chess is a draw but in how many moves?

[syzygy]

I think that we can define it by the following game:

Have a rule to decide about drawn games.

Draws with more than X plies are considered to be a win for white
Draws with less than X plies are considered to be a win for black
Draws with exactly X plies are considered to be a draw.

Assuming the theoretical result of chess is a draw It is obvious that there is exactly one X when the theretical result of the new game is also a draw and the Question is what is X

It is possible to ask the same question about what is Y that gives theretical result of a draw when
Draws with more than Y plies are considered to be a win for black
Draws with less than Y plies are considered to be a win for white
Draws with exactly Y plies are consdered to be a draw.

I guess that Y<X because white can force a draw faster than black.

I also expect that Y<X. The second variant, where white has to play for a quicker forced draw (or a regular win), should be the more interesting game.

[jefk]

UB wrote

Draws with exactly Y plies are considered to be a draw.

which is -only- a tiny bit different from the original Kaufman proposal.

and i'm thinking of expanding it further (as suggestion for other rules),
eg. for human chess, with a draw range; instead of just at one ply nr.

For example 30-40 ply and game end: draw (if not lost), for blitz/rapid, and 40-60 (or 50?)
draw for slow Fide chess; just as rough estimate (and -arguably 60-90 corresp chess?) . In such
a way Fide and other chess organizers (eg so called Freestyle chess aka chess960) possibly
can maintain normal chess (with opening theory) instead of the more chaotic chess960
(or better chess 324). This ofcourse is a guideline and not an exact solution, but then
in human chess systems/ruls as eg Armageddon also are not exactly calibrated.

So just my 2 cnts (the draw range) cq a prelimenary idea (haven't worked this out in detail,
can be tested (also in computer chess), can be discussed further cq finetuned etc)

[OliverBr]

Such rule will destroy chess completey, because instead of checkmating the king (!), the aim is for black to find a drawish (and so boring) position where it can interrupt the 50moves rule again and again.

Then better change something else with the rules (e.g., in football they gave 3 points (former 2) for a win in the 1990ies), but still the aim must be to checkmate the king.

[jefk]

Such rule will destroy chess completey,

well there has been (more) discussion about possible rule modification, eg endgame rules
in first instance as another -optional- variant (and not to 'destroy chess' ) to solve a 'draw
problem' (eg in correspondence chess); it first should also be further tested, ofcourse.

Your suggestion to award more points for a win anyway won't help in (ICCF) correspondence
chess because, eg. like mr Blass stated so eloquently, 'chess is a draw'. And then
you simply cannot 'checkmate'' the other king, unless there's a (severe) mistake. In other
words, (high level) ICCF correspondence chess already *is* 'destroyed' because all games
are draws (unless you make in input mistake or choose some insane opening moves).

In normal otb chess the situation is different, of course, for the time being although
with classical time controls the draw rate at top level seems to increase (which
probably was a reason to (partly) go for 'Freestyle (Fischer random) chess.

[OliverBr]

Your suggestion to award more points for a win anyway won't help in (ICCF) correspondence ...

No. I haven't suggested this. Please read carefully!
I gave the example of football where a rule have been changed in order to avoid draws.