<richardhutnik@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> David Richerby <dav...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> <richardhut...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>> 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?
>>
>> I'd much rather see joint champions declared than have ever-more
>> ludicrous tie-breaks used to separate them.
>
> Ok, do joint champion then, and the first one to get defeating in a
> chess tournament ends up losing their title, making the other
> champion the regular champion. The player who beat one of the
> champs gets a title shot against the champion. You need a regular
> chess schedule to make this work.
Ah. Hmm. The question of `so how do you decide who the next champion
is?' rather blows the joint champions idea out of the water...
>> Doubling certainly wouldn't work in a tournament -- somebody might
>> well win the tournament just because his opponent stubbornly kept
>> redoubling in a lost position. I don't think it's a good idea in
>> matches, either. Doubling works in backgammon because small
>> mistakes and bad luck can cause the lead in a game to be exchanged
>> back and forth between the players. There's no luck in chess and
>> mistakes tend to be more serious so it's not so common for the
>> players to trade the lead. Usually, one player or the other builds
>> up a steadily growing advantage and the question is whether his
>> opponent will be able to hang on for a draw, not whether the leader
>> will make a mistake and let his opponent win.
>
> Point here is to drive a game to closure, and have each game advance
> the reaching of a closure point.
If the sole goal is to drive every game to closure, why not replace
the bit where they move the silly pieces of wood around the chequered
board with a simple toss of a coin? The point is that the result
should depend somehow on chess and make sense in the context of
chess. Doubling does not make sense in the context of chess for the
reasons I outlined.
> The changes [to the laws of chess] will have worked, when the rest
> of the world starts to actually care about chess, rather than know
> what it is, and thinks of it akin to Calculus.
You've lost me. How on earth is chess akin to calculus? Is it just
an example of something that the man on the street doesn't understand
but thinks is probably im****tant?
Dave.
--
David Richerby Zen Dish (TM): it's like a fine
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ ceramic dish that puts you in
touch
with the universe!
|
