On Mar 9, 8:14=A0pm, David Richerby <dav...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
> <remysun2...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > As long as it translates into playing the board, not just prissy
> > whining about the controls. And something has to be done about
> > draws, because that's why soccer hasn't taken off on TV in the U.S.
> Doesn't stop soccer being staggeringly popular in most of the rest of
> the world... =A0Evidently, the undesirability of draws is an issue for
> the USA to sort out, not for soccer.
Chess is worse than soccer when it comes to draws, because at least
soccer has the element of reversal. A goal is all that's needed to
turn a loss into a draw and a draw into a win. Increasing the points
awarded for a win made the reward exceed the risk, and we saw more
chances taken with soccer offenses, especially in group play.
Chess is an accumulative advantage. Other than gambits, sacrifices,
and the mistakes that never arrive in grandmaster play, nobody can
really come from behind to win-- which is why players play to draw,
since there is so much that is lost by losing. Perhaps NASCAR has our
answer. By resetting the highest rated players into a new playoff
scoring system, and ONLY rewarding wins OR positional analysis
awarding points for taking riskier moves without losing (computers can
hammer out the probabilities or the chess community could vote),
tournaments could result in breathtaking play with many more chances
being taken. A draw won't be a draw anymore. Shoot, people are still
talking about Fischer sacrificing his queen in the 1950's. Make it so
that boring draws are unrewarding and they'll stop happening.
|
