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

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gene Wirchenko) wrote:

> Harold Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, The Doctor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> >wrote:
> >
> >> David J Bush wrote:
> >> > 
> >> > It may not be the fault of the swap rule, but the percentage of draws in
> >> > master level games would almost certainly increase all the same, if one-
> >> > move equalization is used. Do you propose other rule changes to reduce 
> >> > the
> >> > incidence of draws?
> >> 
> >> How about simply not allowing draws anymore?
> 
> >And what do you do if you have a K vs. K endgame?
> 
>      The winner is the person who captured the last piece.  The other
> player frittered away his lead.
> 
>      The winner is the player who lost the last piece.  He held out
> the longest.

Gee, this doesn't change the character of the game at all, does it?

<sniff> <sniff>

Smell that? That's sarcasm.

Besides, there are other drawn situationds for which you'd need to come 
up with equally preposterous and game-changing ideas (perpetual check, 
stalemate, situations in which there is no forced mate but in which 
either side COULD win if the other made a mistake, etc.)

Do the people who are really GOOD at chess ever want to re-write the 
rulebook, or is it just people who suck?

(Incidentally, I suck, but do NOT think the rulebook needs to be 
re-written. However, I find "grandmaster draws" to be distasteful, and I 
personally wish that chess was not so dependent on knowing variations 
through move 20. But that's why people play chess variants.]

--Harold Buck


"I used to rock and roll all night,
 and party every day.
 Then it was every other day. . . ."
      -Homer J. Simpson