If I invented a perfect drawless chess variant, how much is it worth?

[chesskobra]

Drawless chess doesn't need a new variant, just a new rule: exactly the same as normal chess, but if a game is a draw then the player with most time remaining in the clock gets the win.

In principle this is ok, but in practice this might lead to some weird dynamics. For example, throughout the game players will be forced to maintain near equality on clock unless they really see an opportunity to find a win by spending more time, but that may be very risky, which will result in boring draws with players trying to win only on time. Or when both players realise that there is no win, the player who is lower on time will try to play fast and recover on clock, which can of course lead to mistakes. Also, especially at high level, White may have better chance of getting a draw while playing marginally faster than black. So overall I think this will not lead to more exciting chess at any level.

I personally see no need to change rules to make individual games decisive, and the variants have no value other than some curiosity. My impression, despite the propaganda, is that classical chess is not broken, and there is still huge interest in classical chess, even at top level, even if some older players are not interested in preparing. I also think that as a spectator there are plenty of exciting games to watch. Today's game between Koneru Humpy and Divya Deshmukh was exciting even though there was likely some preparation behind the pawn sacrifice followed by Ba3. So players who are not afraid of losing are still playing exciting chess. It is Carlsen whose matches with Karjakin and Caruana were boring, because that is when he met his equals, and was afraid of losing. Against Anand and Nepo, he knew that he would win. So it is good that he quit WC chess. Younger players are still going to fight it out without change of rules.

[Chessisgreat]

I also think that as a spectator there are plenty of exciting games to watch. Today's game between Koneru Humpy and Divya Deshmukh was exciting even though there was likely some preparation behind the pawn sacrifice followed by Ba3. So players who are not afraid of losing are still playing exciting chess. It is Carlsen whose matches with Karjakin and Caruana were boring, because that is when he met his equals, and was afraid of losing.

For classical chess, of course there are many exciting games. But it depends on the players. We appreciate their fight will. However, we can't blame on the professional players who prefer draw than loss. It is human nature.

As an audience, we must admit that many chess games in top level chess tournaments are boring. Sometimes, even commentators are disappointed. Now there are some restrictions about draw offering in tournaments. These restrictions can't fix the problem. Players can always find a way to bypass them.

For my drawless chess variant, every game is exciting. Audience will never get disappointed.

[Chessisgreat]

even though there was likely some preparation behind the pawn sacrifice followed by Ba3.

Preparation and memorization are a part of training. They are not the problems. The problem is draw. When we believe draw problem is impossible to fix, and we don't want to accept draw as a result, we blame preparation and memorization.

If Bobby Fischser or Magnus Carlsen can win every chess game, no one will care whether they win the games by preparation or memorization.

Now chess's sensitivity is not good enough for top chess players.

[chrisw]

Drawless chess doesn't need a new variant, just a new rule: exactly the same as normal chess, but if a game is a draw then the player with most time remaining in the clock gets the win.

I would be interested in your magic secret perfect draw variant for development and sale into my magic secret distribution network. Sales revenue estimate ten million euros. How much would you like to reveal the powerful secret and its exclusive rights? Hundred thousand euros?

[jefk]

Ck wrote

My impression, despite the propaganda, is that classical chess is not broken

well in ICCF correspondence there is an obvious problem. yes i could say it's
'broken'. No, a rule change would not be a new variant, but initially it should
(mainly) be optional because it's a conservative world.

Such a rule improvement, if properly thought out(*) may have spinoff for
classical chess (with slow time controls); in blitz chess for humans obviously
you don't need yet another rule (there's also already armeggedon)

(*) which is why i would encourage this mr 'chessisgreat' to simply
describe his idea, after which we could take up the topic again
instead of remaining within metaphysical-economical abstracts.
Otherwise i suggest the moderator should close this thread

[Uri Blass]

Ck wrote

My impression, despite the propaganda, is that classical chess is not broken

well in ICCF correspondence there is an obvious problem. yes i could say it's
'broken'. No, a rule change would not be a new variant, but initially it should
(mainly) be optional because it's a conservative world.

Such a rule improvement, if properly thought out(*) may have spinoff for
classical chess (with slow time controls); in blitz chess for humans obviously
you don't need yet another rule (there's also already armeggedon)

(*) which is why i would encourage this mr 'chessisgreat' to simply
describe his idea, after which we could take up the topic again
instead of remaining within metaphysical-economical abstracts.
Otherwise i suggest the moderator should close this thread

I have a simple idea to solve the problem that I believe I shared in the past but people are not going to accept it.
I will call the game chessX because it is slightly different than chess but based on chess.

both players start playing a chess game(not chessX) and have to write the drawing and losing move in the poisition they are.
As long as they agree about it the side to move need to play a drawing move.

When they disagree they start a game to show who is right in the evaluation and the side who prove his point is the winner in chessX(sometimes the target of him in order to win in chessX may be only to get at least a draw from a specific position).

For example suppose in the opening position all agree that all moves draw except g4.
White choose a drawing move for example 1.e4.
Now suppose a5 is the first move by lexisographic order that there is a disagreement when white believes it is draw and black believes it is losing.

They play a chess game to prove their point.
White get the black pieces and need to get at least a draw in chess after 1.e4 a5 to prove his point when black get the white pieces and need to win to prove his point.

The winner in chessX is the side who proved his point so if in this example the result of the chess game is a draw then the player who was originally white is going to win.

You can ask what happens if both side agree about all moves till the end of the game(I believe it is not going to happen but you can decide that black is winning in this case to avoid draw also in this case).

Time control of the first chess game can be 30+180 so people have time to think about all moves if they are drawing or losing(g4 only losing move may be opening preperation so white does not need to think about it.
Later there may be theory about 19 drawing moves of white but in a few moves the sides will need to think to get a decision.
I believe that practically the first part of chessX will take less than 2 hour in most cases because there is not going to be a long agreement about the drawing moves.

[towforce]

If I invented a perfect drawless chess variant, how much is it worth?

If you charge a license fee, nobody will play the game

I only hope I can sell it once. That is enough. Then the buyer owns the copyright, and can do anything he/she wants with it. The buyer can use it as a brand. Just like chess960.

Maybe start a bidding war between ChessBase and chess.com?

Freestyle Chess tournaments, particularly the Grand Slam Tour, are primarily sponsored by venture capital firm Left Lane Capital, which has invested $12 million into the initiative (chess.com are also involved, with events like "Freestyle Friday"). However, a lot of that money went to brand name chess players to get them to show up.

Your buyer will:

* have plenty of money

* have sponsorship of events as part of their marketing strategy

* want to be associated with intellectual games

You should probably be quick: as the all round boost the "Queen's Gambit" drama has given the game fades, the value of your idea will decline.

It will help if your game can be played on a standard chessboard with the standard pieces. Without this, it won't work with most existing software used to broadcast and play the games.

[Chessisgreat]

If I invented a perfect drawless chess variant, how much is it worth?

If you charge a license fee, nobody will play the game

I only hope I can sell it once. That is enough. Then the buyer owns the copyright, and can do anything he/she wants with it. The buyer can use it as a brand. Just like chess960.

It will help if your game can be played on a standard chessboard with the standard pieces.

No doubt about it.

I know there are many chess variants. I can't say chess will be replaced with my drawless chess variant. But if the drawless chess variant has a sponsor just like chess960, chess960 has no chance.

A few months ago, when I saw there was a Freestyle Chess Grand Slam Tour, I thought maybe someone in chess industry would be interested in my drawless chess variant. So I contacted a few chess organizations, but got no response.

I don't expect to make a fortune from it. A little is enough.

[jefk]

don't expect to make a fortune from it. A little is enough.

sigh, thought of ignoring this thread, but one last reaction it will cost you time,
anyway. Being realistic -especially in the chess world which you don't seem to know
very well (any credentials?) nobody wil be interested unless you tell them the idea
and can convince them you're the legal owner (which they then won't believe anyway);
stuff as copyright imo wont work if you think it's such a great idea, you could register
an international patent ofcourse, which only will cost you approx 150,000 bucks/yr.
Then you're legally protected can can try to sell it to Fide, chess.com, chessbase.com
the Pope, Mark Zuckerberg, or who ever, for some million or so. Chance: zip.


PS i also have a *real* (and tested) idea btw which should be able make chess ten
times as interesting (for average players, in chess clubs, etc); because now chess
players in a tourn, usually with large difference in playing strength, will get much
more interesting games (especially for the weaker players)
https://sourceforge.net/projects/fairchess/
thought about giving it the name social chess, inline with the Fide social chess project
https://soc.fide.com/social-chess-2025
just one week thereafter this name got registered on android (a chess network app); no big
deal. You can buy the idea (*) for only two million and then name it as you like, or
sell it to Fide, the Pope, Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Magnus C, or who ever.
Good luck
(*) give me a pm and i'll give you my bank account

[chrisw]

This thread should be deleted under the flagrant commercial exhortations rule. It’s commercial because he wants money from somebody for his unknown idea. It’s flagrant because he keeps on and on with the same commercial exhortations.