5 ms·

That would just result in earlier resignations so that both players could get back to a more interesting game.

by ric2b 3y ago

mtlmtlmtlmtl 3y ago
No, you're fundamentally changing the game, not when people resign. If stalemate is a win, almost any king and pawn vs king position is a win, which means almost every rook or bishop ending up a pawn is a win, which means it's incredibly easy to trade into a winning endgame from the middle game. Now the middle game is less interesting, because taking any kind of risk is never worth it. Which in turn makes only the most boring openings viable. Now every game is boring. Also, in tournament play, finishing your game early just means you have to wait longer until the next round, even in a round robin event. Because chess tournaments pretty much never start a round until the previous round is completely over. Not since adjournments stopped being a thing.
- eru 3y ago
  When people complain about chess being uninteresting, they usually complain about too many draws. Adding more opportunities to turn draws into wins/losses might seem like a good thing? > Now the middle game is less interesting, because taking any kind of risk is never worth it. Chess is a zero sum game. Taking the right risk can also increase your chances of winning (instead of just stalemating). (I mention the zero sum game, because eg real life war is not a zero sum game. So it's perfectly possible for certain actions, like starting to shoot medics, to be bad for both parties. But in chess, what's bad for one party is automatically good for the other.) > [..] which means it's incredibly easy to trade into a winning endgame from the middle game. You know that the other guy gets to have a vote on this, too? You can also have a look at the Eastern chess variations (Shogi etc) that https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39141452 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39141452 mentions that don't have check rules, and see whether for them every game is boring? Btw, see https://arxiv.org/pdf/2009.04374.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/2009.04374.pdf for an investigation of the impact of no-check-rules on western chess. It doesn't make everything boring.
  - eru 3y ago
    Addendum from the linked paper: > Stalemate=win chess has little effect on the opening and middlegame play, mostly affecting the evaluation of certain endgames. As such, it does not increase decisiveness of the game by much, as it seems to almost always be possible to defend without relying on stalemate as a drawing resource. Therefore, this chess variant is not likely to be useful for sidestepping known theory or for making the game substantially more decisive at the high level. The overall effect of the change seems to be minor. This does not seem to support your suggestion that eliminating check rules and ending the game with the capture of the king, would make all games boring.
  - infogulch 3y ago
    Personally I find it very entertaining when a player pulls a rabbit out of their hat by turning an obviously worse position into a stalemate by some crazy trick. I think it adds some skill expression to an otherwise boring end game, and gives the losing player something to fight for at the end. Admittedly this is more interesting in a format that results in a time crunch at the end.
    - eru 3y ago
      According to the paper (https://arxiv.org/pdf/2009.04374.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/2009.04374.pdf) removing the special handling of stalemates did not really change the draw ratio much. So the weaker party can still gun for the draw in most situations. (However, they had really good computers play, who do not get stressed out, albeit they do make worse moves on shorter time controls.)

That would just result in earlier resignations so that both players could get back to a more interesting game.

by ric2b 3y ago

That would just result in earlier resignations so that both players could get back to a more interesting game.

No, you're fundamentally changing the game, not when people resign. If stalemate is a win, almost any king and pawn vs king position is a win, which means almost every rook or bishop ending up a pawn is a win, which means it's incredibly easy to trade into a winning endgame from the middle game. Now the middle game is less interesting, because taking any kind of risk is never worth it. Which in turn makes only the most boring openings viable. Now every game is boring. Also, in tournament play, finishing your game early just means you have to wait longer until the next round, even in a round robin event. Because chess tournaments pretty much never start a round until the previous round is completely over. Not since adjournments stopped being a thing.

eru 3y ago
When people complain about chess being uninteresting, they usually complain about too many draws. Adding more opportunities to turn draws into wins/losses might seem like a good thing? > Now the middle game is less interesting, because taking any kind of risk is never worth it. Chess is a zero sum game. Taking the right risk can also increase your chances of winning (instead of just stalemating). (I mention the zero sum game, because eg real life war is not a zero sum game. So it's perfectly possible for certain actions, like starting to shoot medics, to be bad for both parties. But in chess, what's bad for one party is automatically good for the other.) > [..] which means it's incredibly easy to trade into a winning endgame from the middle game. You know that the other guy gets to have a vote on this, too? You can also have a look at the Eastern chess variations (Shogi etc) that https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39141452 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39141452 mentions that don't have check rules, and see whether for them every game is boring? Btw, see https://arxiv.org/pdf/2009.04374.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/2009.04374.pdf for an investigation of the impact of no-check-rules on western chess. It doesn't make everything boring.
- eru 3y ago
  Addendum from the linked paper: > Stalemate=win chess has little effect on the opening and middlegame play, mostly affecting the evaluation of certain endgames. As such, it does not increase decisiveness of the game by much, as it seems to almost always be possible to defend without relying on stalemate as a drawing resource. Therefore, this chess variant is not likely to be useful for sidestepping known theory or for making the game substantially more decisive at the high level. The overall effect of the change seems to be minor. This does not seem to support your suggestion that eliminating check rules and ending the game with the capture of the king, would make all games boring.
- infogulch 3y ago
  Personally I find it very entertaining when a player pulls a rabbit out of their hat by turning an obviously worse position into a stalemate by some crazy trick. I think it adds some skill expression to an otherwise boring end game, and gives the losing player something to fight for at the end. Admittedly this is more interesting in a format that results in a time crunch at the end.
  - eru 3y ago
    According to the paper (https://arxiv.org/pdf/2009.04374.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/2009.04374.pdf) removing the special handling of stalemates did not really change the draw ratio much. So the weaker party can still gun for the draw in most situations. (However, they had really good computers play, who do not get stressed out, albeit they do make worse moves on shorter time controls.)