On Mar 21, 9:33 am, Peter Clinch <p.j.cli...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> So why does anyone bother entering? Perhaps because they /like playing
> Chess/? people who like playing will often like watching, and will
> appreciate quality play whether or not it ends in a draw.
I'm just trying to answer your question. You asked, "And finally,
what's the problem with draws?"
One problem with draws is that high draw rates bore the hell out of
potential tournament spectators. Face the fact instead of trying to
dodge it with all this cutesy "errr, your point isn't really a point"
pseudo-intellectualism.
> A draw is an outcome reflecting similarly good play on both
> sides: it is fair and is not necessarily dull.
>
Right, not *necessarily* dull. Not exactly a rave review. This
illuminates another problem with draws. They're not always the
"welcome outcome among friends" that they are often disingenuously
portrayed to be. What happens when your "friendly game" is taking way
too long because your opponent refuses to agree to what is obviously a
draw, claiming that he just needs "a little more time"? You can't
force your opponent to agree to a draw. Yes, you can claim a draw
(using the 50 move rules, etc.) in the presence of an arbiter, but
when's the last time you played a friendly game of Chess with an
arbiter on hand? Your only options are to continue inanely chasing
each other around the board in a cyclic or nearly cyclic move sequence
or to concede. Not real friendly.
From FIDE: "The Laws of Chess cannot cover all possible situations
that may arise during a game, nor can they regulate all administrative
questions. Where cases are not precisely regulated by an Article of
the Laws, it should be possible to reach a correct decision by
studying analogous situations which are discussed in the Laws. The
Laws assume that arbiters have the necessary competence, sound
judgement and absolute objectivity. Too detailed a rule might deprive
the arbiter of his freedom of judgement and thus prevent him from
finding the solution to a problem dictated by fairness, logic and
special factors."
Just the fact that you need an arbiter... It'd be fascinating to hear a
definition of "robust" that would include the game of Chess.
|
