Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Only Chess Forum

Only Chess Forum

  1. Standard member RBHILL
    Acts 13:48
    16 Nov '11 16:03 / 1 edit
    With a win = 2 points and draw is 1 piont.

    What are your thoughts on having wins be 3 points like on this site.

    I had look at one of my chess instutors tournaments and he was in a 5 way tie for first. and if they had 3 pionts for a win he would have place second all by himself with one person winning the tournament. And also i would think that less people would ask for draws after 10 moves.

    I woul like to ask the USCF president about this when she comes to my chess club next month. or are most people about tradition?
  2. 16 Nov '11 17:51
    This topic just keeps coming back, it's been debated for decades, and always falls by the wayside for the same reasons.

    Why should a hard fought draw, a battle to the last move, be penalized to the same extent as a premature handshake because both players want the afternoon off? Why should it be penalized at all??

    And if we're going to "adjust" (I would say distort) the value of a win, then while we're at it, shouldn't we also adjust the values so that a win with Black is worth more than a win with White? If not, why not??

    All such efforts to make chess "more fair", or "more balanced", or more whatever, are doomed from the start because chess IS fair. Across a lengthy time of participation, we will have White and Black approximately the same number of times, and if we want to make sweeping changes to the game because those changes benefit us today, what will we do tomorrow when those very same changes work against us??

    regards,
  3. Standard member bill718
    Enigma
    16 Nov '11 21:30 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by RBHILL
    With a win = 2 points and draw is 1 piont.

    What are your thoughts on having wins be 3 points like on this site.

    I had look at one of my chess instutors tournaments and he was in a 5 way tie for first. and if they had 3 pionts for a win he would have place second all by himself with one person winning the tournament. And also i would think that less peop ...[text shortened]... ident about this when she comes to my chess club next month. or are most people about tradition?
    This is a classic example of why I left the USCF years ago. Rather than this silly debate on points for a win, draw etc. The USCF should accept the standard point system used by other countries, and be changing it's format and web presence to become more like Red Hot Pawn and other sites, offering more opportunities for online correspondence chess compitition for players around the world. There membership problems would vanish, and financial situation would improve. The OTB activities could remain unchanged. Although there has been some baby steps in this direction, the USCF is still conducting business like it's 1972, and Bobby Fischer is still the king of the chess world.
  4. Standard member SwissGambit
    Caninus Interruptus
    17 Nov '11 00:41
    Originally posted by RBHILL
    With a win = 2 points and draw is 1 piont.

    What are your thoughts on having wins be 3 points like on this site.

    I had look at one of my chess instutors tournaments and he was in a 5 way tie for first. and if they had 3 pionts for a win he would have place second all by himself with one person winning the tournament. And also i would think that less peop ...[text shortened]... ident about this when she comes to my chess club next month. or are most people about tradition?
    Maybe a "no agreed draws until move 30" rule would work. Sure, this will not stop those who are very determined to make a draw. However, 30 moves might lead to a position where one side or the other is tempted to go for the win, previous agreements notwithstanding.
  5. 17 Nov '11 04:36
    Originally posted by SwissGambit
    Maybe a "no agreed draws until move 30" rule would work.
    Sorry SG, but this is another idea that just won't work, and we know that because it's been tried numerous times and always failed miserably. Strong players are simply not going to be told how to play their games, and when they may or may not take a draw, and they have proven that every time this solution in search of a problem has been tried.

    regards,
  6. Standard member SwissGambit
    Caninus Interruptus
    17 Nov '11 04:55 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Gambiteer
    Sorry SG, but this is another idea that just won't work, and we know that because it's been tried numerous times and always failed miserably. Strong players are simply not going to be told how to play their games, and when they may or may not take a draw, and they have proven that every time this solution in search of a problem has been tried.

    regards,
    Why exactly doesn't it work?
  7. Standard member RBHILL
    Acts 13:48
    17 Nov '11 15:58
    Originally posted by SwissGambit
    Maybe a "no agreed draws until move 30" rule would work. Sure, this will not stop those who are very determined to make a draw. However, 30 moves might lead to a position where one side or the other is tempted to go for the win, previous agreements notwithstanding.
    I like the idea of maybe 15 moves. I think that is how far an opening line goes. well at least to 13 moves.
  8. Standard member nimzo5
    Ronin
    17 Nov '11 16:21
    Originally posted by SwissGambit
    Why exactly doesn't it work?
    The Lasker defense of the QGD.
  9. Subscriber Ponderableonline
    chemist
    17 Nov '11 16:25
    Originally posted by SwissGambit
    Why exactly doesn't it work?
    You can always go for a threefold repetition...or should that be excluded? Then you can go for the 28 fold repetition if you really want that draw
  10. Standard member RBHILL
    Acts 13:48
    17 Nov '11 17:39
    Originally posted by nimzo5
    The Lasker defense of the QGD.
    1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7 5.e3 Ne4
  11. 17 Nov '11 18:48
    Originally posted by SwissGambit
    Why exactly doesn't it work?
    Well the "bottomest" bottom line answer is human nature; as I noted, strong players are simply not going to be told how to conduct their games, and when they may or may not take a draw.

    But perhaps you are meaning "what do the players do to insure that it won't work?" That's a fair and reasonable question.

    Let's go with the "no draws without 15 moves being played", which is also mentioned here and which has been actually tried. The first problem that has cropped up is that some players who might not be inclined to take a draw have done so in order to join the protest. After that, it's just mechanics. Some players have repeated moves, as has also been noted here as a possibility, and some of those have done so within the 15 moves, just to further thumb their nose. Some players with a sense of humor have constructed totally locked and blocked pawn formations. Most have simply turned in more 16-move draws by agreement than you ever saw in your life.

    Btw, lest anyone reading this thread misunderstand, or look down the dark side path and wonder, we are NOT talking here about team tactics, where teams have used prearranged draws among the team members to manipulate an entire tournament crosstable, insuring that their team gets the top spots and that outsiders are shut out. Here we are only talking about draws between two individuals.

    regards,
  12. 17 Nov '11 19:17 / 1 edit
    At the reasent ECU general assembly, a 40 moves before draw can be agreed rule has been aproved.

    http://www.europechess.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=116:ecuga&catid=2:slides

    http://www.dsu.dk/UserFiles/File/pdf/diverse2011/ECU%20Commission%20for%20Sofia%20Rule%20report.pdf

    The problem is as mentioned in this thread. There is many ways to go around this rule.

    1. There are many lines ending way before in forced repetitions.

    2. You can easily end up in a position where no move can be made other than repeating, without getting a worse position. (See Svidler - Anand game from today - Svidler could have played other "even" moves and continued the game, but no arbiter in the world would have the chess strenght to tell!).

    3. Prearranged games (no problem for players at even elo 2100 to fast memorize a whole game, GM's absolutly no problem!)
  13. Standard member nimzo5
    Ronin
    17 Nov '11 19:45
    If two players want to draw they can easily "arrange" to play something known to be drawish or even known to be a forced repetition etc.

    no way to stop it.

    See the top guys playing the Lasker defense lately in Sofia rules events.
  14. Standard member SwissGambit
    Caninus Interruptus
    17 Nov '11 21:10 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Gambiteer
    Btw, lest anyone reading this thread misunderstand, or look down the dark side path and wonder, we are NOT talking here about team tactics, where teams have used prearranged draws among the team members to manipulate an entire tournament crosstable, insuring that their team gets the top spots and that outsiders are shut out. Here we are only talking about draws between two individuals.

    regards,
    Interesting point. What do you propose to stop these 'team tactics'?
  15. Standard member RBHILL
    Acts 13:48
    17 Nov '11 21:11
    I thought it was funny in a tournament one of the players i know was 2-0 and wants a draw to play down. But his 4th game he played a 3-0 player who won the tournament at 5-0. for 1400-1700. 😛