In article <7KSdnen0rP-7XHjanZ2dnUVZ_rOqnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
David Kane <davidekane@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> [...] Imagine, for example, we awarded a
>draw the value of 0.9. What do you predict that change would
>make to the game, and would it improve the game?
Well, it certainly wouldn't improve the game. But both
that change and a change to 0.1 would, it seems to me, make far
less difference than you seem to think.
* No difference at all to matches, where only wins matter, inc
especially WC matches, which is where many of the complaints
have come.
* No difference at all to league chess [perhaps 60-70% of all
serious chess in the UK], where only wins affect the match
result.
* No difference at all to "friendly" chess in your club.
* No difference at all to KO tournaments.
* Negligible difference to "weekend" tournaments, where you have
to be very lucky to win a 5-round event with 4/5. Four wins
and a draw will put you ahead of everyone with either one loss
or two draws, whether the draw scores 0.1 or 0.9.
* Negligible difference to 5-min or rapidplay or correspondence
tournaments, where "soft" draws are already very rare.
* So you are left with long Swiss tournaments and round-robins.
These may be an im****tant part of top GM chess, but it's a
tiny pro****tion of chess as played by the rest of us.
* Even then, while there certainly are abuses [which can be stopped
by other means -- Rentero simply didn't invite players who
took short draws back to Linares], you seem to be assuming
that a large pro****tion of draws are abusive, and would stop
if draws scored < 0.5. It would plainly have *some* effect;
but it seems to me like an unnecessary sledgehammer to crack
the wrong and rather small nut. A long tournament simply is
a very arduous event -- it's like taking 11 or 14 6-hr exams
on consecutive days, with any single lapse of concentration
potentially scoring you zero on that paper. If you deny the
players ways of taking some days off, they will simply find
other ways.
--
Andy Walker
Nottingham
|
