Author: margolies,marc
Date: 23:56:10 04/28/04
Go up one level in this thread
Hi Mike.
I agree with you that the current rule is pretty good.
However i disagree with your reasoning entirely and find it static. so I mght
reacon a different argument for your case.
specifically, I cannot accept the idea of 'original intent' ('chess was designed
for human- human play etc.') as a foundational argument either for or against
adjusting the rules of a board game.
a more useful metric might be 'makes the game fairer,' or 'makes the game easier
to understand,' or 'makes the game more interesting, wilder more fun.'
In short I think one should examine a rule-change in a game with specific
regard to the outcome of the game-- or maybe the pleasure afforded by this
change-- or its increase in popularity associated with a rule change.
The example of a radical rule change which I have in mind is the 'dama
arrabiata' rule change undertaken by the modenese masters. in plainer english,
there was a time when the queen was more limited in scope, but gamblers wanted a
more exciting game which less resembled shatrang (ancient chess).
just my two cents or so.
-marc
On April 28, 2004 at 21:59:14, Mike Byrne wrote:
>On April 28, 2004 at 13:36:49, Victor Zakharov wrote:
>
>>Watching to random 6-men positions I found that 50 moves rule is strongly not
>>adequite.
>
>
>Chess was orginally designed for humans and for humans, the 50 move rule is
>adequate. I would oppose any changes to the rules of chess becuase of computers
>and endgame tablebases . If a human or machine cannot mate in 50 in conjuntion
>with the other requirements, I think the game should be considered a draw. I
>think it is a great rule.
>
>Just my $.02, ymmv and you may disagree with me.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.