Answers.Body: <p>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.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-11-23T09:15:52.630Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2018-11-23T09:15:52.630Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Matthew Liu
Answers.Body: <p>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</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-11-20T12:55:44.867Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2018-11-20T12:55:44.867Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: SmallChess
Answers.Body: <p>First of all let's put the numbers correct.</p>
  <p>The 80% draw ratio is for correspondence chess, not something that the average person would associate with &quot;chess&quot;.</p>
  <p>In regular top level chess, the draw ratio is around 50%.</p>
  <hr />
  <p>In either case, most games are <strong>not</strong> played out until a position <em>where it is impossible to checkmate</em>, but rather most draws are <em>agreed draws</em>, i.e. draws in a position that could in principle be won by either player through checkmate.</p>
  <hr />
  <p>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.</p>
  <p>I see several difficulties/issues with this approach:</p>
  <ol>
  <li>You'd have to decide what to do with perpetual check, stalemate and the 50 moves rule.</li>
  <li>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.</li>
  <li>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.</li>
  <li>If players in a dead draw position would have equal material it would still be a draw.</li>
  </ol>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-11-20T17:38:05.377Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2022-01-23T15:58:04.643Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2022-01-23T15:58:04.643Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: user1583209
Body: <p>I'm not a serious chess player, but I heard that about 80% of professional chess games end as a draw.</p>
  
  <p>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).</p>
  
  <p>Why does chess not adopt this way?</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2018-11-20T13:08:11.010Z
Comments.Text: This question is very similar to this one: https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/1412/why-is-stalemate-a-draw?rq=1 ... and the answers there can also be applied here: It's tradition, and it adds strategical elements (fortresses etc.)
Comments.UserDisplayName: Annatar
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2018-11-20T13:20:17.600Z
Comments.Text: 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.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Annatar
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2018-11-20T13:55:10.460Z
Comments.Text: I have no idea where you are getting this 80% from, see e.g. https://en.chessbase.com/post/has-the-number-of-draws-in-chess-increased But fundamentally what is wrong with a draw?
Comments.UserDisplayName: Ian Bush
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2018-11-20T14:00:29.203Z
Comments.Text: @Septacle How does allowing draws flatten piece values? Isn't it the other way around (pieces would be more heavily valued according to their end-count value)?
Comments.UserDisplayName: Annatar
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2018-11-20T14:02:54.900Z
Comments.Text: @Septacle Also, if a "technical draw" is reached, simply turning it into a "technical win" wouldn't change one bit about its fun factor.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Annatar
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2018-11-20T14:12:26.297Z
Comments.Text: @Septacle Correspondence chess is not what most people think of when they talk about chess - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correspondence_chess   As for draws making the game boring, well as you can guess I just disagree.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Ian Bush
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2018-11-20T14:12:53.553Z
Comments.Text: 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.
Comments.UserDisplayName: itub
Tags: <draw>
Title: Why is there a draw in professional chess?
ThreadText: # Why is there a draw in professional chess?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2018-11-20)
  
  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?
  
  **Tags:** draw
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: This question is very similar to this one: https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/1412/why-is-stalemate-a-draw?rq=1 ... and the answers there can also be applied here: It's tradition, and it adds strategical elements (fortresses etc.)  
  > **username_1**: 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.  
  > **username_2**: I have no idea where you are getting this 80% from, see e.g. https://en.chessbase.com/post/has-the-number-of-draws-in-chess-increased But fundamentally what is wrong with a draw?  
  > **username_1**: @username_0 How does allowing draws flatten piece values? Isn't it the other way around (pieces would be more heavily valued according to their end-count value)?  
  > **username_1**: @username_0 Also, if a "technical draw" is reached, simply turning it into a "technical win" wouldn't change one bit about its fun factor.  
  > **username_2**: @username_0 Correspondence chess is not what most people think of when they talk about chess - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correspondence_chess   As for draws making the game boring, well as you can guess I just disagree.  
  > **username_3**: 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.  
  
  ---
  
  ## 3 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_6 on 2018-11-20. Score: 15 | Accepted answer
  
  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.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_4 on 2018-11-23. Score: 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.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_5 on 2018-11-20. Score: 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
  
  
  ---
  
  