Re: Fischer's death again begs the question: Why is there no chess

David Kane wrote:

> This is incorrect. In anti-draw scoring, drawing and
> losing becomes closer. So it pays to take risks that
> give you winning chances, even if you might lose.

While it does indeed pay you to get a win and a loss rather than 
two draws, it's also the case you can less afford to let your 
opponents get away with a win that might have been a draw for 
exactly the same reasons...

> Without changing the underlying rules of chess, we've
> altered the meta-game to provoke more interesting
> play. 

I suspect people just play their game the way they play their game 
as that way they play to their best abilities.  Which in turn gives 
them the best overall chance.

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/