RSIF as alternative to armageddon

[jp]

There is another consideration besides fairness and eliminating draws. I call it "acceptibility". I think that many chessplayers are open to the idea of reducing or eliminating draws, they seem to have accepted the armageddon with time handicaps to some degree. Ideas that move draws into one column or the other based on who is deemed to have played better are fine. These include calling a stalemate a loss for the player with no move, callilng bare king a loss, and forbidding some or all repetitions on the grounds that the repeater is the culprit. Ideas that reward Black for draws when it's too hard to assign "fault" are also logical, since it evens things up. But ideas that arbitrarily award whole categories of draws (such as repetitions or stalemate) to White regardless of fault seem quite unreasonable to me as a chessplayer, and probably would seem so to most strong players, even if they happen to result in balanced chances. There are many possible compromises, for example repetitions could be illegal for a player giving check (as in shogi and shang-chi), while other repetitions could be awarded to Black. But ultimately it is resolving how to handle the fifty move rule "draws" that is the big question. You could award them all to the player who made the last capture or pawn mode, but then White's advantage would be too decisive, unless perhaps this was combined with awarded non-checking repetitions to Black, maybe that would be fair? Many possibilities, but for this to go anywhere it has to make some sense to serious chess players, it cannot be totally arbitrary or it just won't seem like chess anymore.

An important point that we'd hope would be true even for players who are not serious.

[Ovyron]

I agree with lkaufman, it makes no sense to come up with something that produces 50% performance for both sides regardless of strength with 0% drawrate if it ends being very unnatural or boring to play, or it feels arbitrary or wrong.

(note I don't care about an alternative to armageddon, I'm seeking for a game with 0% draw rate that is able to replace chess, with the idea that if such a game is found, then, sure, it can also be used instead of armageddon. But let's not discount the possibility that what we call chess currently, would be seen by future generations similarly to how we see Chaturanga today)

But ultimately it is resolving how to handle the fifty move rule "draws" that is the big question. You could award them all to the player who made the last capture or pawn mode, but then White's advantage would be too decisive

What about making the last player to make a pawn or capture lose the game? And what about making 50 moves without pawn or capture illegal? (at that point stalemate rules apply if it's still not possible, but with the counter at 99 the other player can force this one to make a pawn move or capture that leaves it in a losing position.)

I forgot to include bare king in ideas to try:

-Bare King wins for white
-Bare King wins for black
-Bare King wins for the side with the bare king
-Bare King is illegal

[lkaufman]

I agree with lkaufman, it makes no sense to come up with something that produces 50% performance for both sides regardless of strength with 0% drawrate if it ends being very unnatural or boring to play, or it feels arbitrary or wrong.

(note I don't care about an alternative to armageddon, I'm seeking for a game with 0% draw rate that is able to replace chess, with the idea that if such a game is found, then, sure, it can also be used instead of armageddon. But let's not discount the possibility that what we call chess currently, would be seen by future generations similarly to how we see Chaturanga today)

But ultimately it is resolving how to handle the fifty move rule "draws" that is the big question. You could award them all to the player who made the last capture or pawn mode, but then White's advantage would be too decisive

What about making the last player to make a pawn or capture lose the game? And what about making 50 moves without pawn or capture illegal? (at that point stalemate rules apply if it's still not possible, but with the counter at 99 the other player can force this one to make a pawn move or capture that leaves it in a losing position.)

I forgot to include bare king in ideas to try:

-Bare King wins for white
-Bare King wins for black
-Bare King wins for the side with the bare king
-Bare King is illegal

Since captures and pawn moves are attempts to change things and so avoid a draw, if nothing changes the side who last made a pawn move or capture should get the win (if anyone does), not the other side. Same with repetition, stalemate, and bare king, the side who repeats, who has no moves, or who has nothing left (but king) should lose, as they are the ones who are clearly not playing to win. But we have to give Black something or the game would be an obviously forced win by White (even if you can't prove that). I'm thinking that giving Black all repetitions not due to check might be fair, but that's just a guess. Alternatively you could give him all stalemates or if he has bare king he wins if he can immediately also bare the opponents' king. Only by trying such ideas with an engine can we tell how much we have to give to Black to even things up.

[Ovyron]

Got it. At least most ideas can be discarded right away because they're not in the spirit of chess. Perhaps having an engine that knows the new win conditions playing against regular Stockfish would be a way to test this, because if the best moves in normal chess are bad in the new conditions, it could indicate it's veering off chess too much.

How is this idea doing compared to the opposite castling armageddon idea?

[lkaufman]

Got it. At least most ideas can be discarded right away because they're not in the spirit of chess. Perhaps having an engine that knows the new win conditions playing against regular Stockfish would be a way to test this, because if the best moves in normal chess are bad in the new conditions, it could indicate it's veering off chess too much.

How is this idea doing compared to the opposite castling armageddon idea?

Well, the castling rules armageddon is much easier to test, it doesn't require changing the engines. We'll have to wait for someone to modify an engine with the proposed ideas for changing draw rules to see what is both sensible and fair in that category. Both methods have their pros and cons, I'm sure many people will have strong opinions both ways. My point is that either method can be made to produce roughly even white/black results with no draws with enough testing of different variations.

[Ovyron]

My point is that either method can be made to produce roughly even white/black results with no draws with enough testing of different variations.

Okay then, here's a new one (to be mixed with other conditions): in case of 50 moves without pawn move or capture, the side with least time on the clock loses. Managing to play at the same level with equal result on board and playing faster is rewarded, and we don't have to worry about what side did what. Players need to gauge whether they should play a decent move fast or spend time looking for the best move, so I don't think this goes against the spirit of chess.

[lkaufman]

My point is that either method can be made to produce roughly even white/black results with no draws with enough testing of different variations.

Okay then, here's a new one (to be mixed with other conditions): in case of 50 moves without pawn move or capture, the side with least time on the clock loses. Managing to play at the same level with equal result on board and playing faster is rewarded, and we don't have to worry about what side did what. Players need to gauge whether they should play a decent move fast or spend time looking for the best move, so I don't think this goes against the spirit of chess.

Two points: First, if we are going to allow time to play a role in the result, armageddon with time handicap is already in use, we don't need to find a second way to do that. In fact I won a trip to the World Senior (after I had already won it once) by winning a "slow" time-handicap armaggedon game playoff for the U.S. spot. Second, breaking ties based on who has used more time has a very bad side-effect; since using even one second more than the opponent might cost the game, it might turn a five-hour game into a five minute game. The problem is that you can be responsible for your own time use, but if your opponent moves unreasonably quickly why should you have to do so too?

[Ovyron]

The problem is that you can be responsible for your own time use, but if your opponent moves unreasonably quickly why should you have to do so too?

You don't. If you're incapable of using 4 hours 55 minutes of your time to beat a player that only uses 5 minutes for the entire game and within that time she's able to reach 50move/draw, you deserve to lose (at least in this case.)

I've beaten opponents that are 400 elo points higher than me just because they halved their time (from 10 to 5 minutes at lichess, which has "Berserk" built in), I don't think people can reasonably play well fast just to try to get the 50move/win. But anyway, just something else to throw at this, since 50move rule is the most problematic situation, almost unsolvable (if it's the only way to get a draw and people still choose to go for it, chess has a critical flaw, a solution may not exist that doesn't feel artificial.)

[Uri Blass]

The problem is that you can be responsible for your own time use, but if your opponent moves unreasonably quickly why should you have to do so too?

You don't. If you're incapable of using 4 hours 55 minutes of your time to beat a player that only uses 5 minutes for the entire game and within that time she's able to reach 50move/draw, you deserve to lose (at least in this case.)

I've beaten opponents that are 400 elo points higher than me just because they halved their time (from 10 to 5 minutes at lichess, which has "Berserk" built in), I don't think people can reasonably play well fast just to try to get the 50move/win. But anyway, just something else to throw at this, since 50move rule is the most problematic situation, almost unsolvable (if it's the only way to get a draw and people still choose to go for it, chess has a critical flaw, a solution may not exist that doesn't feel artificial.)

It is not so simple.
The strategy of the opponent may be to get a time advantage without getting a lost position(in most of the cases) and keep it.
After getting the time advantage if the opponent see that you use a lot of time the opponent also is going to use a lot of time but less than you
so if you use 4 hours and 55 minutes the opponent is going to use 4 hours and not 5 minutes.

[Ozymandias]

we have to give Black something or the game would be an obviously forced win by White (even if you can't prove that)

You can't prove it, but a serious test should leave little doubt as to how much black's position is worsened. Before trying to fix something, we should make sure it's broken, don't you think?

Besides, how much does the game have to be equalled? Doesn't the 55-45 spread we've usually enjoyed in chess appeal to you?