4 ms·
Don’t rapid and blitz already kind of fill that role? I’m really not sure that having fewer draws is a great metric to guide optimization for classical chess. F
by qzw 5y ago
Don’t rapid and blitz already kind of fill that role? I’m really not sure that having fewer draws is a great metric to guide optimization for classical chess. First, some games that end in draws are actually fantastic, back-and-forth battles that are as exciting as any win. Second, if there are fewer draws, each win becomes less special, especially for the major tournaments. For a cautionary tale, see baseball. They optimized the game for home runs, and now it’s a less interesting sport because it’s become much more one dimensional, and viewership is still trending down anyway. I feel like classical human chess is in a pretty good position right now, having survived the rise of the machines. Chess YouTubers like Gotham and agadmator (and many others) have sizable followings. And I would argue that the biggest popularity boost chess has gotten recently has been the Queen’s Gambit. So maybe leave the rules alone and make more chess TV shows and movies.
- mlyle 5y agoI agree that draws and the possibility of draws increases excitement. But I do think top-level chess results in a draw a bit too often: half or more of games in high-level tournaments, and vast majority of world championship games. Rules that draw 10-20% less often, and remove a little bit of white's advantage, would be nice.