Re: The "swap rule" in chess...

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
 "Dvd Avins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I think the swap rule would actually *add* variety. Forcing players to learn
> to be competent in opening (and the kinds of positions that arise from those
> openings) that they now avoid. Doesn't tournament checkers do something
> similar, picking random opening sequences for each game?

 I honestly don't think it'd have much affect.

 If white played 1.e4, 1.d4, 1.c4 or 1.Nf3 black would always swap. If 
he played anything else, black probably wouldn't. 

 It doesn't add much variety to the game, since most players see 1.d4 
and 1.e4 regularly, and ALMOST anything else can be transposed into a 
1.d4 opening. (Yes, there are a few exceptions, so people will spend 
more time learning 1.c4 e5, but beyond that...)

 So one-move equalization doesn't work too well.

 On the other hand, three-move equalization will balance out the win 
rate, but at the cost of increasing the number of draws. Everyone, as 
white, will steer for a position where black acheives equality quickly, 
(This is not obvious with three moves, but if you were to hypothesize, 
say, five, it's much clearer. The principle is the same, however) since 
that's the only way to insure that you aren't at a disadvantage. 

 The result would be people playing from equal positions, which means 
less incentive to push for a win, which means more draws. The original 
poster dismisses this by saying:

> The swap rule would have done its job and it would have done it well... 
> it cut our "pie" into two nearly equal slices.  More draws would be the 
> "fault" of our beloved game itself. 

 Which strikes me as tapdancing around the problem. I think the real 
question is simply this:

 Are you willing to increase the number of draws for the sake of evening 
out the advantage of the first move?

 If you say yes, then you'll probably think three-move equalization is a 
good thing. If you say no, then you won't.

 It's also not at all clear that three-move equalization would result in 
people playing a greater variety of positions, either, as people might 
quickly settle on a few three-move positions that give both players more 
room for play.