marksteere@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> 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.
So you say, but as a potential spectator *I'm* interested in
quality play during a game, not the end result.
> Face the fact instead of trying to
> dodge it with all this cutesy "errr, your point isn't really a point"
> pseudo-intellectualism.
If you were right this would have brought public interest in chess
down to more or less nothing hundreds, if not thousands, of years
ago. Yet it hasn't. Your pseudo-intellectial definitions of
"robustness" conveniently ignoore this brontosaurus in the living
room corner...
> Right, not *necessarily* dull. Not exactly a rave review.
But a clear result isn't necessarily interesting either. It is
potentially dull too. That's not a rave review either.
> This
> illuminates another problem with draws. They're not always the
> "welcome outcome among friends" that they are often disingenuously
> ****trayed 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.
You seem to have missed that playing with friends in a friendly
manner avoids the problem by one's friends not exhibiting this sort
of behaviour. First rule of any game: pick your opponents so you
can all have a good time. Anyone playing a *game* with someone who
plays in such a way to render the exercise joyless has only
themselves to blame.
> 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.
It's been hugely popular for a very, very long time, being played
at all possible levels of seriousness. You can't achieve that and
/not/ be robust. You can't achieve that and be seriously broken in
any way that wouldn't have been addressed /long/ ago.
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/
|
