe that Dr. Hyatt is an authority or you don't -- and so I have been purposely addressing your stated argument that even if the above assumption is true my conclusion does to follow from my premise. >> Also, I have no doubt that if you convinced the humans >> to avoid draws and programmed the computers to seek >> them, the computers would have more draws. Whether to >> make a program seek draws more often is a decision made >> by the programmer, not anything innate about programs. > >The point is that the computers are programmed to simply >find the best move, generally independent of external >factors such as tournament standings, prize funds etc. Circular reasoning. A programmer can decide that the "best move" is the one that tends to lead to an increased chance of winning at the cost of an increased chance of losing or the programmer can decide that the "best move" is the one that tends to lead to an increased chance of drawing. Some programs even make this a user-adjustable parameter, either with explicitly or with a "personality" that is said to take risks, love to attack, etc. >Humans are doing something different. They are not >looking for the best moves, they are looking also for >drawing moves because that is often the optimal >strategy in human events. It is also often the optimal strategy for computer events as well. Certainly in computer-computer matches with prize money the programmers make the same sort of "should I go for a draw against this opponent" calculations that occur in human-human matches with prize money. Arguably the programmers have more motivation to go for whatever overall strategy leads to higher points at the end, because they are often also playing for increased sales. >Basically, computers are playing discrete games >of chess. Humans are playing a larger event (which >often rewards draws) of which chess games are merely >a component. I agree that external factors have an effect on human psychology and that humans can chose whether to be drawish. I do not agree that the other humans who program chess computers are immune from all psychological factors and make purely logical decisions as to how drawish to make their programs. >> Note [1]: I suspect that your opinion is not based on actual >> experience with identical programs on identical hardware. >> Most computer-to-computer tournaments match different >> programs against each other. I suspect that your experience >> is with identical programs running on one machine with a >> Windows, OS X or Linux OS, which in practice means that >> one or the other gets some extra CPU cycles. > >My comments are based on examination of empirical >results of computer events. The details which you are >talking about are not relevant to the point I am making: You are the one who wrote "The draw rate between programs *of the same strength* is less than between humans of the same strength" (exact quote, emphasis yours) and then drew a conclusion based upon that as a premise. Whether the premise is true certainly is relevant as to whether the conclusion drawn from that premise is true. >the increase in draw-rate with ELO that human's experience >cannot be explained solely by their inherent drawishness >of chess, Straw man fallacy. I never claimed that the increase in draw-rate with ELO that human's experience can be explained solely by the inherent drawishness of chess. In fact, I have made no claims at all concerning the difference in drawishness between high ranking humans and low ranking humans. I responded to your claims about the difference in drawishness between human=human and computer-computer matches. If you wish to discuss the increase in draw-rate with ELO that human's experience rather than what you have been discussing, that would be fine with me. On the face of it it seems like a stronger argument for you. [concerning "testchess". a thought experiment where humans are constrained to consider only the position at hand, not the entire game (really nice thought experiment, BTW).] >But here is the key point. No matter how we design the >testchess positions, (whether to produce lots of draws, >or almost no draws), there is no drawing *strategy* for >the player. A player's best strategy is to try to find >as many correct moves in the allotted time as he can. Again y6ou appear to be assuming that, given two possible moves that have the following attributes: 40% chance of a win, 20% chance of a draw, 40% chance of a loss 30% chance of a win, 40% chance of a draw, 30% chance of a loss ...that the 40/20/40% move is the "best move" and the 30/40/30% move is not. You start with the assumption that non-drawish play is better than drawish play, and then argue from that premise that non-drawish play is better than drawish play. True, but circular. This line of argument appears to be based on the idea that computers consider only the position at hand and pick the "best" move (defined by you as being non-drawish). In my opinion, your argument based on high-rated vs. low-rated human players is a stronger argument for your your position. BTW, I will be out of town mon-sat next week and may not have time for newsgroups. If so, I will continue this discussion when I get back; I find it quite interesting. -- Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ >                             Date: 09 Dec 2007 11:41:28 From: David Kane Subject: Re: On draws "Guy Macon" <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > > > > David Kane wrote: > >>But your argument was based on the assumption that >>computer search depth differences lead to different >>strengths, and that the strength imbalance causes a >>decrease in draws. > > No point in discussing that. I believe it because a > source that I consider to be an authority does (See > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Hyatt ), and you > don't consider that source to be an authority. Such > disagreements cannot be resolved by logic -- you either > believe that Dr. Hyatt is an authority or you don't -- > and so I have been purposely addressing your stated > argument that even if the above assumption is true my > conclusion does to follow from my premise. > Whether strength differences affect the draw rate (though true) is irrelevant. Why? Because *equally* strong computers have lower draw rates than *equally* strong humans. >>> Also, I have no doubt that if you convinced the humans >>> to avoid draws and programmed the computers to seek >>> them, the computers would have more draws. Whether to >>> make a program seek draws more often is a decision made >>> by the programmer, not anything innate about programs. >> >>The point is that the computers are programmed to simply >>find the best move, generally independent of external >>factors such as tournament standings, prize funds etc. > > Circular reasoning. A programmer can decide that the > "best move" is the one that tends to lead to an increased > chance of winning at the cost of an increased chance of > losing or the programmer can decide that the "best move" > is the one that tends to lead to an increased chance of > drawing. Some programs even make this a user-adjustable > parameter, either with explicitly or with a "personality" > that is said to take risks, love to attack, etc. > >>Humans are doing something different. They are not >>looking for the best moves, they are looking also for >>drawing moves because that is often the optimal >>strategy in human events. > > It is also often the optimal strategy for computer > events as well. Certainly in computer-computer > matches with prize money the programmers make the > same sort of "should I go for a draw against this > opponent" calculations that occur in human-human > matches with prize money. Arguably the programmers > have more motivation to go for whatever overall > strategy leads to higher points at the end, because > they are often also playing for increased sales. > >>Basically, computers are playing discrete games >>of chess. Humans are playing a larger event (which >>often rewards draws) of which chess games are merely >>a component. > > I agree that external factors have an effect on > human psychology and that humans can chose whether > to be drawish. I do not agree that the other > humans who program chess computers are immune from > all psychological factors and make purely logical > decisions as to how drawish to make their programs. I know that programs could be programmed to draw more. So the real lower limit on draw rates could be even lower than that which computers experience. The point is that humans actually draw more than computers do, and they play weaker than computers do. So the argument that "chess is a draw" can't explain this. On the other hand, the fact that tic-tac-toe games usually end in draws *can* be explained by the fact that best play ends in a draw. Why? Because we see that independent of outside incentives, players of a certain strength always play draws. That is not the case in chess. Humans, responding to human incentives, play draws at one rate. Computers, oblivious to human incentives, play draws at a different rate. > >>> Note [1]: I suspect that your opinion is not based on actual >>> experience with identical programs on identical hardware. >>> Most computer-to-computer tournaments match different >>> programs against each other. I suspect that your experience >>> is with identical programs running on one machine with a >>> Windows, OS X or Linux OS, which in practice means that >>> one or the other gets some extra CPU cycles. >> >>My comments are based on examination of empirical >>results of computer events. The details which you are >>talking about are not relevant to the point I am making: > > You are the one who wrote "The draw rate between programs > *of the same strength* is less than between humans of the > same strength" (exact quote, emphasis yours) and then drew > a conclusion based upon that as a premise. Whether the > premise is true certainly is relevant as to whether the > conclusion drawn from that premise is true. > >>the increase in draw-rate with ELO that human's experience >>cannot be explained solely by their inherent drawishness >>of chess, > > Straw man fallacy. I never claimed that the increase > in draw-rate with ELO that human's experience can be > explained solely by the inherent drawishness of chess. > In fact, I have made no claims at all concerning the > difference in drawishness between high ranking humans > and low ranking humans. I responded to your claims > about the difference in drawishness between human=human > and computer-computer matches. > > If you wish to discuss the increase in draw-rate with > ELO that human's experience rather than what you have > been discussing, that would be fine with me. On the > face of it it seems like a stronger argument for you. > > [concerning "testchess". a thought experiment where humans > are constrained to consider only the position at hand, not > the entire game (really nice thought experiment, BTW).] > >>But here is the key point. No matter how we design the >>testchess positions, (whether to produce lots of draws, >>or almost no draws), there is no drawing *strategy* for >>the player. A player's best strategy is to try to find >>as many correct moves in the allotted time as he can. > > Again y6ou appear to be assuming that, given two possible > moves that have the following attributes: > > 40% chance of a win, 20% chance of a draw, 40% chance of a loss > 30% chance of a win, 40% chance of a draw, 30% chance of a loss > > ...that the 40/20/40% move is the "best move" and the 30/40/30% > move is not. You start with the assumption that non-drawish > play is better than drawish play, and then argue from that > premise that non-drawish play is better than drawish play. > True, but circular. Not circular. It's a value judgement that chess which has more decisive games is better, more interesting chess. But your numbers aren't realistic. Humans play to produce 60-70% draws, but they could play just as well (looking at computer experience) and end up with 20-30% draws. By the way, I'd be surprised if in most positions computers are formulating an estimate of the draw likelihood and using that to determine its next move. Am I wrong? > This line of argument appears to be based on the idea that > computers consider only the position at hand and pick the > "best" move (defined by you as being non-drawish). In my > opinion, your argument based on high-rated vs. low-rated > human players is a stronger argument for your your position. Not really. Because low-rated humans draw much less than GMs independent of incentives, or with the same incentives as GMs. That is easy to understand. Without trying at all, we soon find ourselves in positions that are very "testing" for us, using the testchess analogy, and the games are resolved in favor of the better player. Do you think that the game 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 b6 4. g3 Bb7 5. Bg2 Bb4+ 6. Bd2 a5 7. O-O O-O 8. Nc3 Ne4 Draw agreed. tested the GMs who played it? Class players do play games like this (usually to guarantee splitting a prize) but it's rarer. Even if we start a game with peaceful intentions, complexities that can trip us up arise, and we end up playing real chess. Moreover we're more likely playing for fun, so don't have the perverse incentives to draw that GMs have. My crime, according to the drawniks, is believing that the chess world would be better off if GMs played real chess, too. I'm apparently not sophisticated enough to see the beauty in the above 8-mover. And proud of it. > > BTW, I will be out of town mon-sat next week and may not > have time for newsgroups. If so, I will continue this > discussion when I get back; I find it quite interesting. Likewise. > > -- > Guy Macon > <http://www.guymacon.com/> >                               Date: 16 Dec 2007 16:56:07 From: Guy Macon Subject: Re: On draws David Kane wrote: >*equally* strong computers have lower draw rates than >*equally* strong humans. You don't know that the above is true, because there are no "equally strong" humans, and because only a computer that is playing a copy of itself running on identical hardware (running two copies on one computer doesn't qualify; one or the other will get a few more cycles) can be "equally strong." In the real world, you are comparing computers with minor differences is strength against humans with minor differences in strength. And if Dr. Hyatt is correct, those minor differences often translate to wins and losses for computers vs, computers and to draws for humans vs. humans. >The point is that humans actually draw >more than computers do, and they play weaker >than computers do. So the argument that "chess >is a draw" can't explain this. That's the second time you have tried the same straw man fallacy. Nobody here is arguing that "chess is a draw." >Humans, responding to human incentives, play draws >at one rate. Computers, oblivious to human incentives, >play draws at a different rate. In the post you are replying to, I pointed out that the above claim about what computers are oblivious to is false: "Certainly in computer-computer matches with prize money the programmers make the same sort of "should I go for a draw against this opponent" calculations that occur in human-human matches with prize money. Arguably the programmers have more motivation to go for whatever overall strategy leads to higher points at the end, because they are often also playing for increased sales." >> Again you appear to be assuming that, given two possible >> moves that have the following attributes: >> >> 40% chance of a win, 20% chance of a draw, 40% chance of a loss >> 30% chance of a win, 40% chance of a draw, 30% chance of a loss >> >> ...that the 40/20/40% move is the "best move" and the 30/40/30% >> move is not. You start with the assumption that non-drawish >> play is better than drawish play, and then argue from that >> premise that non-drawish play is better than drawish play. >> True, but circular. > >Not circular. It's a value judgment that chess which has >more decisive games is better, more interesting chess. Your exact words that the above are a response to are "A player's best strategy is to try to find as many correct moves in the allotted time as he can." The term "best strategy" is commonly understood to mean the strategy that leads to the highest score, no the "most interesting" play. >By the way, I'd be surprised if in most positions computers >are formulating an estimate of the draw likelihood and using >that to determine its next move. Am I wrong? *Every* chess-playing computer was programmed by a human who, while deciding how to write the program, formulated an estimate of the draw likelihood of various strategies and used that to determine which strategy to program into the computer. If, as seems reasonable, the majority of buyers agree with you that chess which has more decisive games is better, more interesting chess, the programmer will favor non-drawish strategies. A human playing a tournament usually doesn't care how interesting his chess is, and thus will favor whichever strategies -- drawish or non-drawish -- that will give him the highest score. >Do you think that the game >1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 b6 4. g3 Bb7 5. Bg2 Bb4+ >6. Bd2 a5 7. O-O O-O 8. Nc3 Ne4 Draw agreed. >tested the GMs who played it? > >Class players do play games like this (usually to guarantee >splitting a prize) but it's rarer. Even if we start a game >with peaceful intentions, complexities that can trip us >up arise, and we end up playing real chess. Moreover >we're more likely playing for fun, so don't have the >perverse incentives to draw that GMs have. > >My crime, according to the drawniks, is believing >that the chess world would be better off if GMs >played real chess, too. I'm apparently not >sophisticated enough to see the beauty in the >above 8-mover. And proud of it. This appears to be another straw man argument. In case you are unfamiliar with this concept, here are some references: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html http://www-personal.umich.edu/~lilyth/strawman.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man http://www.drury.edu/ess/Logic/Informal/Strawman.html No "drawnik" here has argued that agreeing to a draw after 8 moves is desirable. What they *did* argue is that a well played game ending in a draw is no less desirable than a well played game ending in a victory. You took this original argument, invented a imitation (straw man) version of the original argument, and proceeded to knock down the straw man version of the argument (the straw man, as its name implies, is much easier to refute), and thereby gave the appearance of having successfully refuted the original argument. I could, with a bit of work, do the same. There have been cases where players have thrown games in order to insure a particular player or country winning the tournament. If I dug up an example of someone resigning after 8 moves and pointed out that this is undesirable, would that prove that a well played game ending in a victory is also undesirable? -- Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ >                                 Date: 17 Dec 2007 00:34:28 From: David Kane Subject: Re: On draws "Guy Macon" <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > > > > David Kane wrote: > >>*equally* strong computers have lower draw rates than >>*equally* strong humans. > > You don't know that the above is true, because there are > no "equally strong" humans, and because only a computer > that is playing a copy of itself running on identical > hardware (running two copies on one computer doesn't > qualify; one or the other will get a few more cycles) > can be "equally strong." We know that they are equally strong *because they have the same rating.* You are confusing yourself with unnecessary detail. > > In the real world, you are comparing computers with minor > differences is strength against humans with minor differences > in strength. And if Dr. Hyatt is correct, those minor > differences often translate to wins and losses for computers > vs, computers and to draws for humans vs. humans. Your "explanation" explains nothing. All we know is that humans draw a lot more than computers, even though computers play extremely good chess. So the real issue is that if we can program computers not to draw (and as far as I know programmers have *not* done anything special to avoid draws), then why can't we program human GMs the same way? We not only *can* do it, but we *should* do it. > >>The point is that humans actually draw >>more than computers do, and they play weaker >>than computers do. So the argument that "chess >>is a draw" can't explain this. > > That's the second time you have tried the same straw > man fallacy. Nobody here is arguing that "chess is > a draw." It wasn't me who invoked the "tic-tac-toe" argument. > >>Humans, responding to human incentives, play draws >>at one rate. Computers, oblivious to human incentives, >>play draws at a different rate. > > In the post you are replying to, I pointed out that the > above claim about what computers are oblivious to is > false: > > "Certainly in computer-computer matches with prize > money the programmers make the same sort of "should > I go for a draw against this opponent" calculations > that occur in human-human matches with prize money. > Arguably the programmers have more motivation to go > for whatever overall strategy leads to higher points > at the end, because they are often also playing for > increased sales." Your argument just shows us that computers might not be strictly at the lower limit of the natural draw rate. I agree with that. Personally, I believe they are probably quite close to it, though. > >>> Again you appear to be assuming that, given two possible >>> moves that have the following attributes: >>> >>> 40% chance of a win, 20% chance of a draw, 40% chance of a loss >>> 30% chance of a win, 40% chance of a draw, 30% chance of a loss >>> >>> ...that the 40/20/40% move is the "best move" and the 30/40/30% >>> move is not. You start with the assumption that non-drawish >>> play is better than drawish play, and then argue from that >>> premise that non-drawish play is better than drawish play. >>> True, but circular. >> >>Not circular. It's a value judgment that chess which has >>more decisive games is better, more interesting chess. > > Your exact words that the above are a response to are > "A player's best strategy is to try to find as many > correct moves in the allotted time as he can." The term > "best strategy" is commonly understood to mean the strategy > that leads to the highest score, no the "most interesting" > play. > Computers are programmed to find the best move and do very well against humans. Humans play sometimes to find the best move and sometimes to find a drawing move (because that's what pays in the meta-game of surviving in the chess world). The humans are playing optimally given their incentives. But it's not chess, or at least an inferior form of chess, corrupted by poorly chosen external incentives given to the players. >>By the way, I'd be surprised if in most positions computers >>are formulating an estimate of the draw likelihood and using >>that to determine its next move. Am I wrong? > > *Every* chess-playing computer was programmed by a human who, > while deciding how to write the program, formulated an estimate > of the draw likelihood of various strategies and used that to > determine which strategy to program into the computer. If, as > seems reasonable, the majority of buyers agree with you that > chess which has more decisive games is better, more interesting > chess, the programmer will favor non-drawish strategies. > But the point is that they are doing normal things that people could do, like playing complex openings, playing out risky positions, etc. They aren't avoiding draws at all costs > A human playing a tournament usually doesn't care how interesting > his chess is, and thus will favor whichever strategies -- drawish > or non-drawish -- that will give him the highest score. > >>Do you think that the game >>1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 b6 4. g3 Bb7 5. Bg2 Bb4+ >>6. Bd2 a5 7. O-O O-O 8. Nc3 Ne4 Draw agreed. >>tested the GMs who played it? >> >>Class players do play games like this (usually to guarantee >>splitting a prize) but it's rarer. Even if we start a game >>with peaceful intentions, complexities that can trip us >>up arise, and we end up playing real chess. Moreover >>we're more likely playing for fun, so don't have the >>perverse incentives to draw that GMs have. >> >>My crime, according to the drawniks, is believing >>that the chess world would be better off if GMs >>played real chess, too. I'm apparently not >>sophisticated enough to see the beauty in the >>above 8-mover. And proud of it. > > > No "drawnik" here has argued that agreeing to a draw after > 8 moves is desirable. Actually, the attachment to draws is so strong that several *have* argued that in this newsgroup, but admittedly not in this thread. > What they *did* argue is that a well > played game ending in a draw is no less desirable than a > well played game ending in a victory. First, this is simply false. Well played games ending in draws are nowhere near as popular, memorable etc. as well-played games ending in victory. I'd say even some poorly played games ending in victory are among chess' most famous games. If you were called upon to remember as many chess games played by top players as you could, would 70% of your recollected games be draws? Doubtful. But more than being false, it suggests a fiction that is contradicted by the very 8 mover above. Not all draws are well-played, and some, like the above, aren't played at all. Yet the drawniks pretend that the incentives that create the above 8-mover are (magically?) somehow not present in *other* games. And this theory, though preposterous on its face, easily contradicted by anyone who's ever played through games of GMs, is what prevents chess from reaching its potential.                                   Date: 17 Dec 2007 23:15:33 From: Kenneth Sloan Subject: Re: On draws David Kane wrote: > > We know that they are equally strong *because they > have the same rating.* You are confusing yourself with > unnecessary detail. where did you pick up the strange notion that ratings measure *strength*? -- 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: 18 Dec 2007 06:22:14 From: Mike Murray Subject: Re: On draws On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 23:15:33 -0600, Kenneth Sloan <[email protected] > wrote: >David Kane wrote: >> We know that they are equally strong *because they >> have the same rating.* You are confusing yourself with >> unnecessary detail. >where did you pick up the strange notion that ratings measure *strength*? In fact, I'm stronger than ever -- I just don't perform as well.                                   Date: 17 Dec 2007 11:04:07 From: Guy Macon Subject: Re: On draws David Kane wrote: >It wasn't me who invoked the "tic-tac-toe" argument. My apologies for being unclear. When I asked how to avoid draws in tic-tac-toe, I was, for the sake of humor, contrasting tic-tac-toe (which is known to be a draw) with perfect play with Chess, (which has not been solved.) The humor lies in imagining a rule change that would somehow convince one of the tic-tac-toe players to lose on purpose. You appear to have misunderstood and assumed that I believe that chess is a draw. If you find yourself coming to the conclusion that an apparently intelligent person is claiming something that is obviously false or even stupid, you might consider asking him whether your interpretation is correct. >So the real issue is that if we can program computers >not to draw (and as far as I know programmers have *not* >done anything special to avoid draws), then why >can't we program human GMs the same way? Sure we can. Reduce the score for a draw. Make it 0.49 points and there will be a slight avoidance of draws. Make it 0.00 points and GMs will avoid draws and losses pretty much equally. Make it -1.0 points and GMs will frantically try to lose in drawn positions while their opponents do likewise. Make it +2.00 points and most games will be drawn. We can "program" the GMs pretty much any way we wish. Heck, give both sides 10 points for any game that ends on the second move and you will see a bunch of GM games ending in scholar's mate. >We not only *can* do it, but we *should* do it. Why? Because that is your personal preference? Why should your preference for fewer draws be given more weight than my preference for keeping Chess as it is now? Because you have invented a word ("Drawnik") that disparages those who do not share your personal preferences? >Humans play sometimes to find the best move and sometimes >to find a drawing move (because that's what pays in the >meta-game of surviving in the chess world). The humans are >playing optimally given their incentives. But it's not >chess, or at least an inferior form of chess, corrupted >by poorly chosen external incentives given to the players. That's an interesting opinion, but my opinion (and the opinion of several others here) is that the game of Chess is just fine as it is, that there is nothing "inferior" or "corrupted" about the present meta-strategy, and that the external incentives given to the players are well-chosen. The above is purely a matter of opinion, and my opinion has as much weight as yours. >> No "drawnik" here has argued that agreeing to a draw after >> 8 moves is desirable. > >Actually, the attachment to draws is so strong that several >*have* argued that in this newsgroup, but admittedly not >in this thread. That's interesting. I would like to see what arguments they posted. Could it be that they were actually arguing that an occasional 8-move draw is preferable to making huge changes to Chess with no way of knowing the effect of those changes? I would really like to see a direct quote or Message-ID where such an argument was made rather than rely on your characterization of what was argued. I haven't found your characterizations of what I have have argued to be particularly accurate. I never implied that that chess is a draw, for example. >> What they *did* argue is that a well played game ending >>in a draw is no less desirable than a well played game >>ending in a victory. > >First, this is simply false. That is a matter of opinion, not fact. >Well played games ending in draws are nowhere near as popular, >memorable etc. as well-played games ending in victory. If your goal is popular and memorable games, simply replace the FIDE rules with NFL rules. Football games are far more popular and memorable than chess games. "popular and memorable" isn't my preference if attaining it means changing Chess. >I'd say even some poorly played games ending in victory >are among chess' most famous games. If your goal is famous games, simply replace chess sets with firearms. The shootout at the OK corral and the Kennedy assassination are far more famous than any chess game. "famous" isn't a goal that I seek, especially if attaining it means changing Chess. >Yet the drawniks pretend that the incentives that create the >above 8-mover are (magically?) somehow not present in *other* >games. Please document the above claim with a direct quote or Message-ID where such an argument was made. I think that the Game of chess is just fine the way it is. Many others agree with me. There are a number of people who, like you, wish to change the game to correct some perceived flaw, but each of you tweakers wish to tweak it in a different way, and none of your proposed tweaks has gained wide acceptance. Why do you think that is? -- Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ >                                     Date: 17 Dec 2007 11:20:29 From: David Kane Subject: Re: On draws "Guy Macon" <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > > > > David Kane wrote: > >>It wasn't me who invoked the "tic-tac-toe" argument. > > My apologies for being unclear. When I asked how to > avoid draws in tic-tac-toe, I was, for the sake of humor, > contrasting tic-tac-toe (which is known to be a draw) with > perfect play with Chess, (which has not been solved.) The > humor lies in imagining a rule change that would somehow > convince one of the tic-tac-toe players to lose on purpose. > You appear to have misunderstood and assumed that I believe > that chess is a draw. If you find yourself coming to the > conclusion that an apparently intelligent person is claiming > something that is obviously false or even stupid, you might > consider asking him whether your interpretation is correct. Actually, I was attributing some sophistication to you. Nobody with any experience in chess would deny that there are elements fundamental to the game of chess that account for some of its draws. "E" players playing blitz games draw. Computers draw. Correspondence players draw. Players playing casual games draw. Clearly, draws do occur with all manner of external incentive. The error is in assuming that the actual GM draw rate is produced by the game itself. I am essentially arguing for external incentives that return the GM draw rates to its natural level, not for a zero draw rate. >>So the real issue is that if we can program computers >>not to draw (and as far as I know programmers have *not* >>done anything special to avoid draws), then why >>can't we program human GMs the same way? > > Sure we can. Reduce the score for a draw. Make it 0.49 points > and there will be a slight avoidance of draws. Make it 0.00 > points and GMs will avoid draws and losses pretty much equally. > Make it -1.0 points and GMs will frantically try to lose in drawn > positions while their opponents do likewise. Make it +2.00 points > and most games will be drawn. We can "program" the GMs pretty > much any way we wish. Heck, give both sides 10 points for any > game that ends on the second move and you will see a bunch of > GM games ending in scholar's mate. > >>We not only *can* do it, but we *should* do it. > > Why? Because that is your personal preference? Why should > your preference for fewer draws be given more weight than > my preference for keeping Chess as it is now? Because you > have invented a word ("Drawnik") that disparages those who > do not share your personal preferences? > Because it is not solely my preference. If I am right, then more people will play chess. More people who play chess will follow games of the top players. Being a chess professional will pay better. Playing chess will get more respect. Regular chessplayers will have a high-level game worth talking about. Just like golf, baseball, etc. and just about every other competitive activity known to man. Now I grant that some are so attached to draws that even if it were obvious that we could realize a ten-fold increase in interest, they would oppose it. Others have even expressed that they *like* chess as a small, oddball activity. >>Humans play sometimes to find the best move and sometimes >>to find a drawing move (because that's what pays in the >>meta-game of surviving in the chess world). The humans are >>playing optimally given their incentives. But it's not >>chess, or at least an inferior form of chess, corrupted >>by poorly chosen external incentives given to the players. > > That's an interesting opinion, but my opinion (and the opinion > of several others here) is that the game of Chess is just fine > as it is, that there is nothing "inferior" or "corrupted" about > the present meta-strategy, and that the external incentives > given to the players are well-chosen. The above is purely a > matter of opinion, and my opinion has as much weight as yours. > Sure. But the disconnect between the large numbers of amateurs who enjoy chess, and their lack of interest in top players still needs explaining. Those who share your opinions that the existing chess world is Utopian aren't bringing much money into the game, are they? Perhaps you should open yourself to other opinions. >>> No "drawnik" here has argued that agreeing to a draw after >>> 8 moves is desirable. >> >>Actually, the attachment to draws is so strong that several >>*have* argued that in this newsgroup, but admittedly not >>in this thread. > > That's interesting. I would like to see what arguments they > posted. Could it be that they were actually arguing that > an occasional 8-move draw is preferable to making huge changes > to Chess with no way of knowing the effect of those changes? Spin it however you like. I am not going to waste time on quibbling over "desirable" vs. "preferable". > I would really like to see a direct quote or Message-ID where > such an argument was made rather than rely on your > characterization of what was argued. I haven't found your > characterizations of what I have have argued to be particularly > accurate. I never implied that that chess is a draw, for example. > >>> What they *did* argue is that a well played game ending >>>in a draw is no less desirable than a well played game >>>ending in a victory. >> >>First, this is simply false. > > That is a matter of opinion, not fact. > >>Well played games ending in draws are nowhere near as popular, >>memorable etc. as well-played games ending in victory. > > If your goal is popular and memorable games, simply replace > the FIDE rules with NFL rules. Football games are far more > popular and memorable than chess games. "popular and memorable" > isn't my preference if attaining it means changing Chess. > >>I'd say even some poorly played games ending in victory >>are among chess' most famous games. > > If your goal is famous games, simply replace chess sets > with firearms. The shootout at the OK corral and the > Kennedy assassination are far more famous than any chess > game. "famous" isn't a goal that I seek, especially if > attaining it means changing Chess. You need to read your own information on straw arguments. How is it not relevant that chessplayers enjoy famous decisive games, even if not so perfectly played? Not expecting an answer, but spare me the ludicrous "chess will never be as popular as sex, food and football" diversions. > >>Yet the drawniks pretend that the incentives that create the >>above 8-mover are (magically?) somehow not present in *other* >>games. > > Please document the above claim with a direct quote or > Message-ID where such an argument was made. > It is implied in every argument. 8-movers are portrayed as an aberration, rather than a rational outcome of a set of perverse incentives, incentives which corrupt the game in general, but no one is willing to talk about. > I think that the Game of chess is just fine the way it is. > Many others agree with me. There are a number of people who, > like you, wish to change the game to correct some perceived > flaw, but each of you tweakers wish to tweak it in a different > way, and none of your proposed tweaks has gained wide acceptance. > Why do you think that is? > There are many explanations. 1. Human nature's reluctance to change. 2. Self-selection. The minority capable of rationalizing that drawfests are great entertainment stay in chess, others gravitate to other activities more in keeping with conventional values. 3. Politics. Those who are currently big in the chess world wouldn't be if chess were more mainstream. It is to their personal advantage to keep chess less appealing. 4. Difficulty in testing alternatives. The chess ket at the GM level is so weak that there is little opportunity to experiment with anything untried. 5. Stupidity. Discussions of risk-reward, meta-strategy are simply beyond the capacity of many. etc. Almost all sports change and evolve. Let me give you an example. Figure skating used to consist of two elements: a compulsory portion (the figures) and a free skate. But that changed. Why? Because eventually the skating community came to some conclusions. First, that the compulsory figures weren't really what defined the best skater. Second, that it was not interesting to watch a free skate final that didn't have much meaning because the event was significantly determined by the compulsories. Over time, the sport changed its scoring method by decreasing, and eventually eliminating, the compulsories. And the change in the sport was substantial. There was a gigantic increase in the athleticism of the skaters, and bigger TV audience, which brought in revenues and increased prizes. Now I'm sure that skating had its traditionalists who resisted any change, and probably suffered through some of the illogical "skating will never be football" idiocy. But eventually the nonsense was stripped away and the basic question "What will make this sport better?" was asked and answered. That is my hope for chess.                                       Date: 18 Dec 2007 02:30:20 From: Guy Macon Subject: Re: On draws (I am a bit short on time at the moment; longer answer later.) David Kane wrote: >8-movers are portrayed >as an aberration, rather than a rational outcome of >a set of perverse incentives, incentives which corrupt the >game in general, but no one is willing to talk about. There have been several examples of players throwing games in order to insure a win for a countryman or team member. If I apply yoour logic, then those thrown games are not an aberration but are instead a rational outcome of a set of perverse incentives to avoid draws, incentives which corrupt the game in general, but no one is willing to talk about. If players choosing to draw in the first few moves is a valid argument for giving players incentive to draw less and win/lose more, then players choosing to lose in the first few moves is a valid argument for giving players incentive to win/lose less and draw more. The same argument works both ways. >How is it not relevant that chessplayers enjoy famous >decisive games, even if not so perfectly played? SOME chessplayers. Including you. Others, including me, have no preference for won games over drawn games and a strong preference for well-played games. On what basis do you claim y=that your preference is relevant but mine is not? >But the disconnect between the large numbers of >amateurs who enjoy chess, and their lack of interest >in top players still needs explaining. Why? Do you also think that the disconnect between the large numbers of US amateurs who enjoy soccer and their lack of interest in top players needs explaining? >Because it is not solely my preference. If I am right, That's a really big if. What if I am right? >then more people will play chess. Why do you care how many people play chess? >More people who play chess will follow games of the top >players. Why do you care how many people follow those games? Because that's what you personally prefer? >Being a chess professional will pay better. Why do you care how much they get paid? Because that's what you personally prefer? >Regular chessplayers will have a high-level game >worth talking about. Why do you care? Because that's what you personally prefer? >Playing chess will get more respect. No it won't. If increased interest generated increased respect, WWE professional wrestling would by far more respected than olympic wrestling -- or chess. >Now I grant that some are so attached to draws that even if >it were obvious that we could realize a ten-fold increase in >interest, they would oppose it. Why do you care how much interest there is? Because you personally prefer more interest? >Others have even expressed that they *like* chess as a >small, oddball activity. ..and of course whatever they like is wrong if you don't like it. You have supplied no rational reason why your preference that chess not be a small oddball activity should have more weight than the preferences of those who disagree with you. -- Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ >                                         Date: 17 Dec 2007 19:01:28 From: David Kane Subject: Re: On draws "Guy Macon" <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > You have supplied no rational reason why your > preference that chess not be a small oddball activity > should have more weight than the preferences of those > who disagree with you. People who want chess small are not the ones I'm writing for. By the way, not all personal preferences are equally meaningful. For example, people who take the position "NO CHANGES, NO MATTER WHAT!" are expressing a preference that fundamentally has nothing to do with chess whatsoever. People who don't, or can't, understand why things got the way they are or speculate intelligently on how things could change, aren't going to say anything worth listening to. In that case, all that I can really do is refute the ridiculous blind monkey arguments that they resort to when faced with evidence that it is not comfortable to them.                                           Date: 18 Dec 2007 18:34:32 From: Guy Macon Subject: Re: On draws David Kane wrote: > >Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/> wrote... >> >You have supplied no rational reason why your >> preference that chess not be a small oddball activity >> should have more weight than the preferences of those >> who disagree with you. > >People who want chess small are not the ones >I'm writing for. And people who want chess large but cannot explain why are not the ones I'm writing for. >By the way, not all personal preferences are equally >meaningful. For example, people who take the >position "NO CHANGES, NO MATTER WHAT!" >are expressing a preference that fundamentally >has nothing to do with chess whatsoever. Good thing that nobody like that has posted to this thread, then. Or are you attempting to take my actual position (that I have given your suggested changes careful thought and concluded that [a] they seek a goal that there is no good reason to seek and [b] they are unlikely to achieve that goal) and replace it with a straw man? >People who don't, or can't, understand why things >got the way they are or speculate intelligently on >how things could change, aren't going to >say anything worth listening to. In that case, >all that I can really do is refute the ridiculous >blind monkey arguments that they resort to when >faced with evidence that it is not comfortable >to them. The above contains zero actual evidence. It is an invalid ad hominen argument. -- Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ >                                             Date: 19 Dec 2007 12:22:31 From: David Richerby Subject: Re: On draws Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote: > David Kane wrote: >> People who don't, or can't, understand why things got the way they >> are or speculate intelligently on how things could change, aren't >> going to say anything worth listening to. In that case, all that I >> can really do is refute the ridiculous blind monkey arguments that >> they resort to when faced with evidence that it is not comfortable >> to them. > The above contains zero actual evidence. > It is an invalid ad hominen argument. I don't know why you bother arguing with Kane. You'll never convince him of anything. Dave. -- David Richerby Radioactive Impossible Composer (TM): www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's like a pupil of Beethoven but it can't exist and it'll make you glow in the dark!                                             Date: 18 Dec 2007 13:19:29 From: David Kane Subject: Re: On draws "Guy Macon" <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > > > > David Kane wrote: >> >>Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/> wrote... >>> >>You have supplied no rational reason why your >>> preference that chess not be a small oddball activity >>> should have more weight than the preferences of those >>> who disagree with you. >> >>People who want chess small are not the ones >>I'm writing for. > > And people who want chess large but cannot explain why > are not the ones I'm writing for. It has been explained, explicitly, very recently. > >>By the way, not all personal preferences are equally >>meaningful. For example, people who take the >>position "NO CHANGES, NO MATTER WHAT!" >>are expressing a preference that fundamentally >>has nothing to do with chess whatsoever. > > Good thing that nobody like that has posted to this thread, > then. Or are you attempting to take my actual position > (that I have given your suggested changes careful thought > and concluded that [a] they seek a goal that there is no > good reason to seek and [b] they are unlikely to achieve > that goal) and replace it with a straw man? I have seen little to no evidence that you've given anything careful thought. If you can't understand my argument, your lack of agreement isn't particularly meaningful. People have "opinions" about all sorts of things they don't understand - quantum mechanics, the Najdorf Sicilian, you name it. > >>People who don't, or can't, understand why things >>got the way they are or speculate intelligently on >>how things could change, aren't going to >>say anything worth listening to. In that case, >>all that I can really do is refute the ridiculous >>blind monkey arguments that they resort to when >>faced with evidence that it is not comfortable >>to them. > > The above contains zero actual evidence. > It is an invalid ad hominen argument. > It was a response to the non-substantive arguments you've been making throughout. (tic-tac-toe, NFL rules etc.) This is typical behavior of people faced with evidence that is not comfortable to them. The simple fact is that you've provided no insight into the high draw rate of GMs, the impact of that on the game, etc. Your "just because" defense conveys very little beyond your stated satisfaction with something you haven't thought much about. I'm sure there were people in ice skating who behaved identically but it didn't stop the sport from evolving into something better and more successful.                                               Date: 19 Dec 2007 01:24:01 From: Guy Macon Subject: Re: On draws David Kane wrote: > >Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/> wrote... >> >> David Kane wrote: >>> >>>Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/> wrote... >>>> >>>>You have supplied no rational reason why your >>>> preference that chess not be a small oddball activity >>>> should have more weight than the preferences of those >>>> who disagree with you. >>> >>>People who want chess small are not the ones >>>I'm writing for. >> >> And people who want chess large but cannot explain why >> are not the ones I'm writing for. > >It has been explained, explicitly, very recently. You have, indeed, explained why, but the explanation boils down to "I expect the following things to happen", and you have not offered a logical argument as to why anyone else might find those things to be desirable (exception: the bit about higher pay for top players; it's obvious why the top players would desire that, unclear why you desire it). >>>By the way, not all personal preferences are equally >>>meaningful. For example, people who take the >>>position "NO CHANGES, NO MATTER WHAT!" >>>are expressing a preference that fundamentally >>>has nothing to do with chess whatsoever. >> >> Good thing that nobody like that has posted to this thread, >> then. Or are you attempting to take my actual position >> (that I have given your suggested changes careful thought >> and concluded that [a] they seek a goal that there is no >> good reason to seek and [b] they are unlikely to achieve >> that goal) and replace it with a straw man? > >I have seen little to no evidence that you've given >anything careful thought. Another ad hominem? Feel free to take a survey and see how many here think that I have given your suggested changes careful thought. Many people disagree with me on many things, but very few of them think that I don't give my positions careful thought. >If you can't understand my argument, your lack of >agreement isn't particularly meaningful. *Another* ad hominem. Feel free to include in your survey whether I understand your argument. >People have "opinions" about all sorts of things they >don't understand - quantum mechanics, the Najdorf >Sicilian, you name it. And yet another ad hominem! >> The above contains zero actual evidence. >> It is an invalid ad hominem argument. > >It was a response to the non-substantive >arguments you've been making throughout. Glad to see that you admit to posting invalid arguments. Your justification rests on the premise that my arguments are non-substantive (something which I deny, but again feel free to take a survey; if they are most folks will agree with you.) Upon that shaky premise you apply the ad hominem tu quoque fallacy, claiming that two wrongs make a right and that it's OK for you to present invalid arguments just because (you claim) I did. >(tic-tac-toe, NFL rules etc.) This is typical >behavior of people faced with evidence that >is not comfortable to them. No. Those were valid examples refuting your assertions. For example, you asserted that more popularity equals more respect. WWE Wrestling is far more popular that Olympic wrestling. WWE Wrestling is *not* more respected than Olympic wrestling. Thus your assertion is refuted by a valid counterexample. Perhaps you should consider the possibility that it is *you* who cannot understand *my* argument. Have you ever taken a class or read a book on critical thinking? Do you understand what a logical fallacy is and why logical fallacies are invalid arguments? >The simple fact is that you've provided no >insight into the high draw rate of GMs, the >impact of that on the game, etc. Feel free to take that survey. >Your "just because" defense Straw man fallacy. I never made such an argument. >conveys very little beyond your stated satisfaction >with something you haven't thought much about. Ad hominem fallacy. You are engaging in personal attacks because you have no actual evidence or valid arguments. >I'm sure there were people in ice skating >who behaved identically but it didn't stop >the sport from evolving into something >better and more successful. Red herring fallacy. Ice skating never made a rules change to reduce the number of draws. Also, you have your facts wrong, and badly so. See [ http://www.skatetoday.com/articles0506/040506_1.htm ]. Ice skating has experienced a ked decline in popularity in recent years, so much so that the United States Figure Skating Association lost its long-standing television contract with ABC because of poor ratings. Then, over at NBC, the prime-time telecast of the U.S. championships dropped from double digits into the 4.0 range, and the USFSA, which was getting $12 million a year from NBC, had to settle for a profit-sharing agreement with no rights fee in its new contract. Meanwhile, International Skating Union President Ottavio Cinquanta says that he will give away television rights if necessary to guarantee that U.S. viewers can watch the 2009 Los Angeles World Figure Skating Championships. Compare that with the $22 million a year he got from ABC for the five-year deal that ended in 2004 and the $5 million a year he got from ESPN for the five-year deal that ends in 2009. During the mid-1990s, the Champions tour played more than 70 major cities a year, plus a winter tour in smaller cities. In 2006 it was 56 cities. In 2007, 23. And now the 2008 tour has been canceled because of declining attendance. A far cry from the days when Sonja Henie was one of the highest paid movie stars in Hollywood, starring and skating in fifteen hit films. The good news is that there is a new skating film out that stars Scott Hamilton, Nancy Kerrigan, Dorothy Hamill, Peggy Fleming, Brian Boitano and Sasha Cohen, and it's a big hit. The bad news is that the movie is _Blades of Glory_ starring Will Ferrell and Jon Heder. I am looking forward to your next personal attack, which I predict will be especially nasty because you were wrong about the popularity of ice skating. Having been on USENET for many years, I find such antics to be interesting, and the escalation that follows when I reveal that my reaction to flamers is detached bemusement to be reasonably amusing. -- Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ >                                                 Date: 18 Dec 2007 19:01:16 From: David Kane Subject: Re: On draws "Guy Macon" <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > I am looking forward to your next personal attack, which > I predict will be especially nasty because you were wrong > about the popularity of ice skating. Having been on USENET > for many years, I find such antics to be interesting, and > the escalation that follows when I reveal that my reaction > to flamers is detached bemusement to be reasonably amusing. > You really need to look up the meaning of ad hominem, red herring etc. Attacking your arguments is not attacking you. If you don't want your faulty arguments exposed, then don't make them. Your ice skating information is not relevant. The changes in question took place well before the period you are discussing. I doubt anyone would dispute that the changes to the sport were tied to scoring at least in part, and the increase in money at that time is also fact. Of course, there could be other factors. The key point is that the sport responded to the reality it was facing, made changes to its rules, which produced changes to the sport. It is not surprising that those stuck in an alternate reality (chess having achieved some super-optimized Utopian condition) are not interested in change. But others may be curious as to why Utopia can barely support nickel and dime stuff like credible national championships etc. They would do well to try to understand the reasons behind chess' lack of status.                                                   Date: 19 Dec 2007 15:33:24 From: Guy Macon Subject: Re: On draws David Kane wrote: >You really need to look up the meaning of ad hominem, red herring etc. I stand by my comments. They were accurate descriptions of the ad hominems, and red herrings I was responding to. >Attacking your arguments is not attacking you. If you don't >want your faulty arguments exposed, then don't make them. So you consider the following to be eaxmples of attacking the argument instead of attacking the person?" "...those stuck in an alternate reality..." "...is just stupidity..." "...propagandists..." "...Stupidity...simply beyond the capacity of many..." "...People who don't, or can't, understand...or speculate intelligently..." "...ridiculous blind monkey arguments... "...I have seen little to no evidence that you've given anything careful thought. If you can't understand my argument, your lack of agreement isn't particularly meaningful..." "...Was it your state that passed a law declaring that Pi is 3? How is that enforcement effort going?..." Yeah, right. No personal attacks here! Loser.                                                     Date: 19 Dec 2007 09:39:44 From: David Kane Subject: Re: On draws "Guy Macon" <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > > > > David Kane wrote: > >>You really need to look up the meaning of ad hominem, red herring etc. > > I stand by my comments. They were accurate descriptions of the > ad hominems, and red herrings I was responding to. > Your very first "contribution" to this thread demonstrated your misunderstanding of "ad hominem". David Richerby posted a false statement about disallowing repetitions and I pointed it out. Nobody has challenged that, of course, because there is nothing to address. I was right. He was wrong. I also speculated as to *why* he posted his false argument. That is a very important point of substance. Mr. Richerby is not a pathological liar, he is not stupid, so why did he behave this way? Well, I suggested that is is because there is an emotional attachment to drawing which causes these false arguments to spring up. In fact, your subsequent posts weakly support this theory, since your arguments, too, have some of the same desperate character. Others have even been forthcoming with their statements of belief that they feel that draws are a "just" outcome to a chess game, for example, and have pointed to their own draws with pride. Understanding why people behave the way they do is important. It is not an attack. I feel pride in some of my draws. I'm sure everybody does. Those emotions need to be understood because they get in the way of cool consideration of the facts. For example, does it make sense to structure a major event so that the last round is very likely to be a bogus draw just because I can point to a game that I drew and enjoyed? Of course not. If you want to post on the benefits of high draw rates, then go right ahead. Better would be to notice that the arguments against those seeking to reduce incentives to draw, *never* list the benefits of high draw rates. That is worth thinking about, since that is the real issue.                                                       Date: 19 Dec 2007 18:36:12 From: Guy Macon Subject: Re: On draws David Kane wrote: >Your very first "contribution" to this thread (I deleted the rest of your post without reading it.) If you feel that my posts do not contribute to the discussion, I suggest that you stop reading them. *plonk*                                                         Date: 19 Dec 2007 19:07:17 From: Sn!pe Subject: Re: On draws Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote: > David Kane wrote: > > >Your very first "contribution" to this thread > > (I deleted the rest of your post without reading it.) > > If you feel that my posts do not contribute to the > discussion, I suggest that you stop reading them. > > *plonk* That told him. -- ^�^ <[email protected] >                                                         Date: 19 Dec 2007 10:48:33 From: David Kane Subject: Re: On draws "Guy Macon" <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > > > > David Kane wrote: > >>Your very first "contribution" to this thread > > (I deleted the rest of your post without reading it.) > > If you feel that my posts do not contribute to the > discussion, I suggest that you stop reading them. > > *plonk* > Facing facts *is* difficult but I wouldn't brag about it.       Date: 07 Dec 2007 15:45:02 From: David Richerby Subject: Re: On draws David Kane <[email protected] > wrote: > Don't you think that its noteworthy that in most sports ties are > either impossible or fairly rare, and in those sports where they are > possible, most of them have taken some steps to reduce their number? > (tiebreaks, OTs, scoring incentives etc.) Soccer is one of the most popular sports on the planet and ties are common. Cricket is more popular in India alone than most sports are worldwide: draws[1] are common. Tie-breaks are only used in knock- out competitions in both sports. Ties are impossile or extremely rare in most sports either because the goal is to be the fastest or `furthest' or because there is a vast range of likely scores. The chance of two people running, swimming, driving or riding some distance in exactly the same time or jumping or throwing something exactly the same distance is negligible. The chance of two basketball teams making the same score is low, just because the scores are so large; rugby and American football scores are relatively large numbers. Cricket scores are huge numbers and there are almost no ties (as distinct from draws). Golf scores are large numbers. > I'd be curious if you could name a single sport that has gone the > other direction -where rules which produced decisive results were > amended in order to produce more "well-played" ties? I don't see the relevance of this. Nobody is proposing to change the rules of chess to increase the number of draws. > I can't, and I think the reason is obvious. Most people see > an important *purpose* of a contest being producing a winner. ``I think an important purpose of a contest is to produce a winner and I think that everyone else thinks like me.'' Dave. [1] Not technically the same as ties and probably even worse from your perspective: a draw means `Well, we've been playing for five days and we still haven't figured out who won so let's just call it quits. Maybe next time, eh?' -- David Richerby Addictive Unholy Chicken (TM): it's www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a farm animal but it's also a crime against nature and you can never put it down!         Date: 07 Dec 2007 11:58:16 From: David Kane Subject: Re: On draws "David Richerby" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:EXB*[email protected]... > David Kane <[email protected]> wrote: >> Don't you think that its noteworthy that in most sports ties are >> either impossible or fairly rare, and in those sports where they are >> possible, most of them have taken some steps to reduce their number? >> (tiebreaks, OTs, scoring incentives etc.) > > Soccer is one of the most popular sports on the planet and ties are > common. Cricket is more popular in India alone than most sports are > worldwide: draws[1] are common. Tie-breaks are only used in knock- > out competitions in both sports. Ties are nowhere near as common in soccer as chess, yet most soccer leagues use a scoring system which acts as a disincentive. (Win = 3 * tie) The World Cup has never ended with co-champions. Instead it uses one of the most artificial tiebreaks in sports, PKs, which have very little connection to play in the field. Why? Because some games have to have a winner, and the rules of soccer are such that field play would take a long time to produce it. PKs are barely soccer, but they are dramatic! Almost all soccer leagues have a scoring > Ties are impossile or extremely rare in most sports either because the > goal is to be the fastest or `furthest' or because there is a vast > range of likely scores. The chance of two people running, swimming, > driving or riding some distance in exactly the same time or jumping or > throwing something exactly the same distance is negligible. The > chance of two basketball teams making the same score is low, just > because the scores are so large; rugby and American football scores > are relatively large numbers. Cricket scores are huge numbers and > there are almost no ties (as distinct from draws). Golf scores are > large numbers. You've picked some poor examples. Almost all of those activities with "points" as opposed to analog measurements, can and do end in ties, and most of them have ways to break ties. Though I am not familiar with traditions in rugby and cricket, all of the others have ways of resolving them. I don't think golf or basketball have *ever* had a tradition of tying, and American football has moved away from it. > >> I'd be curious if you could name a single sport that has gone the >> other direction -where rules which produced decisive results were >> amended in order to produce more "well-played" ties? > > I don't see the relevance of this. Nobody is proposing to change the > rules of chess to increase the number of draws. Because some sports are moving in the opposite direction, towards fewer ties. Why are they doing that? And chess did make rule changes that increased draws! That's the point. We need to recognize that fact and deal with it. > >> I can't, and I think the reason is obvious. Most people see >> an important *purpose* of a contest being producing a winner. > > ``I think an important purpose of a contest is to produce a winner and > I think that everyone else thinks like me.'' Do you dispute that there are people who think like me? If so, what is your explanations for why soccer leagues changed their scoring system to devalue ties? Why does basketball have overtime? > > [1] Not technically the same as ties and probably even worse from your > perspective: a draw means `Well, we've been playing for five days > and we still haven't figured out who won so let's just call it > quits. Maybe next time, eh?' > > -- > David Richerby Addictive Unholy Chicken (TM): it's > www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a farm animal but it's also a > crime against nature and you can never > put it down!           Date: 08 Dec 2007 23:12:45 From: David Richerby Subject: Re: On draws David Kane <[email protected] > wrote: > "David Richerby" <[email protected]> wrote: >> Soccer is one of the most popular sports on the planet and ties are >> common. Cricket is more popular in India alone than most sports are >> worldwide: draws[1] are common. Tie-breaks are only used in knock- >> out competitions in both sports. > > Ties are nowhere near as common in soccer as chess, yet most soccer > leagues use a scoring system which acts as a disincentive. (Win = 3 > * tie) The World Cup has never ended with co-champions. Instead it > uses one of the most artificial tiebreaks in sports, PKs, which have > very little connection to play in the field. Why? Because some games > have to have a winner, and the rules of soccer are such that field > play would take a long time to produce it. PKs are barely soccer, > but they are dramatic! The World Cup Final is the culmination of a knock-out tournament. As I said, tie-breaks are used in knock-outs. In addition, the penalty shoot-out in soccer is only used after a period of extra time. Likewise, chess uses tie-breaks to decide the winners of knock-out competitions. >> The chance of two basketball teams making the same score is low, >> just because the scores are so large; rugby and American football >> scores are relatively large numbers. Cricket scores are huge >> numbers and there are almost no ties (as distinct from draws). >> Golf scores are large numbers. > > You've picked some poor examples. Almost all of those activities > with "points" as opposed to analog measurements, can and do end in > ties They can end in ties but they're not very common, for the reasons I outlined. They're much less common than tied soccer games, for example. >>> I'd be curious if you could name a single sport that has gone the >>> other direction -where rules which produced decisive results were >>> amended in order to produce more "well-played" ties? >> >> I don't see the relevance of this. Nobody is proposing to change the >> rules of chess to increase the number of draws. > > And chess did make rule changes that increased draws! That's the > point. We need to recognize that fact and deal with it. Which rule changes would those be? Dave. -- David Richerby Technicolor Love Toy (TM): it's like www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a fun child's toy that you can share with someone special but it's in realistic colour!             Date: 08 Dec 2007 19:39:17 From: David Kane Subject: Re: On draws "David Richerby" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:HYD*[email protected]... > David Kane <[email protected]> wrote: >> "David Richerby" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Soccer is one of the most popular sports on the planet and ties are >>> common. Cricket is more popular in India alone than most sports are >>> worldwide: draws[1] are common. Tie-breaks are only used in knock- >>> out competitions in both sports. >> >> Ties are nowhere near as common in soccer as chess, yet most soccer >> leagues use a scoring system which acts as a disincentive. (Win = 3 >> * tie) The World Cup has never ended with co-champions. Instead it >> uses one of the most artificial tiebreaks in sports, PKs, which have >> very little connection to play in the field. Why? Because some games >> have to have a winner, and the rules of soccer are such that field >> play would take a long time to produce it. PKs are barely soccer, >> but they are dramatic! > > The World Cup Final is the culmination of a knock-out tournament. As > I said, tie-breaks are used in knock-outs. In addition, the penalty > shoot-out in soccer is only used after a period of extra time. But you haven't answered why? Why doesn't soccer just declare World Cup co-champions? The shoot out may be dramatic, but it's little more than a mockery of the sport. Why don't those fans just appreciate those ties? > Likewise, chess uses tie-breaks to decide the winners of knock-out > competitions. > >>> The chance of two basketball teams making the same score is low, >>> just because the scores are so large; rugby and American football >>> scores are relatively large numbers. Cricket scores are huge >>> numbers and there are almost no ties (as distinct from draws). >>> Golf scores are large numbers. >> >> You've picked some poor examples. Almost all of those activities >> with "points" as opposed to analog measurements, can and do end in >> ties > > They can end in ties but they're not very common, for the reasons I > outlined. They're much less common than tied soccer games, for > example. And even though fairly rare, those sports*still* go to the bother of breaking those ties, with overtimes, playoff rounds etc. Why? > >>>> I'd be curious if you could name a single sport that has gone the >>>> other direction -where rules which produced decisive results were >>>> amended in order to produce more "well-played" ties? >>> >>> I don't see the relevance of this. Nobody is proposing to change the >>> rules of chess to increase the number of draws. >> >> And chess did make rule changes that increased draws! That's the >> point. We need to recognize that fact and deal with it. > > Which rule changes would those be? In 1867, chess introduced the practice of counting draws as half a win. At the time, I doubt anyone would have predicted that that change would lead to the absurd drawfests that plague today's high-end game. But they have.           Date: 07 Dec 2007 22:15:04 From: Guy Macon Subject: Re: On draws David Kane wrote: >Do you dispute that there are people who think like me? Of course not. Do you dispute that there are people who think like me -- that chess is just fine as it is? (My suggestion to score a draw at 0.499 points is my idea of a good way to reduce draws among top players. That does not imply that I think that to be a particularly desirable goal.) -- Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ >     Date: 06 Dec 2007 23:47:04 From: David Richerby Subject: Re: On draws SBD <[email protected] > wrote: > Always good to see ideas here Yes but it helps if they're at least one of (a) new and (b) good. Knee-jerking against the draw `problem' by banning agreed draws and making stalemate the same thing as checkmate is neither of these things. > On Dec 6, 12:54 pm, zdrakec <[email protected]> wrote: >> If he has no other legal move, we may regard this as a form of >> stalemate, perhaps. I am not completely sure, but I think that this >> rule would do away with perpetual check. > > It would not do away with perpetual check, since that isn't part of > the rules, but in a perpetual, there is a three-fold. `Perpetual check' is just an agreement by the players that one player can keep checking the other one forever, which will necessarily involve either a threefold repetition or fifty consecutive moves without a capture or pawn move. > But why so many games have to be decisive is a mystery to me. A > well-played draw is a good thing in my eyes. Quite. Dave. -- David Richerby Hungry Simple Boss (TM): it's like a www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ middle manager but it has no moving parts and it'll eat you!