Or I’m just disagreeing because of those implications. It might technically reduce some draws but I also don’t see it as good for the game.
But these two things don’t seem consistent to me. You don’t change as little as possible when you change the win condition from checkmate to a race to capture the last non-king piece (within a ply).
Just complete personal preference on one end, and on another what’s the most exciting or practical when organising a tournament or spectating I guess on the other end 
Thanks for clarifying. Your original comment seemed to be putting forth the implications as a problem with my wording, which would entail that I had not understood said implications
It has historical precedence, and checkmate is still a win. Bare king will only affect some endgames, making some previously drawn pawn endgames wins. Seems very least change
Much more decisive round 2s
I suppose another aspect is that when players have a new idea they’ve been working on they might need to choose when and who to use it one to catch someone out. It’s possible that once you try a certain idea that your opponents will then make sure they study that should they be facing you in a later round.
Very interesting, especially since we had a similar discussion about birthrates a couple of weeks ago:
@yebellz It will be funny when they learn about Riot (owned by Tencent) and their Kernel-access “anti-cheat” called Vanguard:
I actually uninstalled the game over this, even though I was playing since “Season 1” practically.
Not that any other anti-cheat is any better, but if they are looking for shady data collectors and security liabilities, they’d all need to go.
Nice to have some reassuringly trivial global problems in 2024…
That’s because they reach to read rika Zarai book
Council dropping apostrophes from street signs because they “have specific meanings in computer systems”
I’m clearly getting old but surely the answer in 2024 is to change computer systems to suit the rest of the world rather than the other way around?
This is too much of a stark choice. I now feel that they are sometimes necessary but generally probably don’t really matter that much. (Full disclosure: I used to be more aligned with https://www.apostrophe.org.uk/ than not but have softened my stance over time)
But isn’t the question really “what kind of ridiculous language uses the same sound for most plurals as for possession?”
How hard is it to support storing a string of printable ascii characters? seems prima facie ridiculous
In the U.S., the U.S. Geological Survey has oversight over Federal topographic maps and has a council that oversees place names. This council abolished apostrophes in place names decades ago. I don’t know the exact time this was done, but it may have been as much as 50 or more years ago.
I don’t know the exact legal limits of this. I suspect that it applies only to Federal maps and documents, because they have no jurisdiction over local place names. However, my impression is that many local jurisdictions have long followed the Feds in dropping apostrophes in place names.
I’m familiar with this because I have an interest in place names, and I was slightly involved, in my active hiking days, with constructing and scouting new trails on behalf of some mapmakers.
Spoiler: it’s “s”. Used not only for possessive and plural, but also for contracted “is” or “has”. For French speakers an extra complication is that it’s used a lot at the end of words and you absolutely cannot leave it silent in English, as “s” and other consonants at the end of words usually are in French.
But I’d say English is not unique in this. It’s similar in Dutch, and perhaps also in other Germanic languages.
