Enter Your Reply

Someone had written about 'draws' in relation to Catapults of Troy.  No
name appeared in the comment column.  They wrote, in part,'Draws are not,
in themselves, a negative.  There is always the potential for such to be
judged according to material or position. So a player might obtain a draw,
but might lose according to their material or position.'

My response: I suppose this is like the stalemate in Chinese Chess, but we
can't call it a draw that wins... it is a win.  Or in Shatranj, single
bare King... might look like a draw, but it is a win for the King +
material side.  In Chess, a stalemate is a draw, and bare King can end up
being a draw.  But is anything wrong with that?

The commentor continued, 'The draw question should be whether a player
might through a set of specific moves force a draw from the start of a
game, not whether any potential draw is possible.  In other words, by
achieving a particular position on the field the player is able to prevent
the opponent from ever achieving the stated capture goal of the game.'

My response:  In many good games a draw can be forced, if this is not the
case, then it means one side will always win (with best moves).  However,
it is very important to note that this forced draw assumes the absolute
best moves be made.  Thus, in a 'perfect game' of chess a draw is
forced.  But, the human mind is not capable of handling the solution.  The
solution is mind boggling.  But the computer Hydra seems to have it (or be
close).  It has never lost a game (from either side).  It has had draws.

The writer continued. 'And as stated, a draw-ish game is not, by its
nature, 'broken', it can still be evaluated by material or position if
the players desire.'

My response: Why?  What is wrong with 2 players getting a draw?  I played
in the World Open in 1980 and in the New York Open back in 1983... I had
some very hard fought draws.  I see nothing wrong with that.  To win, I
need to play better than my opponent.  I need to avoid errors... hope that
my opponent makes the last blunder.

The commentor went on to say, 'Though if it is possible to force a draw
each and every game, the stated capture goal might be considered
inconsequential or at the least merely an influence during the game.'

My response: At present, I don't understand this comment.  But as I
started out saying, A perfectly played game of Chess should result in a
draw.  If this is not true, it means one side can always win in a
perfectly played game.  In either case, most humans (even World Champions)
don't play perfect games.  All in all, closely rated players are more
likely to draw than those with big rating differences.  To avoid draws,
play better, don't re-design a time-honored game.

The person concluded, 'I apologize to Gary for my rant.'
My response: Apology accepted, but not at all necessary.

In conclusion, There was once a man who outplayed his opponent in chess. 
He promoted a pawn to Queen and said, 'I win, you cannot move.'  The
other said, 'This is a stalemate. It is a draw.'  This was confirmed and
the first man yelled, 'What a stupid rule!  I should win!  Look at this! 
I'll never play this stupid game again!'  True story.  But what is its
point?  Quite simple, 'Know the rules of the game you are playing.  And
be careful, there just might happen to be a thing called a draw.'