David Kane wrote:
> Andy Walker wrote:
> 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.
What is sensible in the meta game is (and should be) the same as is
sensible in the game: playing to the best of your ability should
improve your chances, /whatever your style of play/.
> 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.
Why do you assume Chess should be the same as most other things?
Surely one of the attractive features may be it is very different
to most human competition?
> 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.
When was the last time there was a decent FIFA World Cup Final?
Most of the really good matches come earlier in the competition
IME. The problem becomes there's too much to lose, even though
there's everything to win. That is not limited to Chess.
>> 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.
I think you missed Andy's point, which is people aren't always
looking for draws: they'll play according to what they think they
can get, to the best of their ability. You don't win by drawing
every match, and you don't win by letting your opponents run away
from you with big-value wins when you lose.
>> 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.
I suspect Andy's suggestion that the highest levels, at least in
real time, are opaque to pretty much everyone outside of the Big
Boys (and Girls). The Go club I'm in has hosted the Scottish Open
for the last couple of years, and it's been won by (amateur) 5 Dan
Chinese players. Their play is open for inspection by anyone else
at the tournament, but there aren't crowds around their table
because to the mere Kyu players it's not really very clear what's
going on. I (10 Kyu) can look at a game well underway and have not
the faintest idea who is winning. Considerably stronger friends
re****t the same. I don't see any particular reason chess should be
different in essence, because like Go it's *very* deep. And these
guys wouldn't hold a candle to the /really/ good professionals
themselves.
> 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.
Primarily it has ceased to be a game in the broad sense of "fun
pastime". My nephew was a pretty good player for his age, last
time I played him I had to think pretty hard, so I was taking time
over my moves. By "taking time" I mean up to, oh, maybe a couple
of minutes each move at the very outside. It drove him up the
wall, he couldn't /believe/ I was taking so long! Kids don't like
serious Chess so much because they have a more limited attention
span than a Chess GM. It's not the game *they* play because hardly
anything happens, even in vicous games played with the knives out
on both sides. They just sit there staring at the board instead of
moving, it's not High Octane Action (by juvenile standards) even if
they are going for an out and out win.
To reiterate, I'm not saying your idea won't or can't work, but I
suspect two things:
- the game is not as broken as you seem to think;
- your attempts to fix it probably won't change much.
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/
|
