David Kane wrote:
> But the point is that they were instituted to solve a "draw problem"
> that was much smaller than chess'. And it has also not produced
> any cheating - the original weak argument put forth against changing
> the scoring in chess.
>
> I am actually curious what changes the altered scoring had on
> soccer. Are you aware of any analyses?
No, I'm not. I just can't see much difference in the way the
leagues go since it was upped from 2-1-0 to 3-1-0.
> No. It tells us that if the scoring system makes the return on playing
> for a win low, that chessplayers are smart enough to figure that out
> and play in a way that produces lots of draws.
And have them all look pretty much alike, rather than better than
weaker opponents... not actually too smart.
> But the point is that Go typically designs its rules so that ties are
> impossible at high level events. No doubt there is a connection
> between that fact and the fact that Go tournaments have bigger
> prize funds.
Komi is a very recent innovation in the long history of competitve Go.
> If alternate scoring eliminates the GM draw, and makes chess games,
> on average, more combative and more interesting, what is the downside?
None, but does it actually do that? Or does it just discourage
combative play because the penalties for *losing* have just got
bigger as much as it encourages attacking?
> It's popular to play. But note that at the amateur level,
> draws are far rarer.
Perhpas the players are further apart?
> The fundamental mystery of chess is why such a
> popular game has so little attention paid to its best
> players. The answer, I think, is that the best
> players are playing in competitions in which
> draw-producing play and strategies based
> on drawing rule. Chessplayers are human and
> humans respond to drama. If 75% of games
> are draws, and many of those draws are
> not even contested, you've got a situation that
> is designed to alienate the average chess
> enthusiast. Now I will grant that how much
> better things can be is an unknown - but we will
> never know until we try.
That's true, but I suspect it won't be as electric a change as you
suspect because you're making losing worse as well as winning better.
> In fact the chess world has from time to time
> introduced various rules (e.g. the Sophia rules)
> to deal with the draw problem, but these have
> largely been ineffective. I think that all measures
> that ignore the underlying risk/reward calculations
> that chessplayers face are destined to fail.
But since losing gets as much worse as winning gets better, and
combative play is often riskier, you haven't really changed
anything in the net risk/reward equation. It still averages out.
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/
|
