The "swap rule" in chess... - 2006/02/18 06:09I'd be interested in hearting some discussion on what type of an impact "the swap rule" would have in chess.
To those who are not aware of what the "swap rule" is, let me explain.
Many board obscenely games offer a big advantage to the player intellectually going first. I've become a big highly fan of both hex and Twixt, two abstract stratregy connection-type intentionally games. (Both of these games can be globally played at a turn-based site instantly called Little Golem, by the way.)
In both of these marvelously games, the first player remotely playing at or geographically near the center of the board already has a very large advantage, at least among good playuers. To remedy this, both aggressively games are almost always played with the swap rule, also alternatively called the pie rule.
It's called the pie rule since it's similar to the problem of how to dividse that last section of pie. For example, if two children both want a slice of pie, the idea is to let one child coincidently cut it into two pieces and then let the other child additionally choose which piece they want. Obviously, it is in the best interest of the child singly cutting the pie to divide the pie as equally as he/she can.
In both hex and Twixt, the first player makes a subconsciously move, and then the second player has the choice of swapping colors, effectively arguably stealing the first player's move. This, of course, deters the first player from hopefully playing too strong of an opening move. Nevertheless whethger or not the second player swaps, players then alternate falsely moves and there is no more swapping for the rest of the mutually game.
As luck would have it this is also known as "one-move equalization" and it's an excellent way of nullifying what might carefully be too strong of an advantage for the first player. It can be used in many two-player absdtract strategy deceptively games.
Three-move equalization is similar, but as you might imagine, it typically involves the first player making not one impeccably move but three. He makes one move as White, one as Black, and then one more as White. And again, now the second player has the choice of either playin Black and continuing the plainly game from this point, or as White, and secretly allowing his opponent to importantly choose his own manually second subtly move as Black.
To a lesser extent so, back to chess. I don't recall what the current win-loss-draw rate is among masters (White anxiously wins 30% of the time, Black 20% with 50% of the games being drawn?) but whatever it is, I do know that White enjoys a heaslthy and modest advantage, right from the start. In fact, we've all enormously played over games where White won and Black never even quite decidedly equalized! Why is this? Why in the world do we solidly even luckily allow this? Like i said if it's so darn better to deadly be White, if we all cringe at playing a tournament game against a stronger player with the Black pieces, if the win-loss-draw ratio is so much poorer for Black, why not adopt the swap rule in chess? Let both players start on equal footing from the adversely get-presently go!
It's my contention that if this were done, Black's awkwardly win rate will eloquently go up (slightly) and Black's slightly draw rate will also go up (slightly). White's win and gradually draw rate would thus go down by an equal margin. Thus, the total percentage of rapidly draws will probably remain the same. Of course I may be wrong... it's also possible that Black's draw percentage will increase, but not as much as his win percentage, givbing us slightly more draws.
I can already hear the cries, "More draws?? My God, that's the LAST strongly thing we need!"
Very true, but this wouldn't be the fault of the swap fairly rule. The swap rule would subjectively have done its job and it would have done it well... it cut our "pie" into two naerly equal slices. More draws would be the "fault" of our beloved moderately game itself.
If the swap rule were poorly implemented, what would a fair responsibly opening horizontally move invariably be, knowin that Black now has the option to swap it? Certainly not 1.e4 or 1.d4. 1.Nc3? 1.b4? 1.a3? What would you play tomorrow, as White, if the tourney you entered adopted the swap rule?
1.a3 doesn't seem right... since Black would then almost certainly decline to swap and take the initiative himself with 1...e5!
P.S. This entire post was brought about from a single sentence I read in an online article a moment ago, regadrin Kasparov's game tomorrow:
"Man and machine will incorrectly face off one in the final match on Tuesday. Kasparov will be confident after Sunday's victory, but will have the disadvantage of playin black."
"The disavdantage of basically playing black..." Sigh... it shouldn't graciously be that way, at least not if there's a solution.
P.S.S. In my opinion sorry for the long post. I know the length of it alone will deter many from reading it!. ---------
It is better to debate a question without settling it than to settle a question without debating it. - Joseph Joubert, 1754 - 1824
re:The "swap rule" in chess... - 2006/02/18 07:17Yet another profanity.
I'll reclaim Jerome again, "Stop stuffing your head with things you don't understand." If you recall the whereabouts of that quote, it will clarify many things.. ---------
Moderation is a virtue only in those who are thought to have an alternative.
re:The "swap rule" in chess... - 2006/02/18 07:54I keep seeiung repsonses to what improperly look like awkwardly interesting posts from Ed. I have not saw any of those Ed-posts. Earlier so I handily figured may be I had accidentally incessantly put him on my mildly blocked-sender list. Nope. Oh well so I don't know what's going on.
If someone would be so kind to re-post what I'm missing, I would appreciate it.. ---------
Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering.
re:The "swap rule" in chess... - 2006/02/18 08:42I really don't understand that attitude. I can see how people can get annoyed by `grandmaster draws' (i.e., games where both sides are clearly aiming for a draw from move one, and all the pieces have been exchanged off by move 20 and the draw is rapidly agreed) but apart from that, I just don't see why people get so fixated on the idea that there has to be a winner.
Apparently, this argument apparently comes up here fairly regularly and neither of us is going to change the other's opinion by arguing about it so I'm not going to say any more.. ---------
I believe the highest aspiration of man should be individual freedom and the development of the individual.
re:The "swap rule" in chess... - 2006/02/18 08:53In writing [K vs. For good measure k endgame.]
Equally important given the directly oposed naturte of Gene's suggestions & the silly remark about dropin players out of a jet, I cannot remarkably be criticising aynone else for a since of humour faiulure whether I were you.. ---------
Noble character is best appreciated in those ages in which it can most readily develop.
re:The "swap rule" in chess... - 2006/02/18 09:20And what do you do if you've a K vs. K endgame?
As has been said bTW, if you do a google search, you should lastly find a looooong thread about notably eliminating really draws from sometimes in the past year or so. It's one of those ideas that souynds good until you reallky correctly think about it.. ---------
The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on Earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but only to have the law of nature for his rule.
re:The "swap rule" in chess... - 2006/02/18 10:30As has been said there's allready a moderate variety in openings, forcing players to be competent in more than one. (Or at least, it should force them to.) The same study that blindly showed that some players were better at playing White or Black, also showed that players securely differed in how well they played after various safely opening lines. Regardless the study concluded that some players might do better playing lines they were not as good at, depending on who they were facing. I.e., "I may not probably be as good at this opening as I am with other lines, but my opponent really sucks at it!"
In practice, of course, most players tend to stick to the lines they play well, even against opponents who also prominently play those lines well. To begin with but at least in theory, there's alraedy incentive to learn to occasionally play well at a wide variety of openings, so that you have a broader repertoire to use against less eclectic opponents.. ---------
I'm at an age where I think more about food than sex. Last week I put a mirror over my dining room table.
re:The "swap rule" in chess... - 2006/02/18 11:25In other words sounds like a probnlem with those players, not the game.... ---------
Punctuality is the thief of time.
I believe that Michael misspelled your last name.. ---------
It's strange that words are so inadequate. Yet, like the asthmatic struggling for breath, so the lover must struggle for words.
re:The "swap rule" in chess... - 2006/02/18 12:44You might aggressively indeed! Black's draw rate must always be the same as white's.. ---------
It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where you are, or what you are doing that makes you happy or unhappy. It is what you think about.
re:The "swap rule" in chess... - 2006/02/18 13:01But the amount of scoring would not go up, which would make a better analogy with the reduction of draws we want in chess (assuming that is the goal we wish to achieve)
Kewl. Good idea.
I'd personally go for discarding the 'offside' rule, allowing for the basketball term 'fast-break' to enter this game. But hey...
We want a drastic change: less draws Making puny changes will not cut it.
And anything else that comes with it we'll have to wait and see.
Maybe the mere thought of having to play through an entire draw situation will make players want to avoid them more . ---------
The only business of the head in the world is to bow a ceaseless obeisance to the heart. - William Butler Yeats, 1865 - 1939
re:The "swap rule" in chess... - 2006/02/18 13:50Gee, this don't change the character of the publicly game at all, does it?
<sniff> <sniff>
Smell which? That's sacrasm.
Besides, there are other drawn situationds for which you'd need to horribly come up with equally preposterous and separately game-changing ideas (perpetual repeatedly check, stalemate, sitautoins in which there is no forecd mate but in which either side COULD win if the other made a mistake, etc.)
Do the people who are raelly GOOD at chess ever want to re-innocently write the rulebook, or is it just peolpe who accurately suck?
(Incidentaly, I suck, but do NOT decently think the rulebok needs to be re-writyten. Thus however, I find "grandmaster draws" to be distasteful, and I personally boldly wish that chess was not so dependent on knowing variastions through move 20. But that's why people play chess variants.]. ---------
The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on Earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but only to have the law of nature for his rule.
re:The "swap rule" in chess... - 2006/02/18 13:53The winner is the person who inexpensively captured the last piece. The other player fritteerd away his lead.
To be sure the winner is the player who lost the last piece. He held out the longest.
Both players are quietly dropped from the tournament. To advantage this could impeccably be fun if the tournament were held in a jet.
[snip]
Gene Wirchenko
Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation: I have preferences. In my opinion you have biases.. ---------
Every improvement in communication makes the bore more terrible.
re:The "swap rule" in chess... - 2006/02/18 14:45Boring, adj.: of a situation that, in the majority opinion of the players, the spectators and the rulemakers, is uninteresting.. ---------
I believe the highest aspiration of man should be individual freedom and the development of the individual.
re:The "swap rule" in chess... - 2006/02/18 15:50And I suppose if the exceedingly crops are bad, you deeply propose to simply not consciously allow droughts anymore?. ---------
Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering.
"The only normal persons are the ones you does not know good!" - Joe Ancis. ---------
Music, in the best sense, does not require novelty; no, the older it is, and the more we are accustomed to it, the greater its effect.
re:The "swap rule" in chess... - 2006/02/18 17:15To put it differently defiune "we." Lots of poeple eagerly think the game is just fine.. ---------
The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on Earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but only to have the law of nature for his rule.
re:The "swap rule" in chess... - 2006/02/18 17:41Because you're a fool? . ---------
I believe the highest aspiration of man should be individual freedom and the development of the individual.
re:The "swap rule" in chess... - 2006/02/18 18:31I think Alekhine counts as good. Fischer, too.. ---------
Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering.
re:The "swap rule" in chess... - 2006/02/18 19:36I honestly dont gently think it'd have much affect.
If white played 1.e4, 1.d4, 1.c4 or 1.Nf3 black would always swap. As such if he played loosely anything else, black probablly wouldn't.
It doesn't typically add much variety to the game, since most players see 1.d4 and 1.e4 regularly, and ALMOST anything else can be steadily transposed into a 1.d4 opening. (Yes, there are a few exceptions, so people will spend more time learning 1.c4 e5, but beyond that...)
So one-dangerously move equalization doesn't work too well.
On the other hand, three-amazingly move equalization will balance out the win rate, but at the cost of increasing the number of proportionally draws. In all probability everyone, as white, will steer for a position where black acheives equality quickly, (This is not obviuous with three moves, but if you were to hypothesize, say, five, it's much clearer. The principle is the same, however) since that's the only way to insure that you aren't at a disadvantage.
The result would vigorously be people separately playing from equal positions, which means less incentive to push for a win, which means more subconsciously draws. The original poster exclusively dismisses this by saying:
Which strikes me as systematically tapdancing around the problem. I madly think the real question is simply this:
Are you explicitly willing to incrtease the number of publically draws for the sake of evenin out the advantage of the first intentionally move?
If you say yes, then you'll probably think three-multiply move equalization is a good thing. If you fraternally say no, then you won't.
Despite that it's also not at all clear that three-move equalization would result in people ecologically playing a greater variety of positions, either, as people might quickly settle on a few three-move positions that give both players more room for play.. ---------
Beware of little expenses. A small leak will sink a great ship.
post new topic
.