Draw games

It is my opinion which means nothing. A draw game is the same as a stalemate. Nobody wins. Why do we lose points for this?

You only lose points if you draw with someone rated less than you.
If you draw with someone rated higher, you gain points.
If you draw with someone exactly the same there is no change as in theory you should draw as you're the same playing strengh.

Originally posted by lionel
It is my opinion which means nothing. A draw game is the same as a stalemate. Nobody wins. Why do we lose points for this?

I think the idea is that if I had a draw with someone like Bbarr (no, I don't think I'll be able to pull a draw against you in our game, Bennett, I'm just using you as an example😀) that given our huge disparity in ratings, it would be a colossal victory for me, and thus I should be rewarded by increasing my rating. Drawing with someone near your own rating has almost no effect (like 1 point) on your rating.

-mike

On the other hand people, think about this. If you are in a pub/bar which I do regularly, when a stalemate happens for $100 a game, no money changes hands, and you start over for double. Why should it be any different here. Explain??????????? I would rather have the money.

An automatic rematch for double points is an interesting idea. I might support that as well, as a draw can be very disappointing, especially if you have a material advantage but your opponent is putting you in a perpetual check just so he won't lose even though he knows he can't checkmate.

It would have to be an option on new games - automatic rematch in the result of a draw with double points exchanged, and no chance to delete the second game, and would have to be obvious when starting the game so that both players were aware of this before they started playing.

I realize that Russ is pretty busy, but this might not be so hard to implement.

How do other people feel about this?

-mike

Perhaps it could be an option. The person who initiates the draw chooses which one they want. This would allow a person to continue play with no loss in points and still get out of an unending game while remaining fair to the opponent. I think most people with the lower rating would hold out though. A good idea to ponder.

It seems obvious to me that if a low-rated player manages to draw with a high-rated player then the low-rated player has performed above expectation and should get some points for it, while the high-rated player has performed below expectation and should lose a few points.

The bar room game is completely different. You have no ratings, just a result - win/draw/lose. If people want to play for an even stake that's up to them.

Mick 🙂

I believe a draw sometimes is a very honorable result ... if you make a stupid mistake in the beginning but you manage to get a draw, or if you are playing a much stronger opponent ...
I remember, when I played in school at the Tournaments a win was 1 point and a draw 0,5 points ... so in the tournaments at RHP a draw is not worth that much

I agree with mikado.
A draw against a much higher rated player is a respectable result. I recently almost got a draw against a player in the Top 20. I had him/her in a perpetual check with a knight where s/he could only move the king backwards and forwards. After two repeats I stopped because I was in a good position so I thought I could win the game. However, I lost within about 5 moves 🙁
I won't make that mistake again!

I think, for understanding why the rating system works as it does (and accepting it.. 😉 ) it would help to think it rather as a "statistical" method of measuring one's ability, or player A's probability to win player B and not to think it as something where people "gain points".

Suppose that playing an enormous number of games against lionel I gain .10 of points (I mean e.g. 100 points for 1000 games). Then, a clever rating system develops to a point where my and lionel's ratings are so that by playing on and on these games, our ratings don't change in the long run.

Then, suppose that I suddenly learn to play chess and start gaining .20 of points from our series of games. Then the rating system should in the long run decrease our rating difference to a stable point where my gaining .20 of the points doesn't change the rating difference. (Or, more actual, doesn't change the stability point. Of course, even after hundreds of games with constant expectancy result (that is at this example the .20 number for me) the rating isn't stable but fluctuating around the stability point..)

And, naturally, if thought this way, the draws should be accounted too, because my "learning to play" and starting to get .20 of the points in the long run can be result of me getting more draws and winning only the same amount than earlier..

(And, more extreme example, if I and lionel draw all the games, our ratings should develop into the same number, and this wuold never happen if ratings weren't calculated 😀)

Ah, a long post I have written and I am afraid nobody will understand what I have tried to say, I sometimes tend to write unclear text and become not undestood 🙁