This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened: |
I think it's more accurate to say that there are three possible outcomes (win for black, win for white, draw) than two (draw or decisive outcome) - next time you win a game, try telling your opponent that a win for white and a win for black are equivalent! Anyway, I've taken numbers out so hopefully there won't be any realy disagreement. I've also removed the "(or tie)" bit, because although it's true in general, of course, that "tie" is a synonym for "draw", in chess I don't think the word "tie" is ever really used - it's always "draw". (I suppose you could say a match that ends 12-12 was a "tie", but that's not what the article is about.) -- Camembert
Melchoir, while it is true that I invented the BAP system and also wrote the snippets on BAP, it does not change the fact that it is true. Please, let's discuss this, I do not want to get into an edit war. Did you read my blog on Slugfest.org? It explains in great detail the why and what of BAP. Also, Slugfest.org is non-commercial, I make no money from this. Not sure if that is a consideration or not.
Clint Ballard
I read the WP:NOT, but what part am I violating? BAP is not original thought anymore as it has been on chessninja, which isn't exactly the Harvard Review, but is one of the top chess discussion sites around. BAP is an alternate point system for chess that actually exists. Wikipedia makes many mentions about a win = 1 pt, draw = 1/2 pt, loss = 0 pts without any mention of alternatives. I thought Wikipedia was a place where all the alternatives had a chance to be discovered. What exactly am I doing wrong?
Clint
I removed
from the "impossibility of checkmate" for two reasons. (1) (the main reason) the section is about when checkmate is impossible - no matter how the players play. (2) The combination of R+B vs. R is not always a theoretical draw (I think this is discussed at endgame, under "endings without pawns"). There are a significant number of R+B vs. R positions that are won positions, against the best defense. Reference: Secrets of Pawnless endings, by John Nunn, page 173ff, 186, and 290. See the example at Philidor position for an example that is a forced win, against perfect defense. Bubba73 (talk), 17:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. As an aside, I think that endgame should be referenced somewhere in this article, even if only as See also. Regards, Ben Aveling 16:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm tempted to remove the "10 move rule". First, I've never heard of such a rule. If it exists, it is used by only a small number of players, and in no official competition. Second, the rule doesn't make sense - there are plenty of positions with a lone king where it is impossible checkmate in ten moves. Finally, and most importantly, it seems to have no relevance whatsoever to the "grandmaster draw problem". Bubba73 (talk), 23:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
This is also the system that's used in DCI-sanctioned Magic: the Gathering tournaments (and other DCI-sanctioned tournaments as well, if I remember correctly), and it's fairly successful; draws only occur near the top tables when players are trying to ensure themselves top-8 spots. I think this is notable as a demonstration that the 3-1-0 system works, but I'm an avid Magic player, so I'm biased. Does anyone else think this is notable enough to add? 63.163.61.3 19:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Adopting new point-scoring rules akin to soccer, where FIFA has adopted a system that gives 3 points for a win, 1 point for a draw, and 0 points for a loss. This system discourages draws since they would only be worth ⅔ of their current value. The "3-1-0" system was adopted by FIFA after various soccer leagues around the world had used it to reduce the number of stalling draws - Interestingly, it was the United States that succeeded in getting FIFA to change from the previous "2-1-0" system for the USA94 World Cup.
The last sentence doesn't seem terribly "interesting" to me. Should I remove it, or am I missing something? -- Army1987 ( talk) 17:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
"first move advantage" section moved to first move advantage in chess. Not much directly to do with a draw. Bubba73 (talk), 03:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Considering that the lead states boldly that "players may agree to a draw any time", would the FIDE Grand Prix 2008–2009 rules be worth a mention here? Of course, the game played in the Grand Prix is not strictly abiding by the laws of chess, which is what this article should primarily be about – but it's still an important, FIDE-sanctioned alteration. -- Jao ( talk) 20:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
George Koltanowski had an anecdote about this (as he did for everything in Chess). I read it in his newspaper column many years ago. Paraphrase warning!
Koltanowski is at a local Chess club, and sees two extremely inexperienced players at a board. After a flurry of exchanges and blunders, each man is left with just a King. However, they go on making moves.
"Ahem!" says George. "Not much point in playing on, is there?"
"Oh, I don't know," says one of the novices. "He just might make a mistake."
Some time later, George comes by again and sees the fellow packing up his pieces.
"I guess that you figured out that was a draw," he offers.
"Oh no. I lost."
"You lost! How??"
"He got his King to the eighth rank and made a Queen out of it."
WHPratt ( talk) 16:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I removed:
from the Terminology section. I thought that was the definition, but at least two editors in the chess project say it means the same as "theoretical draw". On the other hand, Evans on Chess, by Larry Evans, page 12, says that a technical draw is one in which checkmate is impossible, no matter what moves are made, e.g. king and minor piece vs. king. Due to the confusion and the fact that the term isn't used that often, I am removing it, pending some good sources. (I checked several other books and didn't find a definition.) Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 00:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Brooklyn Daily Eagle, Oct 2, 1887, p. 15, has a long bit complaining about draws in what must have been Frankfurt 1887 (won by Captain George Mackenzie). Apparently it was taken from a publication called the Clipper. "It does seem to us that the present system is inherently defective, and places a premium on the first class players of the grades B and C entering tournaments to deliberately attempt the achievement of a position by this means for which they have no possible hope by direct, chivalrous fighting for victory. ... Herr Neustadtl's method was a brave attempt to secure substantial justice in results. Now it might be thought a pretty rough and ready remedy, but we would like to see in some tourney of full lists drawn games treated as absolute nullities. That at least we should think so, would prevent anybody from trying to play for draws, and to the victors, and to them only, would belong the prizes. The other effect, desirable as we believe, would be to eliminate from masters' tournaments those who only play for draws." Later it says, "percentage of won games, the only correct method of awarding prizes in chess tourneys" Quale ( talk) 06:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Analysis of draw frequency in tournament games: [http: //chess-db.com/public/research/draw_rate.html] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.17.180.12 ( talk) 10:57, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Is that really the best example of a draw by agreement? Fischer had offered the draw without making a move first, and had stated himself in My 60 Memorable Games that he "offered a draw, not realizing it was bad etiquette" (see Draw by agreement). Double sharp ( talk) 08:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
The article stated that rook and bishop versus rook is usually a theoretical draw, but that the side with the bishop "usually" wins in practice. That is false. The side with the extra piece wins about 42% of the time. http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessending?s=RB&i=R (Once in a blue moon, the inferior side even wins on time. Chessgames.com has one instance that is recorded as a win for the inferior side - presumably on time - and Walter Browne in his autobiography mentions that he once won the inferior side against Andrew Karklins in a sudden death time control.) I've accordingly changed "usually" to "often". Krakatoa ( talk) 09:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
The content of "Draw rules" and "Draws in all games" largely overlaps. These two sections should be merged into one, without the repetition. GregorB ( talk) 18:25, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Quote:
There are a number of reasons why this sentence is problematic. The source is CCRL, accessed in 2007. Today, the same source gives the draw rate of 39.2%. Note this is draw rate of all games that have ever been played by CCRL testers (605 thousand at this moment), not just recent games. Also, there are 246 engines in the list at the moment - that's pretty much all modern chess engines in existence, not just "top computer chess programs". So, the quoted sentence is almost meaningless.
What is interesting about the computer chess draw rate is:
It is an interesting subject, and hopefully the write-up could be formulated along these lines. GregorB ( talk) 19:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
This section has been marked as "dubious". I do not find it dubious. It is consistent with other sources. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:11, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
The reference for the July 1, 2014 changes are here. It is in there three times, and I don't know how to consolidate that into one reference. (This could be used for other references too, if it isn't already.) Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:24, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Draw (chess). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened: |
I think it's more accurate to say that there are three possible outcomes (win for black, win for white, draw) than two (draw or decisive outcome) - next time you win a game, try telling your opponent that a win for white and a win for black are equivalent! Anyway, I've taken numbers out so hopefully there won't be any realy disagreement. I've also removed the "(or tie)" bit, because although it's true in general, of course, that "tie" is a synonym for "draw", in chess I don't think the word "tie" is ever really used - it's always "draw". (I suppose you could say a match that ends 12-12 was a "tie", but that's not what the article is about.) -- Camembert
Melchoir, while it is true that I invented the BAP system and also wrote the snippets on BAP, it does not change the fact that it is true. Please, let's discuss this, I do not want to get into an edit war. Did you read my blog on Slugfest.org? It explains in great detail the why and what of BAP. Also, Slugfest.org is non-commercial, I make no money from this. Not sure if that is a consideration or not.
Clint Ballard
I read the WP:NOT, but what part am I violating? BAP is not original thought anymore as it has been on chessninja, which isn't exactly the Harvard Review, but is one of the top chess discussion sites around. BAP is an alternate point system for chess that actually exists. Wikipedia makes many mentions about a win = 1 pt, draw = 1/2 pt, loss = 0 pts without any mention of alternatives. I thought Wikipedia was a place where all the alternatives had a chance to be discovered. What exactly am I doing wrong?
Clint
I removed
from the "impossibility of checkmate" for two reasons. (1) (the main reason) the section is about when checkmate is impossible - no matter how the players play. (2) The combination of R+B vs. R is not always a theoretical draw (I think this is discussed at endgame, under "endings without pawns"). There are a significant number of R+B vs. R positions that are won positions, against the best defense. Reference: Secrets of Pawnless endings, by John Nunn, page 173ff, 186, and 290. See the example at Philidor position for an example that is a forced win, against perfect defense. Bubba73 (talk), 17:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. As an aside, I think that endgame should be referenced somewhere in this article, even if only as See also. Regards, Ben Aveling 16:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm tempted to remove the "10 move rule". First, I've never heard of such a rule. If it exists, it is used by only a small number of players, and in no official competition. Second, the rule doesn't make sense - there are plenty of positions with a lone king where it is impossible checkmate in ten moves. Finally, and most importantly, it seems to have no relevance whatsoever to the "grandmaster draw problem". Bubba73 (talk), 23:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
This is also the system that's used in DCI-sanctioned Magic: the Gathering tournaments (and other DCI-sanctioned tournaments as well, if I remember correctly), and it's fairly successful; draws only occur near the top tables when players are trying to ensure themselves top-8 spots. I think this is notable as a demonstration that the 3-1-0 system works, but I'm an avid Magic player, so I'm biased. Does anyone else think this is notable enough to add? 63.163.61.3 19:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Adopting new point-scoring rules akin to soccer, where FIFA has adopted a system that gives 3 points for a win, 1 point for a draw, and 0 points for a loss. This system discourages draws since they would only be worth ⅔ of their current value. The "3-1-0" system was adopted by FIFA after various soccer leagues around the world had used it to reduce the number of stalling draws - Interestingly, it was the United States that succeeded in getting FIFA to change from the previous "2-1-0" system for the USA94 World Cup.
The last sentence doesn't seem terribly "interesting" to me. Should I remove it, or am I missing something? -- Army1987 ( talk) 17:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
"first move advantage" section moved to first move advantage in chess. Not much directly to do with a draw. Bubba73 (talk), 03:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Considering that the lead states boldly that "players may agree to a draw any time", would the FIDE Grand Prix 2008–2009 rules be worth a mention here? Of course, the game played in the Grand Prix is not strictly abiding by the laws of chess, which is what this article should primarily be about – but it's still an important, FIDE-sanctioned alteration. -- Jao ( talk) 20:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
George Koltanowski had an anecdote about this (as he did for everything in Chess). I read it in his newspaper column many years ago. Paraphrase warning!
Koltanowski is at a local Chess club, and sees two extremely inexperienced players at a board. After a flurry of exchanges and blunders, each man is left with just a King. However, they go on making moves.
"Ahem!" says George. "Not much point in playing on, is there?"
"Oh, I don't know," says one of the novices. "He just might make a mistake."
Some time later, George comes by again and sees the fellow packing up his pieces.
"I guess that you figured out that was a draw," he offers.
"Oh no. I lost."
"You lost! How??"
"He got his King to the eighth rank and made a Queen out of it."
WHPratt ( talk) 16:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I removed:
from the Terminology section. I thought that was the definition, but at least two editors in the chess project say it means the same as "theoretical draw". On the other hand, Evans on Chess, by Larry Evans, page 12, says that a technical draw is one in which checkmate is impossible, no matter what moves are made, e.g. king and minor piece vs. king. Due to the confusion and the fact that the term isn't used that often, I am removing it, pending some good sources. (I checked several other books and didn't find a definition.) Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 00:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Brooklyn Daily Eagle, Oct 2, 1887, p. 15, has a long bit complaining about draws in what must have been Frankfurt 1887 (won by Captain George Mackenzie). Apparently it was taken from a publication called the Clipper. "It does seem to us that the present system is inherently defective, and places a premium on the first class players of the grades B and C entering tournaments to deliberately attempt the achievement of a position by this means for which they have no possible hope by direct, chivalrous fighting for victory. ... Herr Neustadtl's method was a brave attempt to secure substantial justice in results. Now it might be thought a pretty rough and ready remedy, but we would like to see in some tourney of full lists drawn games treated as absolute nullities. That at least we should think so, would prevent anybody from trying to play for draws, and to the victors, and to them only, would belong the prizes. The other effect, desirable as we believe, would be to eliminate from masters' tournaments those who only play for draws." Later it says, "percentage of won games, the only correct method of awarding prizes in chess tourneys" Quale ( talk) 06:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Analysis of draw frequency in tournament games: [http: //chess-db.com/public/research/draw_rate.html] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.17.180.12 ( talk) 10:57, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Is that really the best example of a draw by agreement? Fischer had offered the draw without making a move first, and had stated himself in My 60 Memorable Games that he "offered a draw, not realizing it was bad etiquette" (see Draw by agreement). Double sharp ( talk) 08:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
The article stated that rook and bishop versus rook is usually a theoretical draw, but that the side with the bishop "usually" wins in practice. That is false. The side with the extra piece wins about 42% of the time. http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessending?s=RB&i=R (Once in a blue moon, the inferior side even wins on time. Chessgames.com has one instance that is recorded as a win for the inferior side - presumably on time - and Walter Browne in his autobiography mentions that he once won the inferior side against Andrew Karklins in a sudden death time control.) I've accordingly changed "usually" to "often". Krakatoa ( talk) 09:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
The content of "Draw rules" and "Draws in all games" largely overlaps. These two sections should be merged into one, without the repetition. GregorB ( talk) 18:25, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Quote:
There are a number of reasons why this sentence is problematic. The source is CCRL, accessed in 2007. Today, the same source gives the draw rate of 39.2%. Note this is draw rate of all games that have ever been played by CCRL testers (605 thousand at this moment), not just recent games. Also, there are 246 engines in the list at the moment - that's pretty much all modern chess engines in existence, not just "top computer chess programs". So, the quoted sentence is almost meaningless.
What is interesting about the computer chess draw rate is:
It is an interesting subject, and hopefully the write-up could be formulated along these lines. GregorB ( talk) 19:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
This section has been marked as "dubious". I do not find it dubious. It is consistent with other sources. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:11, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
The reference for the July 1, 2014 changes are here. It is in there three times, and I don't know how to consolidate that into one reference. (This could be used for other references too, if it isn't already.) Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:24, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Draw (chess). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)