Chessvibes-poll: regel remiseaanbond moet veranderen
1 februari 2007 13:27 | Laatste bewerking: 12:50
Volgens de bezoekers van Chessvibes moet de huidige regel omtrent het remiseaanbod veranderen, om zo het gevecht tegen snelle remises aan te gaan. Een meerderheid (59%) wil óf dat een remiseaanbod pas later in de partij geoorloofd is, óf helemaal niet geoorloofd is. Dit blijkt uit de huidige Chessvibes-poll (in de grijze kolom) over het remiseaanbod, dat met toestemming van de Association of Chess Professionals is overgenomen van hun huidige survey bedoeld voor leden en titelhouders.
De ACP-survey is natuurlijk in het leven geroepen om iets te doen aan het grote aantal snelle remises dat voorkomt in (top)toernooien. Sofia is een goede uitzondering op de regel, en volgens de ACP-survey is deze regel ook bij toernooien op Corsica gebruikelijk: remise aanbieden is niet toegestaan. De meeste topspelers zijn positief hierover en dit geldt in zekere mate ook voor de bezoekers van Chessvibes. Vandaag hebben meer dan duizend mensen gestemd dus een blik op de resultaten is op zijn plaats.
Volgens 20% moet een remiseaanbod pas toegestaan zijn vanaf zet 30, 16% zegt ‘vanaf zet 40′ en 5% vindt dat je vanaf zet 50 pas remise mag aanbieden. Volgens 18% moet het remiseaanbod worden afgeschaft en zo is 59% voor aanpassing van de FIDE-reglementen. 40% vindt dat de huidige regels gehandhaafd moeten blijven.
This is completely besides the point.
what’s the difference between drawing after 17 moves and shuffling your pieces back and forth up to move 30, 40 or 50 - when really everyone knows a draw has already “silently” been agreed upon ? you think that will make for more exciting games?
you cannot FORCE them to play, you cannot force them to fight.
changing the reward and/or the way points are counted would seem much more promising.
But you can make it harder…
We used this in our championship qualifier: the top 3 players (this was a swiss) are rewarded only on the number of wins. My personal opinion is that we should not alter the rules - only create monetary incentives to fight for wins.
Its common in other types of competition to hand out more points in case of a victory than in case of a draw; so a victory could be awarded 1.5 points instead of 1, while draw still give .5 points. I guess its something like this Stef is suggesting.
But im not so sure this would change much. If it is an obviously drawn position, it will still be drawn after move 30, 40 or 50 (if not all pieces are traded off; do they have to go about with their kings until move 50? it will be funny to watch, but funny as in a comedy). Unless someone blunders that is. All rules like forbidding draws after X moves or all together will not be encouraging brilliancey, just enforcing blunders. In some tournaments they have a person who decides if they can draw or not if Im not mistaken, but maybe that is also not prefferred, it should be just the two players and the rules.
Seeing that the rules are to make the game more fun to watch, especially for the broad audiance, maybe a rule to not allow draws until X number of pieces has been traded off (or X piece points, with the normal values of pieces) would be more appropriate. So there will always be something to watch, I at least feel the more annoying draws are the one in which most pieces are left (and I speak as a member of the very broad audiance). but still fairly simple to get the game drawn in a drawn position in most cases. Then maybe there are positions where there is too much pieces on the board but to play a move to trade off anything would give the other player an advantage, I dont know how common that is but it might be a problem…oh well, this is a suggestion at least.
Het kan niet de bedoeling zijn om in pot-remise nog braaf tig zetten door te schuiven vanwege de regels.
Of dan maar samen overeen te komen gebruik te gaan maken van de 50-zetten regel.
Dat is zelfs zonde van het notatiepapier.
I do not understand. The grey column which is referred to, shows to me that 40% of voters have chosen “allowed at any stage of the game (current FIDE rules)”; other options far behind.
so, 60% left who want something else!
Chess would be better with these rule changes:
1. A move which would repeat a board position is illegal.
2. Stalemate is a loss for the stalemated player.
3. Draw offers have to be approved by an arbiter
Suddenly only about 10 percent of games would be draws!
A good replacement of the old system would be.
Win - award +1 point
Draw - 0, no award
Loss - take off -1 point.
In this way the wins are tolerated against the draws and yet there is a balance between wins, draws and losses
rumbata that makes no difference in who wins the tournament ever
I have to agree with many of the people who already reacted that a fixed number of moves solves very little.
There is more then 1 variation that would lead to a perpetual anyway.
A differenc in reward would make more sense but if you look at football it did not chance to much either
I suggest that colors be taken into account for scoring draws. For example .55 for black and .45 for white.
This information could be used for instant tiebreak applicability, as well as a minor tweak for ratings calculations.
I suspect that people that voted to change the draw rules are not chessplayers at all (so they have “fun and games” attitude), or they are weak players.
I am a master candidate, and I feel that any changes will be harmful. For lower levels of competition, this is just an unnatural limiting of players’ freedom of choice.
It is common knowledge that number of draws increases with level of playing strength if all players are abut equal. This is normal and there is no point in fighting it…
Short GM draws are a problem only in top level chess (where prizes are rich and there are a lot of spectators), but that can be avoided (Sofia rules).
That said, I do not offer nor accept early draws as a rule, but sometimes the position is realisticaly “dead” after 15-20 moves and there is no point in playing on versus, for example, FIDE masters who know how to draw the “dead” position.
The issue of draw offers is indeed complex… The problem are short draws, without a fight, but there are some things to have in account: tournament schedule (with many tournaments being played with a round every day, without rest days, some players take a short draw in order to rest), playing for nothing (for example, where you are not to win any prize, and you have not been paid any cash or appeareance money)…
But for professional tournaments, with good money for the players, rest days, good conditions,etc, I am of course against draws without a reasonable fight…
I do not find the argument complex at all. The rules are correct as they are. The motive should be to change the behavior of the players, not change the rules.
First, any change in the rules also penalises the average player as well as the arbiter, who is then tasked with enforcing this on tens, or hundreds of boards instead of just a few.
Second, awarding a difference based on color ignors the fact that below a certain rating level, the color advantage is almost nil.
Third, as Roberto Alvarez states, your average player does not get rest days and is lucky to have mealtimes between rounds sometimes. And, some of them (like me) aren’t in good shape. So a quick rest draw sometimes occurs. Likewise if we’re out of the money in the last round.
One way to encourage fighting chess is to use the “carrot and stick” approach - reward players for decisive game with a bonue (to the winner, usually) and not invite the players who consistently make quick draws back next year.
Why do masters think the current way chess is played is perfect? Since they make money off of it? I’m a chess player, and about 2000 but its silly to call it perfect. For an example of a better game check out go. For an example of how chess could be improved, at the very least implement Fischer random/the rules I mention above. To tired to play? Then resign and go home whimp
The whole issue is only important for the spectators of high level tournaments. So no point in fiddling with the general rules of chess…
In practice, if a player does not want a draw he will not accept it and that is that.
Mr. Briscoe - about your propositions:
1. A move which would repeat a board position is illegal - This is a really bad idea (I am trying to be polite). Maybe you as 2000 player can find always the correct winning continuation in every endgame, but I am not so lucky (and a lot of GMs would agree with me).
2. Stalemate is a loss for the stalemated player - Well there goes the interesting part of many endgames/studies. Lovely.
3. Draw offers have to be approved by an arbiter - Arbiters will LOVE this. In teamplay, draw offers are already approved by team captain (in real teams that is).
Having a clear better position, but still a difficult position and with serious timetrouble. your opponent offers you a draw. So far you played a very good game and therefore your opponent wants to be a fairly player. This happens so now and then on amateur level. A no more draw-rule would make an end to the joy of those players that are just playing the game for the beauty of the game, and not only for a win/lose fight.
Well, I personally think, that if we really want to have “battle” instead of just 15 movements draw games, we must give 0.25 points to each player for a draw , instead of 0.5 today, and 1.25 points a win instead of 1 point today.
As a consecuence of this change, the positions in a torunement are more versatile, not so fixed, specially in competitions with 4 players or more. It will be more difficult to a player to “keep” the leading by half a point or a hole point by just drawing games.
Sorry in advance for my poor english.
By the way, it is not clear to me that the conclusion of the article is supported by the results. After all, the first option, “A draw should always be permitted”, is the clear winner of the poll. Clearly this was the most popular answer. In elections, we also call the ‘winner’ the party who has received most votes - also when that party didn’t obtain an absolute majority.
The problem is, I think, that the poll actually was intended to be not about 5 different choices, but about 2 (To change or not the change). This was not made explicit in the current poll. Thus, the conclusion is reached asuming this automatically, but this wasn’t particularly clear to the respondents and this makes the conclusions invalid. If we stick to the current data, the right conclusion should be: “No change of rules is the most popular choice”.
Nopes, the poll was not intended to be about 2 choices, but about 5, because naturally it’s interesting to see how the Chessvibes audience reacts to the ACP survey.
The problem is simply that I wrote a news article about the results, in which I needed a good headline! And so I fell into the well-known trap of making a superficial conclusion, quite common in (newspaper) articles about polls and surveys.
Quite an interesting subject in itself, interpreting statistics.
I think the rules should stay as they are. What a wonderful feeling it is to force a perpetual against a stronger player! This (the perpetual) is one of chess’ many beautiful aspects. If we change the rules concerning draw, I believe chess will be more poor.
I also agree with Marin that a lot of endgame studies will be thrown overboard - this will not enrich the game.
But as GM Simon Webb says: “If you have a good explanation, and you can get away with it, you can just kill your opponent! If not, you will have to beat him over the board…” ; )~
I’ve come up with a brand new solution to this problem, which I think will really work.
Let’s say the playing time allowed for one whole game is 6 hours, but the game is finished after 1 hour, whatever result. The new rules is, the players must then start another game, but with a playing time allowed for the game of 5 hours. This should be repeated until at least 4 hours of the playing time has been used up. The players would get fractional scores, eg a win followed by a draw would score .75.
Intersting team-scores that will give in the end.. 3.43 - 4.57!
The “Gibraltar method” is a sucess! Only fighting and interesting games.
Other sugestion: the player who make the stalemate, make the 3rd repetition or force the draw situation simply lose the game!
The “soccer method” (3 points for a win, 1 for draw and 0 for lose) works only in longer tournaments.
I would like to point out that most changes proposed are totally unnatural…
- “fractions” of the point (Roberto, Tom Chivers)?! - You are kidding, right? Why complicate things… chess is not basketball. 1 game = 1 point.
- “the player who make the stalemate, make the 3rd repetition or force the draw situation simply lose the game” (Rubens Kurita) - You, sir, are a geniuos. I salute you.
OK, lets try (once more) to clarify why a draw in chess is NOT a bad thing.
First, a draw is the NATURAL result of a chess game if neither player makes a mistake, and a lot of times if only a small mistake has been made.
Second, many draws can be a lot more interesting and aesthetically pleasing than wins. Not for people who have no interest in the game itself obviously (they want to see “blood”), but why listen to them… Why those people even vote about things they do not understand and expose their ignorance by posting rediculous suggestions is completely beyond me.
I agree with Marin. “Chess is a draw” (Kasparov). Why punish players for that?
My suggestion doesn’t punish draws.
And I didn’t say draws were a bad thing.
My suggestion just means that if a pair of players finish a game in 10 moves and 5 minutes - then rather than as now go collect their payslip, sign copies of their latest book or DVD that some spectator brings to them, then go home and watch TV - they instead swap colours and start another game.
Why not?
Tom’s quite interesting suggestion is of course similar to other sports, like basketball or soccer, where a pre-set time-limit determines how long the players have to ‘do their job’. It means that a result in chess won’t be decided anymore by one game, but by an unlimited amount of moves in a limited amount of time, in which a won games equals a ‘goal’. This is an even bigger change that switching to Fischerrandom, I’m afraid…
Chess is not comparable to basketball or soccer… This is getting rediculous.
The problem is NOT in the rules of chess, it is in overpeaceful GMs (which is a problem for spectators and sponsors). So any solution has to address the real problem and NOT destroy the game of chess as we know it.
Solution already exists - “Sofia rules”.
Just applying “Sofia rules” on top 10-20 boards in last round of open tournaments would be a good general step forward, without putting too much stress on arbiters or players (attrition).
Sofia rules I like Marin. I think they’re better than nothing.
But - they suffer from one problem, which is they turn short and boring games into long and boring games.
My way would allow short and boring games just to be finished and agreed drawn - and a new game to kick off.
Peter’s implication, that my suggestion is not going to be accepted whatever it’s logic, I do agree with though.
again, assuming the rules of chess are perfect. i dont see how people can even think this, with overanalyzed openings, many draws, etc. sure chess maybe a draw if noone makes a mistake, but that never happens. why is stalemate a draw? its the same as checkmate, they dont have a legal move. so much more simple to say its a loss. and i dont understand why perpetual is a good thing either. just because of tradition? how silly
Andrew Briscoe - I have 2 things to say:
1. There is a lot you dont understand. This is not bad in itself, but instead of trying to improve your understanding of things you just talk uncoherently… not a good idea.
2. Dont use the word “silly”… I know that the reason might not be obvious but trust me on this one
My advice: learn about chess history and learn more about chess in general - maybe you will not be a stronger player, but at least you will sound more serious in your arguments.
Good luck!