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

"Ron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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.

Not all even positions are equally drawish. 1.g4 b5 2.f4, for instance, may
be equal, but would likely lead to a lack of king-safety for both players.