RSIF as alternative to armageddon

[rjgibert]

[d]4k3/8/4K3/8/8/8/8/8 b - - 0 1
1...Kd8 2.Kd6 Kc8 3.Kc6 Kb8 4.Kb6 Ka8 5.Ka6 Kb8 6.Kb6 and the position has repeated, so White wins.

Win by insufficiency of material is not a factor as even bare King vs bare King represents sufficient material. Counting stalemate as a win has a similar effect on the insufficiency of material rule. Maybe an interesting variant, but too radical a change for regular chess.

[Ferdy]

[d]4k3/8/4K3/8/8/8/8/8 b - - 0 1
1...Kd8 2.Kd6 Kc8 3.Kc6 Kb8 4.Kb6 Ka8 5.Ka6 Kb8 6.Kb6 and the position has repeated, so White wins.

Win by insufficiency of material is not a factor as even bare King vs bare King represents sufficient material. Counting stalemate as a win has a similar effect on the insufficiency of material rule. Maybe an interesting variant, but too radical a change for regular chess.

In this case white could no longer continue to play for repetition because its king is the only one left. So black wins.

[lkaufman]

we have to give Black something or the game would be an obviously forced win by White (even if you can't prove that)

You can't prove it, but a serious test should leave little doubt as to how much black's position is worsened. Before trying to fix something, we should make sure it's broken, don't you think?

Besides, how much does the game have to be equalled? Doesn't the 55-45 spread we've usually enjoyed in chess appeal to you?

The 55-45 spread would be very much wider if all draws went to the "superior" side (reasonably defined), and the margin would grow with the strength of the players. It might be 60-40 with ordinary masters, 65-35 with GMs, 70-30 with super-GMs, 75-25 with World Champions, and 90-10 with top engines. Those are just my guesses, but anyway probably close enough to make the point. As a GM and author of four opening books, I am quite sure that White's advantage would be decisive with top engines playing both sides unless the rules are somehow tilted in Black's favor. Of course it would be interesting to see this confirmed by an engine that implemented these rules, then we would have some idea how much the rules need to be tilted in Black's favor. Actually the situation is very much like in the game of GO. For centuries GO was played with symmetrical rules, but when top players played each other the first player won by large margins, maybe 4 to 1 or something like that. So they started adding points to the score of the second player ("komi"), until they got fairly even results, and that's how GO is now played.

[Ozymandias]

The 55-45 spread would be very much wider if all draws went to the "superior" side (reasonably defined), and the margin would grow with the strength of the players. It might be 60-40 with ordinary masters, 65-35 with GMs, 70-30 with super-GMs, 75-25 with World Champions, and 90-10 with top engines.

When you mention "all draws" I guess you're talking about the repetition, stalemate, bare king and fifty moves we've been talking about. In that case, I just don't see changing them tilting numbers the way you fear. For one, the superior side won't always be white, which means that the reduction in the number of draws will also add wins to black's column. Furthermore, whatever the actual score, it would get even over time, just as it's been doing all along.


Testing should be enticing for sure.

[lkaufman]

The 55-45 spread would be very much wider if all draws went to the "superior" side (reasonably defined), and the margin would grow with the strength of the players. It might be 60-40 with ordinary masters, 65-35 with GMs, 70-30 with super-GMs, 75-25 with World Champions, and 90-10 with top engines.

When you mention "all draws" I guess you're talking about the repetition, stalemate, bare king and fifty moves we've been talking about. In that case, I just don't see changing them tilting numbers the way you fear. For one, the superior side won't always be white, which means that the reduction in the number of draws will also add wins to black's column. Furthermore, whatever the actual score, it would get even over time, just as it's been doing all along.


Testing should be enticing for sure.

The superior side won't always be White, that's true, but it will usually be White (with strong players). Normal openings tend to end with Black having the worse side of a drawish ending, and so almost any sensible tiebreak rule will award most of these positions to White. A good estimate of what the score would look like for any given level of player is to just look at the score under current rules with the draws tossed out. With engines, it's not so easy as the results depend heavily on what opening book is used.

[Ozymandias]

A good estimate of what the score would look like for any given level of player is to just look at the score under current rules with the draws tossed out. With engines, it's not so easy as the results depend heavily on what opening book is used.

I've assumed all along the use of strong books, much like those you can see being employed in the Engine Masters Tournaments. Maybe I should've made that explicit.

As for tossing draws aside, I'm expecting that in a competition such as the one mentioned, a good deal would still remain in the form of KvK endings.

[lkaufman]

A good estimate of what the score would look like for any given level of player is to just look at the score under current rules with the draws tossed out. With engines, it's not so easy as the results depend heavily on what opening book is used.

I've assumed all along the use of strong books, much like those you can see being employed in the Engine Masters Tournaments. Maybe I should've made that explicit.

As for tossing draws aside, I'm expecting that in a competition such as the one mentioned, a good deal would still remain in the form of KvK endings.

Note that with the "bare king loses" rule, you cannot ever have king vs king, because one side has a bare king before the other. Presumably White would usually be in a position to control who has the bare king most of the time. One sensible variant would be that if Black is left with a bare king, if he can immediately capture White's last piece or pawn creating K vs K he gets the win. This is not likely to be enough to balance the chances, but it would help.

[Ovyron]

I've been brainstorming ideas about how to do this, specially trying to "think outside the box", and focusing on my own experience where I've been able to defeat much stronger opposition, because if there's something that makes me abridge 500 rating points, perhaps it could be used to bridge black's disadvantage in 0 draw games.

Such a thing happens in simultaneous exhibitions. I hold that white's advantage will go away if the white player has to face many opponents.

So here's another option: Play the normal matches in groups of 3 players (A v B, B v C, and C v A), then if a player wins and the other games ends in draws, she gets the point or something. But if all 3 games end in draw, a new series of games are played, where white gets draw odds (white draws wins!) but they have to play both players simultaneously. If this is still lopsided in white's favor, make her play 3 opponents or 4 opponents simultaneously, in a bigger group, whatever is fair, but the idea is we don't artificially reduce a side's time on the clock, they can still manage their time as appropriate, and we get a bunch of decided games in the time we'd have played one.

[Ozymandias]

Note that with the "bare king loses" rule, you cannot ever have king vs king, because one side has a bare king before the other. Presumably White would usually be in a position to control who has the bare king most of the time. One sensible variant would be that if Black is left with a bare king, if he can immediately capture White's last piece or pawn creating K vs K he gets the win. This is not likely to be enough to balance the chances, but it would help.

Neither of those two options makes much sense to a regular chess player. Maybe serious ones will want to chip in, but if you can recapture, there's no advantage whatsoever to speak of, for either side. No win should be awarded to anyone in the case of KvK and it should be allowed, to reach that position, if it can occur trough natural play.

The only thing that makes sense to me, is to eliminate those draws that can be seen as the result of obstructionism, from the inferior side (*). The resources mentioned aren't the only ones available BTW, there's also the perpetual check, for which the most glaring example is that of the crazy rook. In this case, the better side may be forced to make the 50th move, because of the check, and the win would go for the inferior side, if no other amendment would be introduced.

* I'm not even saying "the side with an inferior position", because many players are dead set on just achieving a draw, and will choose the opening accordingly, which is what ultimately killed Freestyle and is starting to bother many correspondence players too.

[lkaufman]

Note that with the "bare king loses" rule, you cannot ever have king vs king, because one side has a bare king before the other. Presumably White would usually be in a position to control who has the bare king most of the time. One sensible variant would be that if Black is left with a bare king, if he can immediately capture White's last piece or pawn creating K vs K he gets the win. This is not likely to be enough to balance the chances, but it would help.

Neither of those two options makes much sense to a regular chess player. Maybe serious ones will want to chip in, but if you can recapture, there's no advantage whatsoever to speak of, for either side. No win should be awarded to anyone in the case of KvK and it should be allowed, to reach that position, if it can occur trough natural play.

The only thing that makes sense to me, is to eliminate those draws that can be seen as the result of obstructionism, from the inferior side (*). The resources mentioned aren't the only ones available BTW, there's also the perpetual check, for which the most glaring example is that of the crazy rook. In this case, the better side may be forced to make the 50th move, because of the check, and the win would go for the inferior side, if no other amendment would be introduced.

* I'm not even saying "the side with an inferior position", because many players are dead set on just achieving a draw, and will choose the opening accordingly, which is what ultimately killed Freestyle and is starting to bother many correspondence players too.

If we are to eliminate draws, which is the theme of this thread, then draws either have to be awarded based on some aspect of the position (or game history) or else just arbitrarily awarded to one color. Since awarding all draws to Black, although "logical", is clearly way too extreme, we have to award some of them based on who has played "better". A very simple rule would be to award draws to whichever side had the superior point count (we would have to agree whether to use 1-3-3-5-9 or some other point count) and if it's a tie, Black wins (This is a version of what is done in shogi). But probably it's still too favorable for Black unless we introduce fractional points for bishop over knight or for doubled pawns or other aspects of the position. The other ideas discussed here are alternatives to just counting material. Basically, the players need a second way to win a game besides checkmate. One rule I've always liked is that first king to reach the eighth rank wins. With that added rule, draws would be rather uncommon in the endgame so maybe giving Black draw odds would be fair. To eliminate draws, either we have to give White some other option besides checkmate to win, or else we have to start the game off with one side having a larger advantage than under current rules while the other side gets draw odds. Either we change the opening, or we change the endgame. I don't know which way I would prefer.