7

I'm not a serious chess player, but I heard that about 80% of professional chess games end as a draw.

In other similar abstract strategy games, such as Shogi and Janggi, when it is impossible to checkmate, they evaluate pieces value and determine the winner (in a professional game).

Why does chess not adopt this way?

Improve this question
7
  • 1
    This question is very similar to this one: chess.stackexchange.com/questions/1412/… ... and the answers there can also be applied here: It's tradition, and it adds strategical elements (fortresses etc.)
    – Annatar
    Commented Nov 20, 2018 at 13:08
  • There is no difference in the argument for stalemate/technical draw: If they are allowed, they are an option to play into, thus a strategical element. E.g. cleverly sacrificing a pawn in a slightly weaker position to force a liquidation into a (drawn) opposite color bishop endgame.
    – Annatar
    Commented Nov 20, 2018 at 13:20
  • I have no idea where you are getting this 80% from, see e.g. en.chessbase.com/post/… But fundamentally what is wrong with a draw?
    – Ian Bush
    Commented Nov 20, 2018 at 13:55
  • 1
    @Septacle Correspondence chess is not what most people think of when they talk about chess - see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correspondence_chess As for draws making the game boring, well as you can guess I just disagree.
    – Ian Bush
    Commented Nov 20, 2018 at 14:12
  • 1
    It is 80% for the world championship for correspondence chess. It's also in the same neighborhood for the classical chess world championship. But for high-level classical chess it's more like 50%, and for amateur chess it's much less.
    – itub
    Commented Nov 20, 2018 at 14:12

3 Answers 3

Reset to default
15

First of all let's put the numbers correct.

The 80% draw ratio is for correspondence chess, not something that the average person would associate with "chess".

In regular top level chess, the draw ratio is around 50%.

In either case, most games are not played out until a position where it is impossible to checkmate, but rather most draws are agreed draws, i.e. draws in a position that could in principle be won by either player through checkmate.

If I understand your proposal correctly, you want to get rid of draws completely by evaluating dead positions (that cannot be won by either player, not even if cooperating) according to the piece value.

I see several difficulties/issues with this approach:

  1. You'd have to decide what to do with perpetual check, stalemate and the 50 moves rule.
  2. What do you do with positions that are equal/drawish with equal material but that are not dead draws (i.e. either player can still checkmate)? Forcing players to continue until dead draws could lead to very long (and boring) games, similar to what we see with some games under Sofia rules.
  3. Positions where it is impossible to checkmate are pretty rare. Basically only King vs King or King and one minor piece vs King (and a few exceptional/constructed cases). In the large majority of positions checkmate is possible if players cooperate. So the proposed change would not alter much.
  4. If players in a dead draw position would have equal material it would still be a draw.
Improve this answer
0
5

Because it would change the way the game is played. No way I would sac for a perpetual or even sac in general unless I have a clear cut win because bailing out to a draw from a position of superiority is not good enough.

Improve this answer
3

Chess pieces don't have a proper value, that depends on the position. A passed-pawn could be a weakness or a queen-promotion opportunity. A pawn next to promotion is stronger than a rook. Knights are not inferior to rook when it attacks with the queen etc etc etc

Improve this answer
0

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.