In article <xPGdnZIVa5nIEXnanZ2dnUVZ_uOmnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
David Kane <davidekane@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> [...] 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.
I think it is. Note that, for example, you see very few
short draws in 5-minute chess, and not that many in rapidplay
tournaments or correspondence chess, though the scoring is the
same as in slow chess. If you're not "in the mood" for those
forms of chess, then you simply don't turn up for the fast ones,
or you take a day off for correspondence; whereas in a trad
tournament, you have to turn up over several days and play each
round whatever your mood. Likewise, in league chess, you owe
it to your club to turn out even if you've just had a bad day
at the office.
> Players *will* be in the mood
>to play on and look for winning chances if that's what is
>sensible in the meta-game.
You seem to be under the impression that "winning chances"
are always there and are being overlooked because players prefer
to take draws. Certainly there is an element of temperament
involved, and some players are very hard to beat whereas other
delight in taking risks. Changing the meta-game may indeed cause
players to take more risks; the idea that this is better chess
seems to me to be fanciful, especially when it will remain the
case that only the most knowledgeable spectators are any the
wiser. If you simply want more razzmatazz about chess, there
are easier and better ways to achieve it.
> 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.
In most cases, this is intrinsic to the game itself. There
is little or no equivalent in golf or tennis or go or the high-jump
to the chess position that has resolved itself to bare kings, or
even to KRP vs KR in a position that is a book draw known to both
players. But there are plenty of examples of boring games/matches
in s****ts such as football and boxing, where "spoiling" tactics
are possible.
> 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.
Many s****ts organise their major competitions as KO
events, which puts a different complexion on things. In
leagues, it is very common in the s****ts I know anything about
for end-of-season matches to be meaningless -- almost all issues
of promotion or relegation are decided, and most teams just go
through the motions. Why would you expect chess tournaments to
be different? If you've just had 10 days of gruelling mental
activity, it's not surprising if on the 11th, with nothing at
stake, you don't want to take it too seriously. Even if there
is still something at stake, you may be in no mood to put yet
another six+ hours of thought into it. Been there, done that.
>>> 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.
Irrelevant. Very few games are played between genuine
peers. To get to a "soft" draw needs *both* players to agree.
If I play a drawish opening against a stronger player, it's his
problem to steer it into lines with winning chances; if I do
that against a weak player, it's my own fault if I only draw.
[Though as a matter of fact, it's usually a mistake to "play
for a draw" against a strong opponent.]
>>>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.
Not really. You are going to get cases where player A
scores more points than player B [who gets more draws] against
the same standard of opposition, but B gets the higher rating
as a consequence. Many players are somewhat precious about
their ratings, so that *is* going to cause problems.
[...]
>Sponsor****p is almost always connected with popularity.
>There aren't that many eccentric millionaires throwing
>money around.
Try looking at [eg] the 4NCL.
--
Andy Walker
Nottingham
|
