In article <t96dnZ86wazbunnanZ2dnUVZ_hadnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
David Kane <davidekane@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>If alternate scoring eliminates the GM draw, and makes chess games,
>>>on average, more combative and more interesting, what is the downside?
>> Lot of "if"s there. [...]
>I'm not sure of your point. If draws are worth less, players won't accept
them
>so
>readily.
They will, as at present, accept them when the alternative is
losing and when the match/tournament situation is such that only a
draw is needed. You are proposing changes to address a tiny, tiny
problem -- the very rare cases where neither player in a "live"
situation really wants to play, and so they agree a 12-move draw.
Changing the scoring system does nothing to change the underlying
problem, that the players really aren't in the mood.
> They won't design their repertoires to give them positions
>(when Black) where they can "hold the draw". When preparing,
>when playing, they will look for winning chances.
I don't know what sort of chess you play, but I don't know
any players to whom that does not already apply. For a start, we
all, except for the merest beginners, often play against players
who are worse than us. That is especially true for the world's
strongest players. If a GM sits down to play me, do you suppose
he is looking to "hold the draw"? So we all need repertoires that
give us a decent chance to win against slightly or very inferior
opposition, whatever the colour.
>> The "downside" is merely that chess becomes, like football,
>> a non-zero-sum game. This mucks up a fair chunk of game theory.
>> Whether this is im****tant depends on whether you are a theorist ....
>Is there a *practical* "downside"?
Well, it mucks up rating. Either ratings can't follow the
points, or else you have built in inflation. That's a "practical"
problem; whether it matters is something else.
>Of course, there are many reasons why chess is not
>as popular as football, ***, food etc. Picking extreme
>examples doesn't help make the case that chess is
>as popular as it could be.
In what sense is watching live football "extreme"? The
fact remains that live chess, unlike most [all?] physical s****ts,
and many mind s****ts, is utterly opaque to any spectator who is
not of comparable ability with the players. That's not to say
that we can't have TV programs about it; but it's not going to
have mass spectator appeal.
>Go is considered more complex than chess, but seems to
>have bigger purses.
Are you talking about popularity or money? If you want
money, then you need sponsor****p [whether through TV, or patrons,
or government assistance], or else you are limited to what the
contestants/spectators themselves put in. Sponsor****p is just
too fickle to draw many conclusions from it. TV picks things
up, then drops them. S****ts like snooker and darts go through
cycles of boom and bust, in financial terms, as they move from
pubs and clubs into the limelight, then companies move in and
sponsors, TV coverage, equipment deals and so on bring lots of
money, then everyone gets bored.
> My cable stations are filled up with
>"contest" shows for all sorts of activities: fi****ng, cooking, singing,
>dancing, not to mention lots of made up "s****ts" invented by a TV
>producer that have no players whatsoever.
No doubt. But they are all "contests" and "s****ts" that
have visual appeal and are easy to explain to the punters. Even
if, as in dancing, only the experts can really tell you how good
the contestants are, nevertheless the TV contests usually have a
"popular vote".
>By the way, I am not convinced that playing wouldn't
>also be improved by a less draw-favorable attitude.
You mean that the players who are more aggressive and who
rarely draw are likely to be better than those who quite often
draw? Well, there are examples of both styles at every level of
play, both historically and currently. If you were right, or if
the converse were true, then you would expect evolution to lead
to almost all top players being one style, or perhaps to the top
players being a different style from the club players. In fact,
chess seems to favour a diversity of styles.
>> [...] You seem to me to be barking up the wrong tree.
>It is unclear. Elementary school chess
>has large numbers and almost no draws. Participation
>drops with age as the draw rate increases.
As has been pointed out, correlation is not causality. I'm
sure we can all think of more likely reasons for teenagers to give
up chess than learning that Kramnik has just played a short draw.
--
Andy Walker
Nottingham
|
