"Andy Walker" <anw@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:fs1mgd$g15$1$8300dec7@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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.
That's not the underlying problem. Players *will* be in the mood
to play on and look for winning chances if that's what is
sensible in the meta-game. The vast majority of games/s****ts
etc. simply don't have an "I'm not in the mood, let's draw" option
and neither would chess with sensible scoring. It's especially
offensive that this occurs in the last round of every major
tournament -exactly when, in ordinary non-chess competitions,
the drama is at its highest.
>
>> 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.
Irrelevant. Nothing says that they have to play the same
openings against weaker players as they do against their peers,
and frankly I'd be surprised if that were the case.
>
>>> 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.
>
The fix is trivial.
>>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.
So what? It can have more appeal than it currently does.
It can appeal to amateur chessplayers, at least.
>
>>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.
Sponsor****p is almost always connected with popularity.
There aren't that many eccentric millionaires throwing
money around. My understanding is that Go has
significant cor****ate sponsor****p.
> 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.
When I looked at tournaments like Linares and Corus,
it was astoni****ng how consistent the draw rate has been.
Players have evolved to succeed in the current (draw favorable)
system. Change the scoring system, and my guess is that
most of the same players will still be at the top, but to succeed
their style will have to adapt to something that is more
interesting. Is it possible that some players who succeed in
drawtopia would be unable to adapt to higher levels
of contestedness? Sure, but I don't see that as a negative.
>
>>> [...] 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.
My experience is that when the kids see the adult game, they
don't like what they see. I think the draw-wor****pping
culture is certainly a component of that. But I certainly agree
that there are other factors.
> --
> Andy Walker
> Nottingham
|
