<richardhutnik@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Another possibility is to use speed chess as "Overtime", like the
> did recently with Chess960 as a way to tie-break. Don't like to go
> there, well then win?
I'd much rather see joint champions declared than have ever-more
ludicrous tie-breaks used to separate them.
> You could also simply have people not be able to ask their opponent
> for a draw, and force them to play it out. Maybe do an opposite
> version where you can ask your opponent to resign or force them to
> double the points the match is worth.
Doubling certainly wouldn't work in a tournament -- somebody might
well win the tournament just because his opponent stubbornly kept
redoubling in a lost position. I don't think it's a good idea in
matches, either. Doubling works in backgammon because small mistakes
and bad luck can cause the lead in a game to be exchanged back and
forth between the players. There's no luck in chess and mistakes tend
to be more serious so it's not so common for the players to trade the
lead. Usually, one player or the oher builds up a steadily growin
advantage and the question is whether his opponent will be able to
hang on for a draw, not whether the leader will make a mistake and let
his opponent win.
> The last option is to add new rules to chess, to make the game new.
> Of course, this is heresy to hardcore players of the game, who think
> the FIDE rules were handed down by God and immutable for eternity.
I've already pointed out that there have been non-trivial changes to
the rules in the last few years. This idea that chess players believe
the laws to be immutable is a straw man.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Love Soap (TM): it's like a
personal
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ hygiene product that you can
share
with someone special!
|
