<richardhutnik@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Nick Wedd <n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> Couldn't you just rule that stalemate was a loss for the stalemated
>> player? That would make a lot of K+P/K endgames into wins for the
>> player with the pawn.
>
> What you suggest with the stalemate issue is part of the solution,
> but still stalemate is more of a mess up on the part of the player
> with the advantage, than something that common.
No. Most of those drawn KP vs K endgames are drawn because the weaker
side can force the stronger side to either stalemate him or give up
the pawn. This is a massive defensive resource. At the moment, many
positions where one player is a pawn down are drawn, precisely because
of stalemate. If you make stalemate a loss for the stalemated player,
most of these positions become won for the side with the extra pawn,
which means that players will be much less likely to sacrifice a pawn
for the attack. That would lead to a much less interesting game.
> You can work scoring as in baring the king is worth one point, a
> checkmate is worth 2 points, and a draw is worth 1/2 point to one
> side, and not worth anything to the other.
That would tend to encourage Black to play for a draw.
> Anyhow, even if people do all this, and introduce everything and
> then decide they want to permanently codify the rules
There is no such thing as `permanently codifying the rules.' The
rules of chess are, essentially, an agreement between chess players.
There is no way that the current generation of players can force
people who have not even been born yet to play by 2008 rules.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Simple Moistened Vomit (TM): it's
like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a pile of puke but it's moist and
it
has no moving parts!
|
