armageddon in norway chess

[leavenfish]

So Norway chess round 1 concluded with 5 draws, but White won 4-1 in the 10-7 (+3 sec inc from move 60) Armageddon game, Black getting less time but draw oddss. This suggests that Armageddon is valid in longer games than blitz, as was also shown in some U.S. Championship playoff games at odds like one hour to 22 or so minutes. Perhaps some organizer will propose dispensing with the normal games and just playing Armageddon with White having the normal 2 hours plus 30" inc and Black getting just half of those numbers, or even 1/3, whatever makes the results close to 50-50. This could be the answer to draws!
Naturally, this could work in computer events as well, although the time odds might have to be a bit steeper. Perhaps someone will conduct some tests, although they wouldn't be quite accurate since the engines wouldn't know about the draw odds.

Draws are not a problem in high level chess. This is a solution in search of a problem.
Also, if I made a living from chess (as the top do), it IS natural to not always play for the win...

There are unintended consequences that seem to stem from this current 'solution'. Those who are better at faster time controls have no incentive to try to win the standard game...anyone remember the last two World Championship matches??? I believe the last two rounds of Standard were all draws...hmmm...

[lkaufman]

So Norway chess round 1 concluded with 5 draws, but White won 4-1 in the 10-7 (+3 sec inc from move 60) Armageddon game, Black getting less time but draw oddss. This suggests that Armageddon is valid in longer games than blitz, as was also shown in some U.S. Championship playoff games at odds like one hour to 22 or so minutes. Perhaps some organizer will propose dispensing with the normal games and just playing Armageddon with White having the normal 2 hours plus 30" inc and Black getting just half of those numbers, or even 1/3, whatever makes the results close to 50-50. This could be the answer to draws!
Naturally, this could work in computer events as well, although the time odds might have to be a bit steeper. Perhaps someone will conduct some tests, although they wouldn't be quite accurate since the engines wouldn't know about the draw odds.

Draws are not a problem in high level chess. This is a solution in search of a problem.
Also, if I made a living from chess (as the top do), it IS natural to not always play for the win...

There are unintended consequences that seem to stem from this current 'solution'. Those who are better at faster time controls have no incentive to try to win the standard game...anyone remember the last two World Championship matches??? I believe the last two rounds of Standard were all draws...hmmm...

You are right about the unintended consequences; that's why I don't like combining a 4 hour game with a blitz playoff. If we are going to have an Armageddon playoff, I think the White time should be at least half of normal, with the Black time half of that. But judging from the results so far, that might be too much in Black's favor. I don't agree that draws in top RRs are often due to motivational factors. They are just due to the wide draw margin in chess. Unless the players are mismatched or someone is ill or victory can be clinched, White almost always plays for a win and Black usually plays for a draw. They do their best, the game is just too drawish as is. 50% draws is acceptable, but 75% or more is not, if we want people to be interested in chess. Whether it's all Armageddon games, chess 960, balloted openings (like in computer chess), or something else, some change is needed to bring draws down to around 50% or less at top level to make chess grow.

[Laskos]

So Norway chess round 1 concluded with 5 draws, but White won 4-1 in the 10-7 (+3 sec inc from move 60) Armageddon game, Black getting less time but draw oddss. This suggests that Armageddon is valid in longer games than blitz, as was also shown in some U.S. Championship playoff games at odds like one hour to 22 or so minutes. Perhaps some organizer will propose dispensing with the normal games and just playing Armageddon with White having the normal 2 hours plus 30" inc and Black getting just half of those numbers, or even 1/3, whatever makes the results close to 50-50. This could be the answer to draws!
Naturally, this could work in computer events as well, although the time odds might have to be a bit steeper. Perhaps someone will conduct some tests, although they wouldn't be quite accurate since the engines wouldn't know about the draw odds.

Draws are not a problem in high level chess. This is a solution in search of a problem.
Also, if I made a living from chess (as the top do), it IS natural to not always play for the win...

There are unintended consequences that seem to stem from this current 'solution'. Those who are better at faster time controls have no incentive to try to win the standard game...anyone remember the last two World Championship matches??? I believe the last two rounds of Standard were all draws...hmmm...

You are right about the unintended consequences; that's why I don't like combining a 4 hour game with a blitz playoff. If we are going to have an Armageddon playoff, I think the White time should be at least half of normal, with the Black time half of that. But judging from the results so far, that might be too much in Black's favor. I don't agree that draws in top RRs are often due to motivational factors. They are just due to the wide draw margin in chess. Unless the players are mismatched or someone is ill or victory can be clinched, White almost always plays for a win and Black usually plays for a draw. They do their best, the game is just too drawish as is. 50% draws is acceptable, but 75% or more is not, if we want people to be interested in chess. Whether it's all Armageddon games, chess 960, balloted openings (like in computer chess), or something else, some change is needed to bring draws down to around 50% or less at top level to make chess grow.

It's also about the habits, preferences, tastes and mores of those elite GMs, and I am unfamiliar with these issues. In order to not contract time control for any side, one can keep the same tournament time control with, for example, this fixed unbalanced opening position:

[d]rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/4P3/8/PPPP1PPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1

It will have, if adopted, its own opening theory (there are at least 3 white opening very playable moves and many black possible replies, the openings won't be trivial) and the draw rate with top GMs at tournament TC won't be larger than 50%. But again, I guess a "new kind of Chess" is harder to accept in those circles than just giving an asymmetric time control.

[carldaman]

IMO, a scoring system that disincentivizes draws and rewards wins more, especially with Black, should be better than messing with the fabric of the game (by introducing weird variants).

Such an alternate scoring system was discussed here a while ago - HGM made an interesting suggestion, but I don't remember all the details.

[Ovyron]

They do their best, the game is just too drawish as is. 50% draws is acceptable, but 75% or more is not, if we want people to be interested in chess.

Wait, why is so much time and effort trying to save chess if it's a dying game and people could be playing a better game that isn't so drawish in nature?

Like, what about, instead of games being played to a draw leading to time control handicap, or draw odds, they lead to a different game? What is the status of Crazyhouse? By its very nature I don't think it'd be in danger of having very high draw rate, and people could play it without the time troubles or trying to win a game that is drawn in nature (similar to trying to win tic-tac-toe because draw is a loss??)

There are hundreds of thousands of chess variants, it is very unlikely that chess is the most fun game to play, so one could find what is the most fun, by introducing it in the manner Armageddon chess was introduced, as an experiment.

[leavenfish]

Another point against this method:

Let's say Caruana has discovered a +.75 innovation on move 12 of a line he is sure to play against Magnu's Sveshnikov...and it is late in the tournament and Fabi is having a poor tournament and faces a Sveshnikov. Why on earth would he waste even going into this (his best line) against another player? No, he would play a weaker line...intentionally.

Remember, this is how these guys put food on the table! Reality sits in for most the further the tournament progresses.

In any case, if someone thinks draws (even 75%) are a real problem (SUGGESTION: watch more Women's chess, for one ), one way to guarantee a fight for the plebs would be to divy out the prize fund solely based on WINS. That is to say in a $100,000 prize funded tournament, at the end, you split it based upon the percentage of wins YOU achieved - draws not counting. 1 Win by say Carlsen and everyone else drawing each game...Magnus gets the full $100,000. If he scores 4 wins, one other scores 1 win...and all other games are drawn, Magnus gets $80,000, the other guy gets $20,000 ...and everyone else returns home with their appearance fees to contemplate their chosen profession or at least to retool their approach as the Jobava's of the world might get the invite next time.

I suppose then, the Ulf Anderson's, Peter Leko's and Anish Giri's of the world would be flipping burgers...

[lkaufman]

They do their best, the game is just too drawish as is. 50% draws is acceptable, but 75% or more is not, if we want people to be interested in chess.

Wait, why is so much time and effort trying to save chess if it's a dying game and people could be playing a better game that isn't so drawish in nature?

Like, what about, instead of games being played to a draw leading to time control handicap, or draw odds, they lead to a different game? What is the status of Crazyhouse? By its very nature I don't think it'd be in danger of having very high draw rate, and people could play it without the time troubles or trying to win a game that is drawn in nature (similar to trying to win tic-tac-toe because draw is a loss??)

There are hundreds of thousands of chess variants, it is very unlikely that chess is the most fun game to play, so one could find what is the most fun, by introducing it in the manner Armageddon chess was introduced, as an experiment.

I'm pretty sure that Crazyhouse is a win for White, and in engine play it is too one-sidedly so to be a good game. The best chess variant is the one Crazyhouse was based on, namely shogi, but it's pretty different from normal chess.

[lkaufman]

IMO, a scoring system that disincentivizes draws and rewards wins more, especially with Black, should be better than messing with the fabric of the game (by introducing weird variants).

Such an alternate scoring system was discussed here a while ago - HGM made an interesting suggestion, but I don't remember all the details.

Disincentiviting draws with White makes sense, not so much with Black. Logically Black should play for a draw, White should not. Simply awarding 0.6 to Black and 0.4 to White in case of a draw (promoted by Ed Epp) would be an improvement over current system, but perhaps not a big improvement. The problem isn't incentive, it's that at least with five hour games the game is too drawish. I think that balloted openings makes the most sense, with chess960 a close second. Opening preparation is just too much of the game now.

[lkaufman]

So Norway chess round 1 concluded with 5 draws, but White won 4-1 in the 10-7 (+3 sec inc from move 60) Armageddon game, Black getting less time but draw oddss. This suggests that Armageddon is valid in longer games than blitz, as was also shown in some U.S. Championship playoff games at odds like one hour to 22 or so minutes. Perhaps some organizer will propose dispensing with the normal games and just playing Armageddon with White having the normal 2 hours plus 30" inc and Black getting just half of those numbers, or even 1/3, whatever makes the results close to 50-50. This could be the answer to draws!
Naturally, this could work in computer events as well, although the time odds might have to be a bit steeper. Perhaps someone will conduct some tests, although they wouldn't be quite accurate since the engines wouldn't know about the draw odds.

Draws are not a problem in high level chess. This is a solution in search of a problem.
Also, if I made a living from chess (as the top do), it IS natural to not always play for the win...

There are unintended consequences that seem to stem from this current 'solution'. Those who are better at faster time controls have no incentive to try to win the standard game...anyone remember the last two World Championship matches??? I believe the last two rounds of Standard were all draws...hmmm...

You are right about the unintended consequences; that's why I don't like combining a 4 hour game with a blitz playoff. If we are going to have an Armageddon playoff, I think the White time should be at least half of normal, with the Black time half of that. But judging from the results so far, that might be too much in Black's favor. I don't agree that draws in top RRs are often due to motivational factors. They are just due to the wide draw margin in chess. Unless the players are mismatched or someone is ill or victory can be clinched, White almost always plays for a win and Black usually plays for a draw. They do their best, the game is just too drawish as is. 50% draws is acceptable, but 75% or more is not, if we want people to be interested in chess. Whether it's all Armageddon games, chess 960, balloted openings (like in computer chess), or something else, some change is needed to bring draws down to around 50% or less at top level to make chess grow.

It's also about the habits, preferences, tastes and mores of those elite GMs, and I am unfamiliar with these issues. In order to not contract time control for any side, one can keep the same tournament time control with, for example, this fixed unbalanced opening position:

[d]rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/4P3/8/PPPP1PPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1

It will have, if adopted, its own opening theory (there are at least 3 white opening very playable moves and many black possible replies, the openings won't be trivial) and the draw rate with top GMs at tournament TC won't be larger than 50%. But again, I guess a "new kind of Chess" is harder to accept in those circles than just giving an asymmetric time control.

If such a one-sided position was used as the start position, it would be pretty much mandatory to play two games with each pairing, presumably at half the time control. Actually it would be nice if this position would make Armageddon fair, but computer playouts indicate that with draw odds Black would still hold a significant edge, though human results might differ. I think it would be a hard sell to top GMs though. A simple rule change that would make Armageddon roughly balanced is that neither player can castle on the same side as the opponent has already done, which would obviously favor White greatly, enough to give draw odds. But even this won't solve the preparation problem, it's just that all new theory would be developed, which won't take long with today's engines. I think any major rule change needs to address this problem.

[Ozymandias]

[d]rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/4P3/8/PPPP1PPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1

An extra tempo might be straying too much from equality. I think that a better alternative in the long run, would be to alter the position of the pieces, but nothing else. Something akin to 960 but without the drawbacks (no castling, unnatural development...). Something like this:

[d]rnbkqbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq -
The black player could even be given the choice between this position and a pre-selected defence (not of his choice).