great question. Well that means more mysteries to explore in the master's database very short draw clusters.
The notions of draw ideas, leaves an itch for exploration.. if chess was the ultimate curiosity.. If winning is the only goal, i get it, ideas pointing to probable draw, not worth the effort.. but a wasted chess hypothesis to test that is! (ideas are hypotheses, as are plans)
I think it just tells of the optimization that tournament environment constraints or goals have on chess being fully explored..
Maybe longer draws should be proportionally rewarded. Chess is meant to be a drawn game. I would think. Think about it, in its ancient history. Would proposing to play a game without dice, and no assurance of fair odds be attracting interest in 2 players games. I would think (influenced by murray reading) that dropping the dice throw odds flattening might have come with ruleset evolution that would have made the game contract proposal a known fair proposal. So that both players were actually playing a balanced game in its possibles trajectories.
my 2 cents.. What is the harm is testing the ideas that a given set of positions are draws.. Opening theory does not have a clear confidence level standard that I could understand, after few years becoming interested by chess (online).
why even play? (but i think this is a great exercise, argue for the chess legitimacy of the short consented draws). I will read more carefully, to find things i might not understand, given my intermediate level (and lack of social competitive chess experience). It might even shed light on what is the difference between ideas and knowledge with regard to openings (short game draw, means opening right?).
The notions of draw ideas, leaves an itch for exploration.. if chess was the ultimate curiosity.. If winning is the only goal, i get it, ideas pointing to probable draw, not worth the effort.. but a wasted chess hypothesis to test that is! (ideas are hypotheses, as are plans)
I think it just tells of the optimization that tournament environment constraints or goals have on chess being fully explored..
Maybe longer draws should be proportionally rewarded. Chess is meant to be a drawn game. I would think. Think about it, in its ancient history. Would proposing to play a game without dice, and no assurance of fair odds be attracting interest in 2 players games. I would think (influenced by murray reading) that dropping the dice throw odds flattening might have come with ruleset evolution that would have made the game contract proposal a known fair proposal. So that both players were actually playing a balanced game in its possibles trajectories.
my 2 cents.. What is the harm is testing the ideas that a given set of positions are draws.. Opening theory does not have a clear confidence level standard that I could understand, after few years becoming interested by chess (online).
why even play? (but i think this is a great exercise, argue for the chess legitimacy of the short consented draws). I will read more carefully, to find things i might not understand, given my intermediate level (and lack of social competitive chess experience). It might even shed light on what is the difference between ideas and knowledge with regard to openings (short game draw, means opening right?).
Number 3?
Great article! The Be3-Ng4 line in the Najdorf brings to mind the game Dominguez–Shankland where Sam fully expected Dominguez to fight for an edge so he didn't anticipate that Dominguez would allow the repetition. So he didn't check any of the ...e5 lines after Be3 and went with ...Ng4, and probably even then he still expected Dominguez to go Be3-g5
This is why I play 6.f3 instead of 6.Be3 in the Najdorf Sicilian. When my opponent plays 6...e5 I can transpose with 7.Nb3 Be6 8.Be3. I don't want to have to study 6.Be3 Ng4 7.Bg5 h6 8.Bh4 g5 9.Bg3 Bg7. Is there any reason why grandmasters play 6.Be3 instead of 6.f3, since 6.f3 avoids this forced draw line?
are pre-arranged draws legal at this time?
I wonder in those examples of the Italy-Hungary match or the Mamedyarov admission, any strong repercussions like disqualification?
I wonder in those examples of the Italy-Hungary match or the Mamedyarov admission, any strong repercussions like disqualification?
<Comment deleted by user>
Hhahahahahhahhahah!!!!!!
'' This is not wrong, but also not entirely right.''
Conclusion, this is WRONG.
Conclusion, this is WRONG.
<Comment deleted by user>