Delft system

[Henk de Witt]

In the town of Delft, between Rotterdam and The Hague, we decided several years ago to introduce a new, more advanced score-system. We came to the conclusion that draughts as a draw game was not at all necessary. Between victory (2-0) and draw (1-1) we created the victory on points (1½-½). In order to have round figures we multiplied these scores with a factor 2. So 4-0, 3-1, 2-2.

The victory on points is obtained if you cannot win the game in the classical sense but you have an advantage of at least three pieces, whereby a king counts for two pieces.

I like to give you some more information.

The draught game has become a draw game
If you organise a match between two of the strongest players in the world you may expect that nine out of ten games will end in a draw. In the decider of the World Championship in Zwartsluis, Holland, September 2003, Georgiev, Tsjizjov and Valneris played 15 games of which 14 ended in a draw. This in spite of the fact that the last nine games of this decider were rapid and blitz games in which the chance of making mistakes is of course greater than in regular games.

Sports is about competition, about winning and losing. When you reach the rate of draws we have nowadays in draughts and you do nothing about it then we can say that draughts as an organised sport is already deceased. Only the patient himself does not know it yet. In Holland a few people still are playing in organised competitions and championships, but the number is shrinking and not serious anymore. The national federation KNDB has now only some 7.000 members, say the number of inhabitants of an average village, on a population of 16 million. Still in almost every home you can find a draught-board. People are playing every now and then, especially with their children and grandchildren. But the organised draught world has got a reputation of a bunch of dull, weird people. There was a time that the performance of top players was highly valued and respected. Although the game itself is the same beautiful game, this negative reputation is quite understandable. I cannot think of any other sport that would accept such a fundamental problem without doing something about it. And because it is so easy to do something about it (as I will point out later) I must say: The public is right!

To put it strongly: Organised draughts had been made hostage by weird people, who blocked a normal evolution of the game by fundamentalist arguments. I hurry to add that this strong statement is not meant personally. Most people in the world of organised draughts are really nice people, even the ones with fundamentalist ideas. You can drink a cup of tea with them, analyse the game. But ...

So we became indeed a rear exception in the world of sports. Like Oscar Wilde in his famous poem (‘each man kills the thing he loves’) we are killing slowly our beautiful game.

Adaptations in other sports
A draw problem like in draughts will not be tolerated and therefore cannot be found in any other sport. Though essentially there is the same underlying development. Better scouting of talents, better training methods, more time available for training and so on, all this leads to a broader layer of top players and less differences in strength between them. In many sports technical means are used to measure the lesser differences. For instance in the 500 meters speed-skating they now measure in 0,001 of a second. If they would measure in round seconds, as in the past, about fifteen or twenty people would every time be classified equal. And that would mean the end of this branch of speed-skating, of course.

A long time ago in boxing you had to knock out your opponent for at least ten seconds in order to win. When the boxers became more professional and better trained this was not so easy and some games went on so long that in the end one of the boxers dropped down out of sheer fatigue. Then they put a limit to a boxing game, a fixed number of rounds, usually no more then twelve. Still there are quite a number of knock outs, but as a rule it is about a victory on points.

A tennis match cannot be a draw. But some twenty years ago they had a problem. The rule that you could only win a set with two games advantage led to more and more ‘marathon’ games. Some games lasted for two or even three days. Of course they did something about it, they introduced the tiebreak.

By the way, tennis is rather popular. But imagine for a moment that almost every top tennis-match ended in a draw. Of course a few people would keep on playing tennis, because it is fun and you get some exercise too. But as a sport it would not longer be taken seriously. Parents would no longer send their children to a tennis-club, because obviously this sport was ruled by weird people. In the long run no sponsor would like to invest money anymore in a top tennis tournament.

This is exactly the situation in which we find ourselves as organised draught players. If you have reached this point you can choose one of two possibilities. You can accept this situation as a fact of life, and by this accepting also that the game is slowly dying or you can make the necessary adaptations in order to reduce the number of draws to normal and acceptable proportions.

Adaptation is possible and easy
In Delft we philosophised in the mid-nineties about the nature of the game and the draw problem. If you ask the question ‘How to win a game of draughts?’ the direct and normal answer is ‘By catching all the pieces of my opponent’. In this answer lies the simple solution of the draw problem. Draughts is primarily a matter of conquering pieces. Normally you try to create a good position in order to force material advantage (more pieces or making a king). If the material advantage is big enough you may manage to catch all the pieces of your opponent.

There is a second possibility to win, that is by blocking the pieces of your opponent completely. This second possibility plays only a very minor role in the practical game. It is especially important in making compositions where it can lead to beautiful motifs. In school tournaments it plays also a role in the practical game, sometimes all the twenty pieces of a child are blocked. This last situation is funny but it shows also clearly that there is a fundamental difference between catching pieces and blocking pieces.

Now, in the regulation of draughts both principles are treated as if they were the same, namely in the rule that you win the game if ‘your opponent cannot make a regular move’. This old rule (let’s call it shortly the ‘blocking rule’) has the charm of simplicity but plays in our days a very unfortunate, obstructive role. The main principle of winning - catching pieces - is forced into the iron jacket of the ‘blocking rule’ in a time that this blocking has become almost impossible at the top level. Hence we see a tidal wave of draws.

So, in order to solve the problem we must no longer twist the main principle of winning (conquering pieces) artificially into a second, minor principle (blocking, or preventing of doing a regular move).

The new score-system put into practice
We introduced the new system in our club in 1996. We preserved the existing blocking rule, including conquering all the pieces. This means that the endgame as we know it is preserved.

Here lies a difference with the system that was created by the former world-champion Jannes van der Wal, also in the mid nineties. In his game of ‘doordammen’ (‘keep on playing’) it was enough to have a durable advantage of three pieces (a king counts for two pieces) to win the game. In the Delft system the same advantage results in a victory on points. In 1996 the scores were: victory (knock out) 4-0, victory on points 3-1, draw 2-2. Since two years we have the scores: victory 5-0, victory on points 3-1, draw 2-2.

21 June 2003, the Dutch federation KNDB decided to play the Dutch Championship 2004 with this system. The precise score is not yet established, but a work group of the KNDB has proposed the scores: 2-0, 1½-½, 1-1. This is in principle the same as 4-0, 3-1, 2-2.

In our club, DOS Delft, we have good experiences with the new system and no problems at all.

Warnings that this system would lead to less interesting games came not true. On the contrary, the extra possibility of a victory on points creates a series of new endgames. This is highly valued by the large majority of our members.

Warnings that we would lose members came not true. Every Wednesday between thirty and forty people visit our club to have a nice evening and play a good game of draughts. In comparison with most clubs this is quite a good number.

Warnings that this system would lead to very long endgames came not true. It is true that there are a lot more endgames. And why not. Exceptional long endgames occur, but are few in number and no more then in the existing endgames. So after eleven o’clock you can find the players chatting and drinking around the bar.

Warnings that playing with this system would be experienced as playing a different, draughts related game, came not true. The members experience the game as draughts, only draughts and nothing else than draughts. Our members play in a lot of competitions and tournaments were the ‘old’ scores 2-0, 1-1 (or 3-0, 1-1) apply. No problem at all, it is the same game, only with fewer endgames and a greater chance of a draw.

The criterion of three pieces advantage is arbitrary of course. It does not at all exclude further evolution in the future. But there is something more to say about it. In the past there has every now and then been some discussion about the endgame of three kings against one. Long before the draught game became a draw game some players found it unsatisfactory that such a big advantage was not rewarded. Known are for example publications about this issue as far back as the nineteenth century. In the new system three kings against one king is a victory on points. Two kings against one king is still a draw.

In 2001, 2002 and 2003 we organised three top tournaments with this system. Every time six players, with amongst them four absolute world top players. The results of our experience in the club were confirmed. Moreover in these top tournaments more games then normally ended in a decision (victory or victory on points).

These top tournaments were apparently very convincing for the KNDB, for the direction and the ‘Bondsraad’ (Federation Council) as well. This Council is a new institute and the highest decision making organ in the KNDB. It consists of 33 members who are for the most part chosen in the various draught provinces. Four members are representatives of special draughts organisations (like correspondence draught-playing and composition makers).

The decision to adopt the new system was made by an overwhelming majority. 25 Members were present in the meeting on 21 June. 22 Voted ‘yes’, 1 voted ‘no’ 2 did not vote.

Opposition
After this decision however, an offensive against it was launched. First at ‘Damforum’ (an internet discussion forum of the famous site ‘Damweb’). Various types of opponents gave there opinion. Despite all the good experiences the old prejudices were repeated. The game would be spoiled, we would lose members and so on and so on. I must honestly say that it was sometimes very boring and sad to read opinions of people who were clearly not well informed and who did not bother at all to get better informed. A few top players demanded more experiments and also more investigation in other alternatives. Maybe, after a good and normal discussion most opponents would at least have been willing to give this new system a chance. But some people started a fundamentalist ‘holy war’ against the decision of the Federation Council. They threatened to found a new national draught federation. Some of them accused members of the Federation Council that they owed their seat to a ‘coup d’état’ instead of a fair election. The number of insinuations and insults grew to an extent that finally the webmaster closed this forum.

One of the persons who was fighting against the new system from the beginning was Mr. Dieter van Gortel. He sent an inquiry to the 200 highest ranked players in Holland. 56% of them responded, this is 112 players and of them almost 80% voted ‘no’ against the new system. Only 17% were in favour of the new system.

Almost 60% against almost 40% declared that they had no problem whatsoever with the draw margin. So from his perspective Mr. Van Gortel was quite successful. Of course the results are somewhat flattered in his favour because several supporters of the new system did not agree with this type of inquiry and did not respond. However, this cannot change the results dramatically. Strangely enough the results of this inquiry are totally contrary to an inquiry I made myself in 1998. Then I asked a smaller, more select group of 28 top players, of whom 24 responded and a majority of 16 was in favour of the new system, only 4 players preferred the traditional system.

The KNDB has a now a serious problem. Can they maintain the decision of 21 June, now so many top players are against it? An interesting question is why suddenly so many players are against it.

In the past the federation was led by conservative people who blocked the solution of the draw problem. Now we have more flexible and progressive federation leaders who finally made a decision and unexpectedly the players make a problem. Have they all become fundamentalists? I don’t think so. Some are indeed, that is true. But there are other groups. Some players just want to go on with the game they are familiar with, they are just not interested in the broader perspective. This group is probably also made afraid by all the wrong and exaggerated stories about the impact of the new system on the game. In reality this impact is rather limited. Others are clearly not well informed and also influenced by all the negative stories. Furthermore there is a significant number of strong players, just below the real top, who have a self-interest in the current system. For them it is easier to make a draw against a real top player. And then we have a number of players who advocate a more radical solution of the draw problem. I saw several names of this category on the list of Mr. Van Gortel where they are simply booked as ‘no voters’.

It is my strong believe that in the end adaptation of the score-system is unstoppable. There was a time that almost 100% of the people strongly believed the earth was flat. Nowadays not so many of them are left. There is also the story of the crowd that looked at the emperor expressing their admiration of his beautiful robe, while in reality he was naked. Sooner or later draught players will find out that the draw emperor is naked.

To conclude with some optimistic notes. The majority that responded to the inquiry of Mr. Van Gortel (64% against 29%) says they are willing to play with the system if it is introduced. Only a minority (35% against 54%) supports the founding of a new federation if the new system is introduced. So the majority is not as fundamentalist like Mr. Van Gortel and will not follow him in his unholy holy war till the bitter end. That is good news within bad news.

And to end even more optimistic, in West Holland (the draught province where Delft is situated) the majority of top players is in favour of the new system. So when players once have some experience with the new system they develop a more positive attitude.

Henk de Witt

[Guest]

Sports is about competition, about winning and losing.

Yes indeed. And the winner takes it all, the loser gets nothing. Delfts is something else. It is no winning, no losing and no draw.

we created the victory on points (1½-½)

The winner takes it all, but not in Delft.

A draw problem like in draughts will not be tolerated and therefore cannot be found in any other sport. Though essentially there is the same underlying development. Better scouting of talents, better training methods, more time available for training and so on, all this leads to a broader layer of top players and less differences in strength between them. In many sports technical means are used to measure the lesser differences. For instance in the 500 meters speed-skating they now measure in 0,001 of a second.

And there is one winner, he don't have to share his result because his opponent was close finishing. The winner takes it all.

A long time ago in boxing you had to knock out your opponent for at least ten seconds in order to win. When the boxers became more professional and better trained this was not so easy and some games went on so long that in the end one of the boxers dropped down out of sheer fatigue. Then they put a limit to a boxing game, a fixed number of rounds, usually no more then twelve. Still there are quite a number of knock outs, but as a rule it is about a victory on points.

And there is one winner, he don't have to share his result because there was no knockout. The winner takes it all.

A tennis match cannot be a draw. But some twenty years ago they had a problem. The rule that you could only win a set with two games advantage led to more and more ‘marathon’ games. Some games lasted for two or even three days. Of course they did something about it, they introduced the tiebreak.

And there is one winner, he don't have to share his result because there was a tiebreak. The winner takes it all.

We introduced the new system in our club in 1996. We preserved the existing blocking rule, including conquering all the pieces. This means that the endgame as we know it is preserved.

So what. You change the game in a way that most of the theory must be new developed. But the total of winners doesn't change, as the rule is simple: the winner takes it all.

Here lies a difference with the system that was created by the former world-champion Jannes van der Wal, also in the mid nineties. In his game of ‘doordammen’ (‘keep on playing’) it was enough to have a durable advantage of three pieces (a king counts for two pieces) to win the game. In the Delft system the same advantage results in a victory on points. In 1996 the scores were: victory (knock out) 4-0, victory on points 3-1, draw 2-2. Since two years we have the scores: victory 5-0, victory on points 3-1, draw 2-2.

Yes, Jannes does understand it. The winner takes it all!

21 June 2003, the Dutch federation KNDB decided to play the Dutch Championship 2004 with this system. The precise score is not yet established, but a work group of the KNDB has proposed the scores: 2-0, 1½-½, 1-1. This is in principle the same as 4-0, 3-1, 2-2.

But as the assembly was illegal, this decision is turned back. There will be a new assembly and new decisions on 10th of January.

In our club, DOS Delft, we have good experiences with the new system and no problems at all.

The draw problem is a problem when top players are competing against top players, but there are no top players in DOS Delft.

Warnings that this system would lead to less interesting games came not true. On the contrary, the extra possibility of a victory on points creates a series of new endgames. This is highly valued by the large majority of our members.

Part of the top players will have better result with less interesting games. You can not test this in a club like DOS Delft, or with a handful of top players who are willing to do what the organisation asks them, because they get money fort it.

Warnings that playing with this system would be experienced as playing a different, draughts related game, came not true. The members experience the game as draughts, only draughts and nothing else than draughts. Our members play in a lot of competitions and tournaments were the ‘old’ scores 2-0, 1-1 (or 3-0, 1-1) apply. No problem at all, it is the same game, only with fewer endgames and a greater chance of a draw.

The game for the top players will change dramatically, because they can not trust anymore an all the theory they studied. For me this is not a problem, but it is a fact.

In 2001, 2002 and 2003 we organised three top tournaments with this system. Every time six players, with amongst them four absolute world top players. The results of our experience in the club were confirmed. Moreover in these top tournaments more games then normally ended in a decision (victory or victory on points).

As there was a very great difference in strength between the participants it was predictable that there were not so much draws. If you invite only two or three top players, and the others are relatively weak, of course you get more victories.

Moreover in these top tournaments more games then normally ended in a decision (victory or victory on points).

'Victory on points' is no victory therefore the better word is 'advantagedraw'. For a victory counts: the winner takes it all.

These top tournaments were apparently very convincing for the KNDB, for the direction and the ‘Bondsraad’ (Federation Council) as well. This Council is a new institute and the highest decision making organ in the KNDB. It consists of 33 members who are for the most part chosen in the various draught provinces. Four members are representatives of special draughts organisations (like correspondence draught-playing and composition makers).

The decision to adopt the new system was made by an overwhelming majority. 25 Members were present in the meeting on 21 June. 22 Voted ‘yes’, 1 voted ‘no’ 2 did not vote.

As already stated, this decision was illegal. There will be a new decision on 10th of January.
Part of the members of the 'Bondsraad' stated that they only voted for the commission, so they could make a better decision later. Another part voted yes because Henk de Witt stated that most of top players as in favour of 'Delfts'. As now is clear that this is not true (an overwhelming majority of top players is against 'Delfts'), these members of 'Bondsraad' will now vote against.

Some of them accused members of the Federation Council that they owed their seat to a ‘coup d’état’ instead of a fair election.

For about 50% of the 'seats' there were no elections, because people didn't know they could be a candidate.

The number of insinuations and insults grew to an extent that finally the webmaster closed this forum.

The closing of Damweb forum had nothing to do with this discussion.

Strangely enough the results of this inquiry are totally contrary to an inquiry I made myself in 1998. Then I asked a smaller, more select group of 28 top players, of whom 24 responded and a majority of 16 was in favour of the new system, only 4 players preferred the traditional system.

The difference in the outcome must be laid down in the way of questioning. Although Mr Van Gortel is not a neutral person, his questions were much better than the question Mr De Witt asked. Therefore it is now clear that the majority of the top players are against 'Delfts'.

The KNDB has a now a serious problem. Can they maintain the decision of 21 June, now so many top players are against it? An interesting question is why suddenly so many players are against it.

There is no problem. There is no decision. The decision will be made on 10th of January.

The conclusion can be simple: chose out of three possibilities:

a. Do nothing, so draughts will be no sport.

b. Play Delfts, so draughts will be no sport.

c. Change the game. Follow Jannes, Fayet or somebody else. Make fewer draws and keep the principle: the winner takes it all. So it will be a real sport!

[Jacques PERMAL]

It is an interesting debate. I would like to know great players opinions.

But they have never pointed out here !! Why ?

[Hanco Elenbaas]

It is an interesting debate. I would like to know great players opinions.

But they have never pointed out here !! Why ?

Because it is mainly a Dutch discussion.
Delft system threatened to become the main system in The Netherlands.
And the threat is still there, when I see that Henk de Witt cannot get his idée fixe out of his head.
If you want to know what topplayers think about Delfts, take a look at Dieter van Gortels site

http://draughts.nl/delft/uitslag.php

Questions the ratingtop 200 from The Netherlands received to answer.
1. Bent U voor invoering van de DT? Are you for or against Delft system?
2. Bent U voor invoering van de DT in het NK 2004? Are you for or against Delft system in Finals Dutch championship 2004?
3. Bent U voor invoering van DT in andere door de KNDB georganiseerde Wedstrijden? Are you for or against DT in other games organised by the KNDB?
4. Bent U van mening dat de regels van het damspel ongemoeid moeten blijven? Do you think that the rules from our draughtsgame must stay as they are?
5. Bent U tevreden over de huidige remise marge? Are you content with nowadays amount of draws?
6. Zou U wel spelen als de puntentelling DT ingevoerd wordt? Would you play if we get DT?
7. Zou U kiezen voor een NK oud spel voor een alternatieve bond? Would you choose for a Dutch championship traditional draughts, for an alternative Draughts Federation?

[Jacques PERMAL]

Hello Hanco,

Past years, soccer rules has been changed. For instance : introduction of golden goal in extra-time.

Is it a good thing ?

Someone says yes, others answer the contrary.

The real debate is that : What can we do in order to affiliate more players ?

I can't deliver a unique recipe.

[Hanco Elenbaas]

Hello Hanco,

Past years, soccer rules has been changed. For instance : introduction of golden goal in extra-time.

Is it a good thing ?

Someone says yes, others answer the contrary.

The real debate is that : What can we do in order to affiliate more players ?

I can't deliver a unique recipe.

Soccer is no draughts.
With Delft system you make another Draughts Game.
But actually Jacques, I do not want to do this discussion all over again, because I think it is a waste of time. Please be so kind to ask Henk de Witt, if you want to know something about his new Draughtsgame.

Maybe nobody can deliver a recipe to affiliate more players. But for sure Henk de Witt found one to diminish the list of members.

Look Jacques, a nice small motionpicture from Delft University, with under it a joke from Tjalling Goedemoed:
http://www.tbm.tudelft.nl/webstud/9202359/landing.mpg
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Here is captain The White speaking. On behalf of the Dutch Commission
Modernisation Pointcounting I apoligize for the small inconvenience..."

[Guest]

Many players will stop being a member of the current federation if Delfts will be carried through. This includes Ton Sijbrands, the best player of Holland in the past, present and future. Also Wiersma is against these new rules.

As the rest of the FMJD knows by now, many KNDB representatives are arrogant and think they know what's best for the game. This arrogance is far reaching: they think the FMJD will follow.

This arrogance is quite stunning. When the KNDB still decides to introduce "Delfts" in the next dutch championships, I will reconsider my membership of the KNDB. Do I really want to be a member of an organization like that? I advice everybody to seriously reconsider their membership. You can still play for your own club every week, and participate in summer tournaments if you wish. The only disadvantage is that you cannot play competition.


Strong words, but all really meant. To put them in perspective: I was symphatetic towards Delfts but had no opinion yet, I wanted to see more experiments before settling my opion.
Of all the rules that change the game, Delfts is as far as I know the mildest one, since
the orginal rules keep their value to reach a "real" win.

Now it has become clear that a large majority is against Delfts, I dont think it is worthwile to spend much time on this "solution". I think it is better to make a more fundamental change of the game. This sunday, there is a tournament in Rijnsburg (holland) with a new rule which implies that two kings against one is winning. f course, the game will change dramatically, but I think one has to accept this, since draughts as a sport is disappearing.

On this point i totally agree with Guest, who i think did a great job in responding Henk de Witts contribution (which I think is also valuable)

About the experiments in Delft: I agree with guest that the value of these experiments is
epsilon. There are only ten games between grandmasters. In these games, there was nothing at stake.

A better experiment would to organize a match between two world class players like Georgiev and Tsjizjov. No starting money. The winner earns a large sum of money. The loser only gets his cab fare to the airport. Then there is something at stake. My prediction: the majority of the games still ends in a 1-1 draw, with the difference being that Georgiev is no longer prepared to take risks like he did in his match with Tsjizjov earlier this year.

But its better to stop wasting time on Delfts and think about REAL changes in the rules
as referred to above.

About the lenghts of the games: Henk de Witt is too optimistic. I cannot imagine that there will be games less than 5 hours and I think 50 percent of the games will last more than 6 hours. The tournament in Delft was a nice holiday for our grandmasters. When a grandmaster is at work, he will try to get an advantage-draw by making his opponent fall asleep.

[Guest]

Last contribution was mine.
I'm not a top player, but have some experience (participant WC juniors 1993, participant Dutch championship 95, many summer tournaments with a number of top 10 results, many years of Dutch competition).

In these events I reached many draws with grandmasters. I think the constribution in these draw s from my own part was not too big, I mostly see this as a proof that there is a fundamental problem in our game. So I really think we should do something about it. But only after having conducted a serious amount of experiments with several different alternative rules.

I also think this is a job to be coordinated by the FMJD, definitely not the KNDB.

The reasons should be obvious.

Bert Zwart

[Jacques PERMAL]

Hello Bert,

Your are a very good player because of your good results in tournaments -specially this year-.

I think that debate about draughts philosophy is necessary as you said.

However this debate about percentage of draws exist everywhere.

It will be interesting to read here the opinions of players of others countries about this subject.

[Florent SANON]

Dear draught friends,

I'm interested by the debate concerning the KNDB project of draught games results (favorable/unfavorable draw etc), but the main discussion is in dutch (what is normal ("à César, ce qui est à César")). Could someone translates in english or french ("à César, ce qui est à Jules") the principal messages particularly the one of M. Hildering (Exetive Vice-President of FMJD).

If it's possible to determine equivalences in games results, so it's possible to attribute "good" games results.
In a competition of r number of rounds, a player who has x number of victory, y number of draw, z number of defeat (why not v number of favorable draw, w number of unfavorable draw) make approximately "same competition result" than another player who has c number of victory , d number of draw, e number of defeat (why not f number of favorable draw, g number of unfavorable draw)

with x + y + z + ( v + w) = r
c + d + e + ( f + g) = r
The u number of equivalences give following form of equations :
x*m + y*n + z*o + (v*p + w*q) = (or <= or >=) c*m + d*n + e*o + (f*p + g*q)

with m = point for victory
n = point for draw
o = point for defeat
p = point for favorable draw
q = point for unfavorable draw

The mathematical resolution of the system of equations will give the value of m, n,o, (p, q).

Best regards.
Florent SANON
Player from Burkina Faso
nickname koroson on VOG.

[Vraagje]

Dear draught friends,

I'm interested by the debate concerning the KNDB project of draught games results (favorable/unfavorable draw etc), but the main discussion is in dutch (what is normal ("à César, ce qui est à César")). Could someone translates in english or french ("à César, ce qui est à Jules") the principal messages particularly the one of M. Hildering (Exetive Vice-President of FMJD).

If it's possible to determine equivalences in games results, so it's possible to attribute "good" games results.
In a competition of r number of rounds, a player who has x number of victory, y number of draw, z number of defeat (why not v number of favorable draw, w number of unfavorable draw) make approximately "same competition result" than another player who has c number of victory , d number of draw, e number of defeat (why not f number of favorable draw, g number of unfavorable draw)

with x + y + z + ( v + w) = r
c + d + e + ( f + g) = r
The u number of equivalences give following form of equations :
x*m + y*n + z*o + (v*p + w*q) = (or <= or >=) c*m + d*n + e*o + (f*p + g*q)

with m = point for victory
n = point for draw
o = point for defeat
p = point for favorable draw
q = point for unfavorable draw

The mathematical resolution of the system of equations will give the value of m, n,o, (p, q).

Best regards.
Florent SANON
Player from Burkina Faso
nickname koroson on VOG.

Hey koroson when will you be back on VOG? I haven't seen you there for a long time.

But ontopic: a system of advantage draws will create another game. An atlete won't run slower if he knows time is counted in 1/100 second instead of 1/1000 second, but a draugts player will take other decisions for this other system.

Delfts is something other then normal playing.

Wirtov

[Florent SANON]

Hi,

Very nice to read you Wirtov!
I'm not regular on VOG but sometimes i connect to play. For example i played the beginning of this week under nickname koroson18.

I agree with you that Delft System will change the way of playing. Thus a player who see a draw combination (even if it's ingenious and very brilliant) he will not play it if it not leads to advantage draw. Is this player deserves to loose points by playing brilliant draw combination because of this advantage draw system?

Some ohers questions are interesting to be asked :

- Is it abnormal that 2 same level players make many draws?
My personal answer is no

- Even if there are many draws in a competition, is the final standing generally hazardous, incoherent , illogical?
My personal answer is no

- If a game between a more stronger player and a less stronger player ended on draw, is the more stronger player incapable to win or it was easy
for the less stronger player to make draw? It will be interesting to ask top players (like Wirtov ) why they think some of their games lead to draw even if they had advantage (problem of time (cadence), precision, opening) ?

- Are there techniques to easily make draw against more stronger player? Aren't there techniques to thwart them? It will be instructive for experience to allow very strong software like Buggy to play tournament, so we will see if it's easy to get draw

Best regards
Florent SANON
koroson.

[Vraagje]

Hi,

Very nice to read you Wirtov!
I'm not regular on VOG but sometimes i connect to play. For example i played the beginning of this week under nickname koroson18.

I agree with you that Delft System will change the way of playing. Thus a player who see a draw combination (even if it's ingenious and very brilliant) he will not play it if it not leads to advantage draw. Is this player deserves to loose points by playing brilliant draw combination because of this advantage draw system?

Some ohers questions are interesting to be asked :

- Is it abnormal that 2 same level players make many draws?
My personal answer is no

- Even if there are many draws in a competition, is the final standing generally hazardous, incoherent , illogical?
My personal answer is no

- If a game between a more stronger player and a less stronger player ended on draw, is the more stronger player incapable to win or it was easy
for the less stronger player to make draw? It will be interesting to ask top players (like Wirtov ) why they think some of their games lead to draw even if they had advantage (problem of time (cadence), precision, opening) ?

- Are there techniques to easily make draw against more stronger player? Aren't there techniques to thwart them? It will be instructive for experience to allow very strong software like Buggy to play tournament, so we will see if it's easy to get draw

Best regards
Florent SANON
koroson.

Well thanks for the compliment but I'm afraid I'm not a top player. Nevertheless I can explain why I played draw if you want.