"David Richerby" <davidr@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:IGl*mjq+r@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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.
It's a matter of simple efficiency. If contested games are
more interesting than uncontested or partially contested
games, then chess becomes more interesting as the
average contestedness of all games increases.
You are correct about alternate scoring not working
for matches, though, since the idea behind alternate
scoring is that the players who fight for wins will gain
advantage over those content to draw. If there are only
two contestants, there are no other players to consider.
|
