For any 2-player deterministic game of perfect information, you kinda want the result with perfect play to be a draw. Otherwise one side has an advantage and you always have to play a pair of games.
But apart from the ultimate result with perfect play, there's some question of narrowness: How hard is it to win when you're up just slightly? Or, how slightly can you be up? Or, what percentage of legal moves at each ply preserve the perfect-play outcome if both sides play perfectly after that?
It seems chess is narrow in this sense. It's super-easy to blow even an overwhelming advantage, and it's possible to be up verrry slightly. This makes chess drawish and sometimes frustrating but I'll argue it's better to be too narrow than too wide.
Of course we have Shogi as a game with a low draw rate that's proven to be superb. It seems it's a win for black (first player), but this hasn't been a problem because it's fantastically hard compared to the level of human play. The first-move advantage is BTFO by mistakes from both sides.
And that's where it gets weird. Because chess is also hard compared to the level of human play. The draw rate between Carlsen and Stockfish is going to be zero. So it's a bit of a mystery why human players are so closely matched and always have been! Draw rate was a problem as far back as the 1920s, when players didn't have computer openings analysis and were generally weaker than today.
Not sure what the conclusion is here, but I don't like No-castle or Torpedo. Bah humbug!
It's forgivable since clearly you're not a baseball fan but in fact there have been massive rule changes in recent years, most with the goal of making games shorter, and most regarded as successful. More coming, too.
Baseball is the only major sport I enjoy watching, but I don't follow it closely. What changes are you referring to? I'm genuinely interested. I understand there's a computer vision strike call system coming next season, which I think is a good move, but it doesn't seem like it'll make the game shorter.
Once Poker on chia is a reality we will see some exiting stuff. Double gambling :) on the game of poker itself and then on the xch course as a second bet. I can see how a more gambling oriented crowd of chess players would be interested in a more offensive high stakes chess games which leads me to my next question. How reaktiv are even Future games of chess with the advent of AI etc. will everything be reduced to live events or monitored events?
These proposals are too crazy. We should just have the championship at faster time controls. It’s more exciting to watch, it gives us time to have more games in the tournament leading up to the championship, and we’ve already made changes to them in the past.
Shortening the time controls so that even very good players blunder is one way to reduce draws but the chess championship title is supposed to be about who plays the best chess not the fastest chess. There are blitz tournaments but that's something else.
For any 2-player deterministic game of perfect information, you kinda want the result with perfect play to be a draw. Otherwise one side has an advantage and you always have to play a pair of games.
But apart from the ultimate result with perfect play, there's some question of narrowness: How hard is it to win when you're up just slightly? Or, how slightly can you be up? Or, what percentage of legal moves at each ply preserve the perfect-play outcome if both sides play perfectly after that?
It seems chess is narrow in this sense. It's super-easy to blow even an overwhelming advantage, and it's possible to be up verrry slightly. This makes chess drawish and sometimes frustrating but I'll argue it's better to be too narrow than too wide.
Of course we have Shogi as a game with a low draw rate that's proven to be superb. It seems it's a win for black (first player), but this hasn't been a problem because it's fantastically hard compared to the level of human play. The first-move advantage is BTFO by mistakes from both sides.
And that's where it gets weird. Because chess is also hard compared to the level of human play. The draw rate between Carlsen and Stockfish is going to be zero. So it's a bit of a mystery why human players are so closely matched and always have been! Draw rate was a problem as far back as the 1920s, when players didn't have computer openings analysis and were generally weaker than today.
Not sure what the conclusion is here, but I don't like No-castle or Torpedo. Bah humbug!
It's forgivable since clearly you're not a baseball fan but in fact there have been massive rule changes in recent years, most with the goal of making games shorter, and most regarded as successful. More coming, too.
Baseball is the only major sport I enjoy watching, but I don't follow it closely. What changes are you referring to? I'm genuinely interested. I understand there's a computer vision strike call system coming next season, which I think is a good move, but it doesn't seem like it'll make the game shorter.
Once Poker on chia is a reality we will see some exiting stuff. Double gambling :) on the game of poker itself and then on the xch course as a second bet. I can see how a more gambling oriented crowd of chess players would be interested in a more offensive high stakes chess games which leads me to my next question. How reaktiv are even Future games of chess with the advent of AI etc. will everything be reduced to live events or monitored events?
These proposals are too crazy. We should just have the championship at faster time controls. It’s more exciting to watch, it gives us time to have more games in the tournament leading up to the championship, and we’ve already made changes to them in the past.
Shortening the time controls so that even very good players blunder is one way to reduce draws but the chess championship title is supposed to be about who plays the best chess not the fastest chess. There are blitz tournaments but that's something else.