"Andy Walker" <anw@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:fs7071$sm2$1$8300dec7@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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".
I concede your point that there are aspects of chess that
alternate scoring do not touch.
>
>> 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. ...
You may not convert it into mathematical form (I certainly
don't) but everybody knows the difference between
a complicated position that could resolve either way vs.
a simplified position that couldn't. We make choices as
we play. With 1867 scoring, selecting a position where
you have a minimal endgame advantage that you might convert is
a smart choice. With alternate scoring, it's only a smart
choice if you are very sure you will get the win.
So you don't move that way. That gives you, and im****tantly
your opponent, winning chances.
I find it baffling that you are so absolutely
confident that grandmaster chess players would not
be able to adapt their chess to thrive in a world that
was less draw-friendly. They would somehow be too
dense to respond to an alternate set incentives.
While perhaps there would be cultural reluctance,
and GMs are probably as stubborn and tradition-laden
as the rest of us, they are also highly skilled
when it comes to playing chess. My prediction is that
players could easily adapt and that we would all
be rewarded with better chess. But we will
never truly know the answer until we try. So
why not try?
>
>>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.
Again, you show your lack of faith in the ability of GMs
to respond to alternate incentives. My answer. Why not
let them try?
>
>> [...] 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.
The point is that in modern chess you cannot be successful
without being able to draw a lot. That's what the empirical
evidence tells us. No one has ever won Linares losing more
than two games. The usual path to victory in major tournaments
is "win a few, draw the rest". As long as we have a
sizeable number of essentially unplayed draws, all draws
are tainted. We just don't know if a draw is *really*
hard fought. You might like to believe it is, and it might
be convenient for defenders of the status quo to
characterize some draws in that fa****on, but the reality
is we don't know if it was "hard fought" unless the penalty
for drawing was severe.
>>> [...] 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.
You seem to like the idea of chess having to beg
for scraps from eccentric millionaires, dictators
controlling FIDE, etc. I like the idea of chess
thriving the way other activities do - providing
an appealing product that resonates with large
numbers of people who enjoy the activity.
|
