Re: Fischer's death again begs the question: Why is there no chess on TV now?

"Peter Clinch" <p.j.clinch@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:64k4neF2bptauU1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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.

The point you are missing is that how you play depends upon how
it counts. I've taken draws because they count one-half that I
never would have taken had they counted one-quarter.
Everyone has.

The one-half number has empirically been proven to not be
a sensible value for a draw, because it leads to so many
games that are not contested at all, i.e. draws are essentially
agreed before play starts.

It's a very curable defect, whether or not I am overestimating
the benefits that will accrue from making the fix.




> 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/