> > The win/loss percentages for both White and Black are similar to classical chess
> So just as many draws?
Right, we interpret that differently. He said "win/loss" ratio, not "win/loss/draw" ratio. It's possible your interpretation is correct, but I think the full sentence favors my interpretation:
> suggesting that the no-castling variant should be quite playable without favoring a particular player.
The question he's trying to answer is, "Does a lack of castling make it harder for Black (or White) to win?" And the answer is, "No; Black and White still win about the same percentage of the time, so removing castling will not suddenly make it harder for Black (or white) to win." The draw ratio isn't important to answering the question, and isn't mentioned, so I assume he wasn't saying that the draw ratio was the same.
> I'm saying that it is the original patterns where Kramnik is getting most of the dopamine boost from
That's possible, but it doesn't necessarily follow, even if your interpretation about the draw percentage is true. A draw after a dynamic and unpredicatable battle down to a pair of kings is a lot more interesting than a draw after a "trench battle" of small moves.
Look, no worries. A straight-forward interpretation of the article favours your reading of it for sure.
I know it's bad form around here to complain about downvoting but god damn I'd like to know why I got downvoted so much for the opinions I expressed :(
I do appreciate you trying to clarify your position.
I don't have a huge amount of experience here, but people seem to value 1) politeness and 2) correct information.
I haven't talked to the people who downvoted you obviously (and in case you didn't know, you can't downvote a direct reply, so it wasn't me). But to me the first reply sort of came off as, "chess sux0rz, just play go". Go is of course a very nice game, but it's very different than chess; seeming to show disdain for all the people who like to play chess and watch chess played fails somewhat on the "politeness" front.
The second reply didn't really articulate well your position, so seemed to be just "repeating the mistake" from the first post, and so failed (it seemed) on the "correctness" front.
I think if your first reply had been more like the previous reply in this thread -- asking whether there actually were fewer draws, and whether the gameplay was actually more "dynamic" or was simply "different" -- or perhaps adding in your take on games played that way; say from the recent exhibition in London, or from analyses of AlphaZero games played under these rules (e.g. [1]) -- it would have been seen more as a contribution than a detraction.
> So just as many draws?
Right, we interpret that differently. He said "win/loss" ratio, not "win/loss/draw" ratio. It's possible your interpretation is correct, but I think the full sentence favors my interpretation:
> suggesting that the no-castling variant should be quite playable without favoring a particular player.
The question he's trying to answer is, "Does a lack of castling make it harder for Black (or White) to win?" And the answer is, "No; Black and White still win about the same percentage of the time, so removing castling will not suddenly make it harder for Black (or white) to win." The draw ratio isn't important to answering the question, and isn't mentioned, so I assume he wasn't saying that the draw ratio was the same.
> I'm saying that it is the original patterns where Kramnik is getting most of the dopamine boost from
That's possible, but it doesn't necessarily follow, even if your interpretation about the draw percentage is true. A draw after a dynamic and unpredicatable battle down to a pair of kings is a lot more interesting than a draw after a "trench battle" of small moves.
But in any case, time will tell. :-)