<richardhutnik@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:5b64bf85-9b8f-43fb-a04a-f091b1158a43@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Mar 23, 8:50 am, "Chess One" <OneCh...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> <richardhut...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> To follow the language above - if the scoring system rewards draws with
>> black more than white, with 0.6 and 0.4 of a point respectively, will
>> that
>> factor disrupt 2 things? (a) if players collude to draw they do not get
>> the
>> same reward , and (b) will it produce less draws overall by stimulating
>> the
>> white player to fight on, and not draw?
>>
>> Phil Innes
>
> What can be done is possibly causing the reigning champion to lose his
> title, and it remains unseated, if no one manages to pull through and
> actually end in a tie.
>
> Another possibility is to use speed chess as "Overtime", like the did
> recently with Chess960 as a way to tie-break. Don't like to go there,
> well then win?
>
> Beyond this, besides a system gamed to draw, the amount of play in
> chess has resulted in there being far less ways to surprise anyone, so
> the end game ends up being predictable, minus a bungle.
Hi Richard, let me make a note here, since I am also a chess teacher. What
you say is true at the top levels, but for 99% of players does not seem to
be true in my experience or student's experience.
Theoretically some players know very much about main lines, but a 'b'
class
move puts them outside of their book knowledge, and they have to resolve
what to do over the board. The only surprise to me is if they can do that
without their position collapsing almost instantly :)
Even relatively strong players do not understand common opening systems -
and even in correspondance chess I defeated a 2100 player with white and
black in under 20 moves last year.
> Each side
> will play hard, but sound, making for a reduction in pieces to the
> place where a draw is left, with current rules.
>
> You could also simply have people not be able to ask their opponent
> for a draw, and force them to play it out. Maybe do an opposite
> version where you can ask your opponent to resign or force them to
> double the points the match is worth.
Since I hardly ever draw I don't have an issue with my opponents level of
play. Last week I /did/ offer a draw to a 2340 player, who accepted it, I
gained one point and he lost one. I had a slightly better position with
white after a Ruy, but OTOH, this was a team match game, and I need to
score
better than 50% result for the team - and with black I am still a pawn up
at
move 20 after a Wing Gambit, have undoubled my b pawns and will try to win
it.
> The last option is to add new rules to chess, to make the game new.
> Of course, this is heresy to hardcore players of the game, who think
> the FIDE rules were handed down by God and immutable for eternity.
Laugh. Unfortunately you are writing to someone who wants to play exactly
the same game as Capablanca, Lasker, Alekhine, Fischer and Kasparov - so
doesn't want new rules that would change the method of play.
---
What I don't understand about much of this correspondance about draws is
if
people who suggest its a problem are just speaking as chess spectators
about
top players [nothing wrong with that, and I share that point of view] or
if
they are speaking about all chess players?
I think if its just the first, and unfought 'GM-draws', then its not
necessary to make changes for the rest of us - who after all - don't have
a
problem.
Cordially, Phil Innes
> - Rich
|
