marksteere@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> On Mar 20, 6:48 am, Peter Clinch <p.j.cli...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>> ... what's the problem with draws?
>>> Nobody wins - especially not the spectators.
>> Bit of a sweeping assumption... Personally I'd prefer to watch or play
>> a well fought draw than an indifferent game with a result one way or
>> another.
>
> Those aren't the only two possibilities. Believe it or not, some
> games (not including Chess) can both be well fought and end decisively
> - every time!
And? if it's decisive every time then that is clearly not fair in a
game fought by two players on equivalent form. You still aren't
demonstrating that draws are bad or that most people don't like them.
If I'm playing a komi in Go I usually make it an integer where draws are
specifically made possible. All I'd have to do to take out all
possibility of a draw is add a half point to the komi, but I (and my
friends at the Go club) don't see the point. We don't see any necessity
or advantage in requiring a decisive result.
> Who said I was only interested in the bottom line? I'm interested in
> robust games (again, not including Chess).
Your value of "robust" isn't necessarily global though.
> Let's take it to the extreme and imagine that instead of 80% draws
> among experts, you have 100% draws among intermediate players. Not
> too farfetched since games like that do exist. Would you find that
> entertaining?
Let's take it to reality and note that that doesn't happen in Chess,
which is the subject of this discussion, so your "point" is rather
lacking any, errr, point.
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.clinch@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
|
