Author: Ricardo Gibert
Date: 10:01:14 03/03/05
Go up one level in this thread
On March 03, 2005 at 09:49:48, Uri Blass wrote: >On March 02, 2005 at 18:20:47, Terry Giles wrote: > >>On March 02, 2005 at 13:57:31, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On March 02, 2005 at 12:19:13, Terry Giles wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>Hi CCC friends, >>>> >>>>After playing through some of the very short "grandmaster" draws at Linares, I >>>>feel that it's about time some of these tournament organisers started to award 3 >>>>points for a won game in an effort to get the players to try and win a game >>>>instead of fearing a loss. Chess today, well at least at the stratospheric >>>>heights of the "super-grandmasters", is far too technical and theory laden for >>>>most of the 'general' public to really appreciate and most of it has already >>>>been prepared and analysed at home. Something needs to be done to liven up the >>>>game, before the machines take over! >>>> >>>>Terry ;-) >>> >>> >>>Why don't you play some tournaments to see what it will do. Of course, some of >>>us would need to modify our programs to take advantage of this. Right now we >>>assume loss=0, draw = .5 and win = 1. I could sort of tweak Crafty to >>>understand this by twiddling with the draw score, but it would begin to think >>>that draw=loss, win=good, which is not exactly right. >>> >>>But it would be interesting to have some real data to see what this would do to >>>the game, when suddenly trying for a win is worth the risk. >> >> >>Hi Robert, >> >>It certainly would prove somewhat problematic for computer chess programs and >>tournaments, perhaps it would be best to just adopt it for human only >>tournaments. My feeling is that most chess programs are more ambitious than >>human players and produce far fewer draws, or am I deluding myself here? >> >>Terry > >Yes >chess programs have no feeling so they are not ambitious >only humans have feeling. > >I think that the main problem is that both humans are too afraid to lose the >game and part of the short draws are not planned before the game. > >make a rule that the side that offers a draw cannot get more than a draw when >the opponent declines the draw and the number of draws is going to go down. Offhand, I can't think of anything really wrong with this idea. I'll think about it some more, but as far as I can see at the moment, the idea seems to be a good one. If I can't find anything, I will wonder why I overlooked something so simple. I suppose the idea should be christened the Blass Draw Rule. How does that sound? > >In that case no player will offer a draw in equal non drawn position because of >knowing that the opponent can decline and fight for a win with no risk(in the >worst case the opponent get a draw). > >draw offer will be done only in obvious simple draw positions when the side that >offer the draw know that no side has chances and the offer is only to save time. > >Another idea is to decide that in case of a draw partial winner(gets 3/4 of the >points when the opponent get 1/4 of the points) is the side that used less time >when black gets 3/4 of the points if it is impossible to decide who used less >time. > >Uri
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.