In order to fight against draw games my basic idea is to penalyse the player who tries only to avoid the loss.
In general the strategy of such player is based on a maximum of "exchanging moves" avoiding as far as possible any weakness in his or her position.
To explain my system I need only to define what I mean by "exchanging move".
An "exchanging move" is a move which is not itself a "capture move" and at the same time a move which provoke a "capture move" by the opponent.
My system :
As soon as a player makes a "exchanging move" he or she receives a penalty of one point. At the end of the game, if the result on the board is a draw, then the winner of the game is the player with the minimum of penalties.
In case of equality black is winning.
That way no draw exists and I feel that each game will be far more exciting!
Note that during the game the penalties may be count quite easily. Each time you see your opponent making a "exchanging move" you execute the corresponding capture and you give your opponent one of the men captured which represents the penalty.
The rules for playing the game itself are not changed but as ususal I know perfectly that any change in counting the winning games have a significant impact on the strategy of the game itself but what is your feeling about this idea to try to make the draughts games more interesting?
I hope you will take time to analyse the potentials of such proposal.
Gérard TAILLE system
-
A.Presman
- Posts: 2129
- Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2002 16:43
- Real name: Alexander Presman
- Location: the Netherlands
Re: Gérard TAILLE system
Gérard, could you please show a couple of examples what "exchanging move" means?
Re: Gérard TAILLE system
Let's take the beginning of the game Lognon - Georgiev during the Europeen Championship in Moskou 2018
01. 32-28 17-21
02. 37-32 11-17
03. 34-30 07-11
04. 30-25 21-26
05. 41-37 17-21
06. 31-27 12-17
07. 27-22 18x27
08. 28-23 19x28
09. 33x31 01-07
10. 39-33 07-12
11. 44-39 13-18
12. 50-44 09-13
13. 40-34 17-22
14. 33-28 22x33
15. 39x28
Obviously the white player was looking for simplication against his famous opponent.
The first "exchanging move" is the move 7.27-22 ; before this move the position of the board where quiet and after 7.27-22 black has to capture. As a consequence 27-22 is said to be an "exchanging move" and because of that the white player receives 1 point of penalty.
For the same reason the move 8.28-23 is also an exchanging move and white receives a second point of penalty.
Finally the move 14.33-28 is the third exchanging move and white receives a third point of penalty for this.
You see the point ? The player who provoque an exchange is penalise comparing to the player who avoid the exchanges.
By the way the wording I used to define my system was not completly correct according to what I have in mind. Let me try to rewrite my proposal.
three definitions:
1) A capture position is simply a position in which the player who has to move has to do a capture
2) A position is said quiet if it is not a capture position and if after a null move this position is still not a capture position
3) An exchanging move is a move which transforms a quiet position in a capture position.
Taking now the last game Roel Boomstra - Alexander Shvartsman
01. 34-29 20-25
02. 40-34 14-20
03. 44-40 10-14
04. 32-28 17-21
05. 31-26 19-24
06. 26x17 11x22
07. 28x17 12x21
08. 37-32 07-12
09. 32-28 21-26
10. 36-31 26x37
11. 42x31 18-22
12. 28x17 12x21
13. 38-32 25-30
14. 34x25 14-19
15. 25x23 21-26
16. 29x20 26x19
17. 40-34 15x24
18. 34-29 05-10
19. 29x20 10-15
20. 39-34 15x24
21. 34-29 04-10
22. 29x20 10-15
23. 45-40 15x24
The move 5...19-24 is not considered as an exchanging move because the position after 5.31-26 is not quiet.
In this beginning of game the exchanging moves are :
10.36-31
11...18-22
13...25-30
14...14-19
you can see one point of penalty to white and three points of penalty for black. As a consequence white is leading and this is due to the fact that black provoked more exchanges than white.
The main three advantages of this system are:
1) the actual winning (losing) games remains unchanged
2) the draw games disappear
3) the game would become more exiting because the players will avoid exchanging and at the end one player will win.
At least the spectators will be very happy won't they?
01. 32-28 17-21
02. 37-32 11-17
03. 34-30 07-11
04. 30-25 21-26
05. 41-37 17-21
06. 31-27 12-17
07. 27-22 18x27
08. 28-23 19x28
09. 33x31 01-07
10. 39-33 07-12
11. 44-39 13-18
12. 50-44 09-13
13. 40-34 17-22
14. 33-28 22x33
15. 39x28
Obviously the white player was looking for simplication against his famous opponent.
The first "exchanging move" is the move 7.27-22 ; before this move the position of the board where quiet and after 7.27-22 black has to capture. As a consequence 27-22 is said to be an "exchanging move" and because of that the white player receives 1 point of penalty.
For the same reason the move 8.28-23 is also an exchanging move and white receives a second point of penalty.
Finally the move 14.33-28 is the third exchanging move and white receives a third point of penalty for this.
You see the point ? The player who provoque an exchange is penalise comparing to the player who avoid the exchanges.
By the way the wording I used to define my system was not completly correct according to what I have in mind. Let me try to rewrite my proposal.
three definitions:
1) A capture position is simply a position in which the player who has to move has to do a capture
2) A position is said quiet if it is not a capture position and if after a null move this position is still not a capture position
3) An exchanging move is a move which transforms a quiet position in a capture position.
Taking now the last game Roel Boomstra - Alexander Shvartsman
01. 34-29 20-25
02. 40-34 14-20
03. 44-40 10-14
04. 32-28 17-21
05. 31-26 19-24
06. 26x17 11x22
07. 28x17 12x21
08. 37-32 07-12
09. 32-28 21-26
10. 36-31 26x37
11. 42x31 18-22
12. 28x17 12x21
13. 38-32 25-30
14. 34x25 14-19
15. 25x23 21-26
16. 29x20 26x19
17. 40-34 15x24
18. 34-29 05-10
19. 29x20 10-15
20. 39-34 15x24
21. 34-29 04-10
22. 29x20 10-15
23. 45-40 15x24
The move 5...19-24 is not considered as an exchanging move because the position after 5.31-26 is not quiet.
In this beginning of game the exchanging moves are :
10.36-31
11...18-22
13...25-30
14...14-19
you can see one point of penalty to white and three points of penalty for black. As a consequence white is leading and this is due to the fact that black provoked more exchanges than white.
The main three advantages of this system are:
1) the actual winning (losing) games remains unchanged
2) the draw games disappear
3) the game would become more exiting because the players will avoid exchanging and at the end one player will win.
At least the spectators will be very happy won't they?
Gérard
-
Jaap van Galen
- Posts: 713
- Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2003 10:51
Re: Gérard TAILLE system
34-30 20-25 30-24 x x => -1
18-22 31-26 14-19 40-35 x x 10-14 24-20 x 33-28 x x => -3
Is that how it works?
18-22 31-26 14-19 40-35 x x 10-14 24-20 x 33-28 x x => -3
Is that how it works?
Re: Gérard TAILLE system
Hi Jaap,
Your example is very interestiong because it adresses is very important part of my proposal : the "quiet position" notion i.e. a position in which all pieces are in a quiet situation, I mean not attacked by an opponent piece.
Let's take your example:
After 1.34-30 the move 1...20-25 changes the position from a "quiet position" to a "non-quiet position" because now the piece on 30 is attacked by the opponent piece on 25. As a consequence the move 2.30-24 is not an "exchanging move" because an "exchanging move" is a move which changes the position from a "quiet position" to a "capture position".
My feeling is that the exchange which occured after 2.30-24 is not only due to the 2.30-24 but also due to the move 1...20-25 which create a "non-quiet" position. In such situation a no point of penalty is distributed.
For the same reason after 34-30 20-25 30-24 18-22 31-26 14-19 40-35 x x no penalty is distributed because the move 40-35 is made in a "non-quiet" position.
However with 34-30 20-25 30-24 x x 18-22 31-26 14-19 40-35 x x 10-14 24-20 x 33-28 x x you can see two "exchanging moves" 24-20 and 33-28 and white is is penalyse by two points.
Three comments:
1) the sequence 24-20 x 33-28 x x looks for me as a small combination allowing to eliminate 4 men. I am happy to try to avoid such combinaison.
2) the moves 14-19 40-35 x x cause no penalties and this is also very important because otherwise you will strongly hesitate before putting a white pieces on the beautiful 24 square
3) In order to avoid "exchanging moves" you will probably look for attacking moves like in your example 20-25 or 14-19. This has in my mind a very positive effect on the game because you will then look for dangerous moves because we all know that an attacking moves may give a brilliant combinaison to the opponent
Your example is very interestiong because it adresses is very important part of my proposal : the "quiet position" notion i.e. a position in which all pieces are in a quiet situation, I mean not attacked by an opponent piece.
Let's take your example:
After 1.34-30 the move 1...20-25 changes the position from a "quiet position" to a "non-quiet position" because now the piece on 30 is attacked by the opponent piece on 25. As a consequence the move 2.30-24 is not an "exchanging move" because an "exchanging move" is a move which changes the position from a "quiet position" to a "capture position".
My feeling is that the exchange which occured after 2.30-24 is not only due to the 2.30-24 but also due to the move 1...20-25 which create a "non-quiet" position. In such situation a no point of penalty is distributed.
For the same reason after 34-30 20-25 30-24 18-22 31-26 14-19 40-35 x x no penalty is distributed because the move 40-35 is made in a "non-quiet" position.
However with 34-30 20-25 30-24 x x 18-22 31-26 14-19 40-35 x x 10-14 24-20 x 33-28 x x you can see two "exchanging moves" 24-20 and 33-28 and white is is penalyse by two points.
Three comments:
1) the sequence 24-20 x 33-28 x x looks for me as a small combination allowing to eliminate 4 men. I am happy to try to avoid such combinaison.
2) the moves 14-19 40-35 x x cause no penalties and this is also very important because otherwise you will strongly hesitate before putting a white pieces on the beautiful 24 square
3) In order to avoid "exchanging moves" you will probably look for attacking moves like in your example 20-25 or 14-19. This has in my mind a very positive effect on the game because you will then look for dangerous moves because we all know that an attacking moves may give a brilliant combinaison to the opponent
Gérard
-
A.Presman
- Posts: 2129
- Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2002 16:43
- Real name: Alexander Presman
- Location: the Netherlands
Re: Gérard TAILLE system
Gérard,
the problem is that in the base of your suggestion I see the idea that the goal of exchange (even if you narrow it down to the "quiet position") is to simplify the position.
But it is really not so. Very big part of strategical struggle in the draughts game is about winning the tempi (or loosing it in some kind of positions). And exchange is the main middle to achieve it. Also there are a lot of exchanges leading to the sharpest game.
Also in the example of Jaap (slightly changed)
34-29 20-25 29-24 x x => -1
18-22 31-26 14-19 40-35 x x 10-14 24-20 x 33-28 x x => -2
Both sides (and certainly white) choose for one of the most sharp types of game: with the white piece at 15. Punishing them you miss the idea.
the problem is that in the base of your suggestion I see the idea that the goal of exchange (even if you narrow it down to the "quiet position") is to simplify the position.
But it is really not so. Very big part of strategical struggle in the draughts game is about winning the tempi (or loosing it in some kind of positions). And exchange is the main middle to achieve it. Also there are a lot of exchanges leading to the sharpest game.
Also in the example of Jaap (slightly changed)
34-29 20-25 29-24 x x => -1
18-22 31-26 14-19 40-35 x x 10-14 24-20 x 33-28 x x => -2
Both sides (and certainly white) choose for one of the most sharp types of game: with the white piece at 15. Punishing them you miss the idea.
Re: Gérard TAILLE system
Again a very interesting point:
After 34-29 20-25 29-24 18-22 31-26 14-19 40-35 x x 10-14 24-20 x 33-28 yes white is punished by 3 points but white gained a lot of space on the right of the board. I am certainly not an expert of such openning but as a consequence of the white choice I guess black would try to avoid any blockade on the left side of the board and black will certainly make exchanging moves on this left side to keep flexibility. Isn't it difficult for black to play without trying to exchange white pieces on 26 and 32 ?
On the long term it does not seem to me a bad idea to gain space against some penalties in order to gain more in the future of the game, simply because if the opponent is lacking space he will have to make also exchanging moves.
A good strategy may be the following: you gain space against penalties. If your opponent is not skillfull enough he may reach some position in which he has to make bad back exchanging moves thus reducing the white penalties without gaining space. On the long term the white strategy can clearly become a winning one. Against another strong opponent I guess your opponent will manage to gain space on another part of the board but in this process he will logically concede also penalties and nobody knows who will win.
By the way, isnt'it precisely a strategy used today by strong players?
At least the analyse of the proposal seems interesting. I do not claim that this system will not change the game, I would be quite stupid to say that, but I hope this change will go in a very positive direction to make draughts game more exiting for players themseves and for the spectators.
I any case thank you very much for your comments and (why not?) for possible improvments of the system if you feel it may be a good idea to experiment.
After 34-29 20-25 29-24 18-22 31-26 14-19 40-35 x x 10-14 24-20 x 33-28 yes white is punished by 3 points but white gained a lot of space on the right of the board. I am certainly not an expert of such openning but as a consequence of the white choice I guess black would try to avoid any blockade on the left side of the board and black will certainly make exchanging moves on this left side to keep flexibility. Isn't it difficult for black to play without trying to exchange white pieces on 26 and 32 ?
On the long term it does not seem to me a bad idea to gain space against some penalties in order to gain more in the future of the game, simply because if the opponent is lacking space he will have to make also exchanging moves.
A good strategy may be the following: you gain space against penalties. If your opponent is not skillfull enough he may reach some position in which he has to make bad back exchanging moves thus reducing the white penalties without gaining space. On the long term the white strategy can clearly become a winning one. Against another strong opponent I guess your opponent will manage to gain space on another part of the board but in this process he will logically concede also penalties and nobody knows who will win.
By the way, isnt'it precisely a strategy used today by strong players?
At least the analyse of the proposal seems interesting. I do not claim that this system will not change the game, I would be quite stupid to say that, but I hope this change will go in a very positive direction to make draughts game more exiting for players themseves and for the spectators.
I any case thank you very much for your comments and (why not?) for possible improvments of the system if you feel it may be a good idea to experiment.
Gérard
-
Jaap van Galen
- Posts: 713
- Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2003 10:51
Re: Gérard TAILLE system
Hi Gérard,TAILLE wrote: ↑Sun Jan 13, 2019 20:40Again a very interesting point:
After 34-29 20-25 29-24 18-22 31-26 14-19 40-35 x x 10-14 24-20 x 33-28 yes white is punished by 3 points but white gained a lot of space on the right of the board. I am certainly not an expert of such openning but as a consequence of the white choice I guess black would try to avoid any blockade on the left side of the board and black will certainly make exchanging moves on this left side to keep flexibility. Isn't it difficult for black to play without trying to exchange white pieces on 26 and 32 ?
On the long term it does not seem to me a bad idea to gain space against some penalties in order to gain more in the future of the game, simply because if the opponent is lacking space he will have to make also exchanging moves.
A good strategy may be the following: you gain space against penalties. If your opponent is not skillfull enough he may reach some position in which he has to make bad back exchanging moves thus reducing the white penalties without gaining space. On the long term the white strategy can clearly become a winning one. Against another strong opponent I guess your opponent will manage to gain space on another part of the board but in this process he will logically concede also penalties and nobody knows who will win.
By the way, isnt'it precisely a strategy used today by strong players?
At least the analyse of the proposal seems interesting. I do not claim that this system will not change the game, I would be quite stupid to say that, but I hope this change will go in a very positive direction to make draughts game more exiting for players themseves and for the spectators.
I any case thank you very much for your comments and (why not?) for possible improvments of the system if you feel it may be a good idea to experiment.
the difficulty in my and Alexanders example is that white is taking the risks but gets punished.
Is it maybe an idea to make your rules for exchaning only valid for exchanging on the first five rows. With that I mean exchanges that end at one of the first five rows on your side?
But even then I am afraid your idea will make a too radical change in playing draughts and that examples of that will be found soon.
Re: Gérard TAILLE system
Though I get your point I am still quite convinced that taking space at the cost of few penalties cannot be a very a bad strategy.
The idea of taking into account only the first five row is new for me and for the time beeing I do not know how this change can improve the system. I have certainly to think about it.
You said "I am afraid your idea will make a too radical change in playing draughts and that examples of that will be found soon"
No doubt in my mind on that point!!! As soon as you remove all draws for sure you change the game, especially when entering the endgame when each side has got about the same number of penalties.
We all know perfectly that changing the count of the result has a major impact on the game.
What I was aiming for was the following:
1) keeping unchanged the basic rules of play on the board
2) a current winnig game is a course also a winning game with the new system
3) penalysing all form of play aiming in the current game at reaching the draw
4) incitating to play games with tension by penalising exchanges
5) because exchanges will be necessary at a certain moment, encouraging attacking exchanges, I mean forward exchanges
6) encouraging attacking opponent pieces (dangerous moves?)
7) resolving completly the drawing game problem
making all games far more interesting for the spectators (I do not know if it is a important point)
etc.
As soon as you admit that we have to change the current games (to many draws, non attractive games, etc.) we have all to try and propose new systems. Then all of us have to compare pro and cons of each system and conclude what is the best one for the future of draughts. May be we will conclude that no changes can be accepted but at least we have to exchange our views.
BTW do you have a game exemple to illustrate the drawbacks you mentionned concerning my proposal? I will be happy to analyse really the consequence of my proposal!
The idea of taking into account only the first five row is new for me and for the time beeing I do not know how this change can improve the system. I have certainly to think about it.
You said "I am afraid your idea will make a too radical change in playing draughts and that examples of that will be found soon"
No doubt in my mind on that point!!! As soon as you remove all draws for sure you change the game, especially when entering the endgame when each side has got about the same number of penalties.
We all know perfectly that changing the count of the result has a major impact on the game.
What I was aiming for was the following:
1) keeping unchanged the basic rules of play on the board
2) a current winnig game is a course also a winning game with the new system
3) penalysing all form of play aiming in the current game at reaching the draw
4) incitating to play games with tension by penalising exchanges
5) because exchanges will be necessary at a certain moment, encouraging attacking exchanges, I mean forward exchanges
6) encouraging attacking opponent pieces (dangerous moves?)
7) resolving completly the drawing game problem
making all games far more interesting for the spectators (I do not know if it is a important point)etc.
As soon as you admit that we have to change the current games (to many draws, non attractive games, etc.) we have all to try and propose new systems. Then all of us have to compare pro and cons of each system and conclude what is the best one for the future of draughts. May be we will conclude that no changes can be accepted but at least we have to exchange our views.
BTW do you have a game exemple to illustrate the drawbacks you mentionned concerning my proposal? I will be happy to analyse really the consequence of my proposal!
Gérard
-
Jaap van Galen
- Posts: 713
- Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2003 10:51
Re: Gérard TAILLE system
You can better ask a better player for examples.TAILLE wrote: ↑Sun Jan 13, 2019 23:41Though I get your point I am still quite convinced that taking space at the cost of few penalties cannot be a very a bad strategy.
The idea of taking into account only the first five row is new for me and for the time beeing I do not know how this change can improve the system. I have certainly to think about it.
You said "I am afraid your idea will make a too radical change in playing draughts and that examples of that will be found soon"
No doubt in my mind on that point!!! As soon as you remove all draws for sure you change the game, especially when entering the endgame when each side has got about the same number of penalties.
We all know perfectly that changing the count of the result has a major impact on the game.
What I was aiming for was the following:
1) keeping unchanged the basic rules of play on the board
2) a current winnig game is a course also a winning game with the new system
3) penalysing all form of play aiming in the current game at reaching the draw
4) incitating to play games with tension by penalising exchanges
5) because exchanges will be necessary at a certain moment, encouraging attacking exchanges, I mean forward exchanges
6) encouraging attacking opponent pieces (dangerous moves?)
7) resolving completly the drawing game problem
etc.
As soon as you admit that we have to change the current games (to many draws, non attractive games, etc.) we have all to try and propose new systems. Then all of us have to compare pro and cons of each system and conclude what is the best one for the future of draughts. May be we will conclude that no changes can be accepted but at least we have to exchange our views.
BTW do you have a game exemple to illustrate the drawbacks you mentionned concerning my proposal? I will be happy to analyse really the consequence of my proposal!
One more try:
3328 1822 3833 1218 4238 0712 4742 0107 3430 2025 3126 x x30 2227 x x
Black makes the game but black gets a penalty
Re: Gérard TAILLE system
Taking your proposal 3328 1822 3833 1218 4238 0712 4742 0107 3430 2025 3126 x x30 2227 x x
Yes the move 22-27 gets a penalty to Black but as I tried to explain in my previous post it is exactly a penalty which looks a very good investment for the future because black has got more space on the board:
1) white can then try to conpensate this lack of space by trying to occupy square 24 but in that case he will receive also a penalty won't it?
2) White can also try to contest black 27 and can look for a exchange like 38-32x32 but here again white will receive a penalty
3) But it may also happen that white, under black pressure, has to make bad backward exchanges and in this case white will be penalysed while black may keep his space advantage. In this case you see it could be a great success for black.
In addition to this I am quite convinced it is a very good strategy for black to accept a second penalty by exchanging white piece on 28 in order to gain still more space. On the long term I think that in order to avoid losing the game in a classic manner white will have to look for exchanging in order to regain the space lost. In the process the risk is high for white to be constraint to lose more than two points of penalties and black will end with the advantage. Only a very skillfull surrounder can hope to survive to such black strategy and this is a good news isn't it?
Yes the move 22-27 gets a penalty to Black but as I tried to explain in my previous post it is exactly a penalty which looks a very good investment for the future because black has got more space on the board:
1) white can then try to conpensate this lack of space by trying to occupy square 24 but in that case he will receive also a penalty won't it?
2) White can also try to contest black 27 and can look for a exchange like 38-32x32 but here again white will receive a penalty
3) But it may also happen that white, under black pressure, has to make bad backward exchanges and in this case white will be penalysed while black may keep his space advantage. In this case you see it could be a great success for black.
In addition to this I am quite convinced it is a very good strategy for black to accept a second penalty by exchanging white piece on 28 in order to gain still more space. On the long term I think that in order to avoid losing the game in a classic manner white will have to look for exchanging in order to regain the space lost. In the process the risk is high for white to be constraint to lose more than two points of penalties and black will end with the advantage. Only a very skillfull surrounder can hope to survive to such black strategy and this is a good news isn't it?
Gérard
Re: Gérard TAILLE system
Let's take as example the following game
Martijn van IJzendoorn - Wouter Wolff Wereldkampioenschap Talllinn 2017
01. 32-28 17-21
02. 34-30 11-17
03. 40-34 06-11
04. 31-26 19-23
05. 28x19 14x23
06. 37-31 10-14
07. 41-37 14-19
08. 46-41 18-22
09. 45-40 01-06
10. 33-29 13-18
11. 50-45 20-25
12. 37-32 21-27
13. 32x21 16x27
14. 38-33 09-13
15. 42-38 11-16
16. 38-32 27x38
17. 43x32 07-11
18. 31-27 22x31
19. 26x37
Here Black would receive a first penalty for the move 4...19-23 and a second penalty for the move 12...21-27. In compensation of this two points of penalties black has got good space on the board and here is my point : white just cannot accept such lack of space and has to look for regaining some space somewhere. In this game white chose to regain the square 27 and in the process the white would have received two points of penalty for the moves 16.38-32 and 18.21-27.
This is very important to understand. It looks that an agressive exchange taking space has to be avoid because you will receive a penalty but it is only a short view of the game. In the long term I am convinced that such exchange, in the hands of a good player, cannot be a bad investment.
Martijn van IJzendoorn - Wouter Wolff Wereldkampioenschap Talllinn 2017
01. 32-28 17-21
02. 34-30 11-17
03. 40-34 06-11
04. 31-26 19-23
05. 28x19 14x23
06. 37-31 10-14
07. 41-37 14-19
08. 46-41 18-22
09. 45-40 01-06
10. 33-29 13-18
11. 50-45 20-25
12. 37-32 21-27
13. 32x21 16x27
14. 38-33 09-13
15. 42-38 11-16
16. 38-32 27x38
17. 43x32 07-11
18. 31-27 22x31
19. 26x37
Here Black would receive a first penalty for the move 4...19-23 and a second penalty for the move 12...21-27. In compensation of this two points of penalties black has got good space on the board and here is my point : white just cannot accept such lack of space and has to look for regaining some space somewhere. In this game white chose to regain the square 27 and in the process the white would have received two points of penalty for the moves 16.38-32 and 18.21-27.
This is very important to understand. It looks that an agressive exchange taking space has to be avoid because you will receive a penalty but it is only a short view of the game. In the long term I am convinced that such exchange, in the hands of a good player, cannot be a bad investment.
Gérard
-
Jaap van Galen
- Posts: 713
- Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2003 10:51
Re: Gérard TAILLE system
Gérard,
the only thing I can say is that for me it is not logical that
(i) You introduce a system for making draughts more interesting by punishing exchanges, that sounds positive, but
(ii) In the meanwhile your system does not include some kind of reward for exchanges which are only meant in a positive way (even worse, also then you are punished)
For the rest of your analysis you should ask a better player, I can not answer these questions.
the only thing I can say is that for me it is not logical that
(i) You introduce a system for making draughts more interesting by punishing exchanges, that sounds positive, but
(ii) In the meanwhile your system does not include some kind of reward for exchanges which are only meant in a positive way (even worse, also then you are punished)
For the rest of your analysis you should ask a better player, I can not answer these questions.
Re: Gérard TAILLE system
Jaap,
I understand what you said.
Maybe be may idea is wrong but for the time being I think my explanation was not clear enough.
you wrote:
(i) You introduce a system for making draughts more interesting by punishing exchanges, that sounds positive, but
(ii) In the meanwhile your system does not include some kind of reward for exchanges which are only meant in a positive way (even worse, also then you are punished)
I agree entirely with you, the goal should be to get reward for an exchange in a positive way and a punishment otherwise. That is exactly what I tried to do in the simpliest manner. Let me try to explain in a different way what is in my mind
I know perfectly that an exchange does not mean a simplification of the position but in the other hand everybody knows that a player who is aiming only for the draw will look for these simplification exchanges and the chance is very high that the game will be uninteresting. How is it possible to distinguish between a positive exchange and a simplifying exchange. I am not sure it so easy but basically my system try to go in the good direction.
The point is the following:
In 90% of the cases a positive exchange is a forward exchange which gain space on the board. Of course I know that a backward exchange may also be a very positive exchange but in the majority of the cases it is a defensive exchange aiming at a simplification.
If you admit such view you now can get my point with my proposal:
Because the draughts rules (man are always going forward) you cannot avoid exchanges to occur and the question is the following : which side will probably provoque the next exchange ? My answer is : the side with less space on the board because it has less quiet moves available. My proposal is based on this fact. Yes I penalyse each exchange but this is not really the point. The point is to make more profitable exchanges than you opponent.
If you make a positive exchange I expect it is an exchange gaining space and, I said above, your opponent will be under pressure to find a way to regain space. If your opponent finds a good exchange to regain the space lost everything is OK and nobody is penalysed. But it may well happen that this good exchange (in order to regain space) does not exist or is not found, and your opponent will have to accept more than 1 point of penalty!
In my system each player has to look for profitable exchanges and I claim it is not a bad idea to be the first player accepting a penalty due to such profitable exchange.
At the very beginning of the game after 1.32-28 the move 19-23 is surely a profitable exchange and I have to not be afraid of the penalty received because I know that white will have also to find profitable exchange later in the game.
I understand what you said.
Maybe be may idea is wrong but for the time being I think my explanation was not clear enough.
you wrote:
(i) You introduce a system for making draughts more interesting by punishing exchanges, that sounds positive, but
(ii) In the meanwhile your system does not include some kind of reward for exchanges which are only meant in a positive way (even worse, also then you are punished)
I agree entirely with you, the goal should be to get reward for an exchange in a positive way and a punishment otherwise. That is exactly what I tried to do in the simpliest manner. Let me try to explain in a different way what is in my mind
I know perfectly that an exchange does not mean a simplification of the position but in the other hand everybody knows that a player who is aiming only for the draw will look for these simplification exchanges and the chance is very high that the game will be uninteresting. How is it possible to distinguish between a positive exchange and a simplifying exchange. I am not sure it so easy but basically my system try to go in the good direction.
The point is the following:
In 90% of the cases a positive exchange is a forward exchange which gain space on the board. Of course I know that a backward exchange may also be a very positive exchange but in the majority of the cases it is a defensive exchange aiming at a simplification.
If you admit such view you now can get my point with my proposal:
Because the draughts rules (man are always going forward) you cannot avoid exchanges to occur and the question is the following : which side will probably provoque the next exchange ? My answer is : the side with less space on the board because it has less quiet moves available. My proposal is based on this fact. Yes I penalyse each exchange but this is not really the point. The point is to make more profitable exchanges than you opponent.
If you make a positive exchange I expect it is an exchange gaining space and, I said above, your opponent will be under pressure to find a way to regain space. If your opponent finds a good exchange to regain the space lost everything is OK and nobody is penalysed. But it may well happen that this good exchange (in order to regain space) does not exist or is not found, and your opponent will have to accept more than 1 point of penalty!
In my system each player has to look for profitable exchanges and I claim it is not a bad idea to be the first player accepting a penalty due to such profitable exchange.
At the very beginning of the game after 1.32-28 the move 19-23 is surely a profitable exchange and I have to not be afraid of the penalty received because I know that white will have also to find profitable exchange later in the game.
Gérard
