In article <nI6dnT9B4bSpfnjanZ2dnUVZ_gidnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
David Kane <davidekane@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> 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.
Then you have misunderstood. Rather, I have pointed out
that much less chess than you seem to think is played in ways that
*can* be affected by your proposals, and that IMHO the way we play
mostly bears little resemblance to your characterisation of it.
Certainly there are occasional abuses; and there are more among
the top professionals than among the rest of us. But not because
we all "don't look for winning chances".
> Players don't look for winning chances if they
>calculate that they come with greater losing chances.
Your choice of the word "chances" is revealing. DavidR
has pointed out elsewhere in this thread that chess is not a game
of chance. Actually, my personal view is that he is wrong, and
that chess at the highest levels is predominantly a game of chance;
but that's a debate for another time. But he is right that we
don't -- or at least *I* don't, for of course I have no access to
the thought processes of anyone else -- think of chess in your
terms. I don't recognise your examples, elsewhere, where White
"calculates" [say] that he has a chance of 0.3 of winning, 0.5
of drawing and 0.2 of losing if he plays move A. Chess simply
isn't random that way. ...
>How many times do we read game analysis if words
>akin to "he took the safe draw"?
... Actually, quite rarely; and surely scarcely ever
with the GM draws that seem to be what you are complaining about?
If two players play a perfunctory 12 moves and agree a draw, then
it scarcely matters whether the draw was safe or not, the players
didn't want to fight, and such games almost never get more than a
perfunctory analysis.
Of course, positions do arise that are obscure, and where
players have the choice of playing into these or avoiding them.
But if a position is objectively about level, then "punt and hope"
is really a pretty bad way to play -- certainly at the highest
levels. You will lose a great deal more often than you will win,
unless you really can show reasons why your attack might expect
to succeed. In *good* positions, your chances are much better;
and in *bad* positions, any desperate throw may be worthwhile;
but those are not the positions in which draws are normally
offered and accepted.
> [...] 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.
This is a transpondian difference. In the UK, we
have cricket.
>The rules of chess guarantee that draws have to be
>accounted for. The scoring system of chess guarantees
>that draws dominate the game.
There you go again. "Dominate the game"? Outside the
very top GMs playing each other, you're talking about around 1/3
of the games in reasonably high-level chess; and most of those
are hard-fought battles with the draw a fair result.
>> [...] 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.
You obviously play in different tournaments from the
ones I see. Well, OK, I know of examples where this has
happened in situations where an outsider really would have
expected the players to work harder. No doubt there are then
elements of mutual funk. But we're not privy to the mental
state of the players. I doubt whether many of them would be
in a better state if they scored only 0.4 for their last-
round draw; in the example you gave elsewhere, the players
clearly weren't motivated [enough] by large amounts of money,
so the points for a draw can scarcely have mattered to them.
> Why is having to *play
>chess* considered a hard****p for professional chessplayers?
Why is taking exams considered a hard****p for students?
It's a *really* *gruelling* activity.
[ratings:]
>>>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.
Well, actually the ECF grading system is based around
W-L. But in any case none of the rating systems I know about
are "purely arbitrary". They have analysable behaviours. It
is far from trivial to "use a different definition" and expect
the result to have good behaviour.
>>>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.
The prize fund [around $20K] is not to be sneezed at,
but is small fry in the overall funding of the event. Why do
you think small towns and companies can field teams of strong
GMs? Not, assuredly, because the GMs all happen to work there,
but because they get quite decent appearance fees, from the
"eccentric millionaires" who sponsor them. And of course 4NCL
is only one event; there are other leagues and tournaments
around the world where similar things happen.
--
Andy Walker
Nottingham
|
