Talk:Draw (chess)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] BAP System

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

Please read WP:NOT. In particular, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, and Wikipedia is not a soapbox. The merits of your system are irrelevant. Melchoir 14:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

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

For coherency, I'll respond to this on your talk page. Melchoir 14:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed R+B vs. R

I removed

King, rook and bishop versus king and rook is known to be drawn, if the defender plays correctly.[1].

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. B 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 thought that this ending was mentioned at endgame under "Fine's rule", but it isn't there, so I was wrong about that. However, I don't see any reason for the R+B versus R ending to be mentioned in this article just because it is usually (but not always) a theoretical draw. There are quite a few endings that have that same property, and I don't see any reason to single out R+B vs. R. (There are also endings that are usually wins, but have a significant number of drawn positions.) But a seperate article on such positions, including R+B vs. R, would ge good, I think. Bubba73 (talk), 18:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 10 move rule

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)