Originally posted by ResigningSoonI have thought about this years ago, but the conclusion is that the draw as it is now is the only way to keep chess interesting!! The slight win and slight loss proposal is nonsense for me...
I actually like the idea.
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=5372
"Slight Win: A player wins slightly if any of the following conditions hold:
d. The opponent offers to concede a slight win and he or she agrees,
e. He or she stalemates his or her opponent.
f. Without making a move, a player calls the arbiter and proves that as a result of her opponent's last move, the same position has occurred thrice."
I can see newbies wanting "e." to be implemented on RHP though 😉. "d." and "f." are outrageous 🙂 I can see the reasoning behind coming up with such ideas, but... they don't work.
Originally posted by heinzkatSlight win? Thumbs down!
I have thought about this years ago, but the conclusion is that the draw as it is now is the only way to keep chess interesting!! The slight win and slight loss proposal is nonsense for me...
"Slight Win: A player wins slightly if any of the following conditions hold:
d. The opponent offers to concede a slight win and he or she agrees,
e. He or she sta ...[text shortened]... s 🙂 I can see the reasoning behind coming up with such ideas, but... they don't work.
The section "1. What Needs to Be Solved" outlines the problems currently being seen. These problems probably apply to less than 1% of all chess games/players. i.e. they are concerned with the top elite
So then we see a solution which changes the game drastically for everyone. We risk changing the things that has made chess so successful in order to solve a relatively very small problem, if it solves it at all. I don't like the idea.
Preposterous!
This quote struck me:
"For example, in a usual, drawn king + pawn versus king position, the side with the extra pawn will get 4/6 points."
So let's say you gambit a pawn for the sake of getting an interesting,eventful game and in an attempt to avoid a draw but fail to gain a decisive advantage,end up in an endagme a pawn down but manage to draw it.You'll be penalised!
If there are too many so called grandmaster draws it is the fault of the players,not chess or its rules.
Chess is not a spectator's sport.It never was and probably never will be.I do not understand why this is a problem.
The only decent way I see to tackle this 'problem' is for organiser to stop inviting players who make many GM draws.When they see their income decreasing,and they know why,they might change their behaviour.
But I'm not advocating this,I don't have a problem with short,uneventful draws.
I'm not in favour at all of the ideas put forward in Refined Chess
but I won't knock anyone for trying to come up with a plan
to end this GM draw nonsense.
I like the following idea:
0 pts for the player who offers the draw, ½ point to the other player.
The player who first forces and claims three fold repetition wins the game.
Before making the 3rd critical move they must advise what they are about to do.
A False claim then they lose.
You would get some sacs then for the 3 fold check - that would liven things up.
The stalemated player wins.
I do like that other proposal that you cannot resign, you must play
on and the game must end in a checkmate.
In a totally hopless positions players could and should walk into
mates. Or play on and fight.
A whole new phase of the game would appear.
Players could construct sui-mates to end their misery.
I'm serious.
In a wretched position v Burgess I did something like this.
Not the exact position but the idea was the same.
1.Bxh7+ Kxh7 2.Rh3+ Kg8 3.Rh2 Rc1 mate.
