Christopher Dearlove <chris@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> (Maybe the coin toss, or they could auction the game throw between
> them in advance, with an agreed signal when it's invoked by mutual
> agreement. That solves most of the problems you raise, even though a
> simple coin toss is mostly good enough.)
It's im****tant that the coin is tossed in the drawn position, not at
the start of play. If it's done at the start of play, the winner of
the toss will actively play for the draw, which is much easier than
trying to win.
> And finally, what's the problem with draws? Apart from that draws
> can be instructive and interesting, let's just suppose they aren't,
> and that 80% of games are draws (I think it's slightly less than
> that). So only 20% of games are interesting. Who has time to
> watch even that 20%? The only people who'd have to watch draws
> are people watching a single game, live.
That's a very good point. The only situation where one is `forced' to
watch a draw is in a match, as distinct from a tournament. However,
in a match, it doesn't matter whether draws are scored at a half-point
each, a third of a point each or even twenty points each. Only an
asymmetric scoring system for draws would affect matches.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Solar-Powered Zen Tool (TM): it's
like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a screwdriver that puts you in
touch
with the universe but it doesn't
work
in the dark!
|
