"Andy Walker" <anw@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:fs4hl7$gat$1$8300dec7@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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.
And you seem to be saying that chessplayers' behavior
is unaffected by the external scoring incentives that affect
their prizes. Players don't look for winning chances if they
calculate that they come with greater losing chances.
How many times do we read game analysis if words
akin to "he took the safe draw"? Draws wouldn't
be safe if the scoring were different.
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.
Decisiveness can increase interest even with no
understanding of the underlying games. Don't
newspapers in the UK have s****ts sections?
Here they do. Even in the absence of real time
suspense, or stunning visuals, people like to
follow results. None of the s****ts covered in
our newspapers have the characteristics that
60% of encounters end in ties, with
a significant number of those occurring without
even playing, though.
>
>> 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.
>
The rules of chess guarantee that draws have to be
accounted for. The scoring system of chess guarantees
that draws dominate the game.
>> 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.
Come on, now, you've got to be kidding. In chess, it is
the *leaders who have everything to play for* who play
the 15 move draws. Why is having to *play
chess* considered a hard****p for professional chessplayers?
>
>>>> 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.
The rating system has a definition of "performance" defined
as (W+D/2)/(W+D+L) which is purely arbitrary. Use
a different definition and all problems are solved.
>
> [...]
>>Sponsor****p is almost always connected with popularity.
>>There aren't that many eccentric millionaires throwing
>>money around.
>
> Try looking at [eg] the 4NCL.
I don't see the point you are making. It looks like it has
prizes of about 10 British pounds per player.
>
> --
> Andy Walker
> Nottingham
|
