Andy Walker <anw@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> David Kane <davidekane@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> I am actually curious what changes the altered scoring had on
>> soccer. Are you aware of any analyses?
>
> Well, I'm not. But there do seem to be a lot of matches decided in
> the last minute or two of extra time ....
This is irrelevant to a discussion of the effect of scoring three
points for a win, since such scoring is only used in leagues and extra
time is only used in knock-out competitions.
>> The fundamental mystery of chess is why such a popular game has so
>> little attention paid to its best players. The answer, I think, is
>> that the best players are playing in competitions in which
>> draw-producing play and strategies based on drawing rule.
>
> I think you think wrong. I think the reason is that no-one outside
> the top players understands well enough in real time what is going
> on. [...] Try that with chess. It's like watching paint dry,
> until there is a time scramble. Only expert players have any idea
> at all what is happening. Many games are resigned when a club
> player would still have no idea what is happening. I can play
> through a game between [say] Anand and Kramnik, but the only way to
> understand what has happened is to have annotations, preferably
> provided by the players themselves, constructed hours or days after
> the game has happened. There have been valiant attempts -- the BBC
> had excellent coverage of the Kasparov-Short match, for example --
> but they really can't compete with live coverage of football, golf,
> cricket, .... You would get more "action" from 5-minute chess, but
> then you would have even fewer prospects of getting any appreciation
> of what is happening in real time. Chess is to be played, not
> watched.
I agree wholeheartedly, though I'd add `and studied' before the final
comma.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Addictive Hilarious Cat (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a cuddly pet but it's a
bundle of
laughs and you can never put it
down!
|
