In article <8PGdneQ3ZOrgtXranZ2dnUVZ_rmjnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
David Kane <davidekane@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> [...] 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.
OK thus far.
> 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.
Whoa! This decision is going to depend on a lot of factors,
of which "how many points for a draw" is one of the least. Among them
are the strength of the opposition, the state of the match/tournament,
my state of mind, ....
But in any case, this is a long way from "12-move GM draws
are evil, so here is a proposal ...". I don't have any objection
at all to well-fought games that happen to end level.
>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.
I find it even more baffling that you think that is what I
think. GMs *already* adapt to draw-unfriendly situations. If you
are [or your team is] behind in a match, then you are under pressure
to win, and every draw is a nail in your coffin. Similarly, if you
[say] need 2 out of 3 to gain a norm, or if you think that's what
you need to win a tournament, or for your team to avoid relegation.
Similarly if you are playing a weaker player, where you have to win
or get egg on your face. If draws were worth only 0.4 or 0.3, it
wouldn't change those pressures, and it seems to me that it would
make precious little difference to how games were actually played.
> [...] My prediction is that
>players could easily adapt and that we would all
>be rewarded with better chess.
As usual, you are assuming that encouraging players to play
in a more murky style is "better chess". We can all agree that the
12-move GM draw is bad for the image of the game; but it doesn't
follow that playing for a small endgame advantage that you hope to
convert is worse chess than speculative sacrifices that may or may
not work.
> But we will
>never truly know the answer until we try. So
>why not try?
No-one is stopping you. Persuade your local club to run its
champion****p by whatever scoring rules you like, and re****t back.
If everyone who tries it says "Great! We had a draw-free tournament,
and it was much more fun", then it may spread.
>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. [...]
Isn't that rather empirical evidence that you cannot be
successful if you lose a lot? No surprise there, then. Yes,
the tournament winners have wins and draws and occasional losses,
and the tail-end charlies have losses and draws and occasional
wins. Even if draws only score 0.4, I'm confident that you will
still see that pattern, and what's more that you will still see
people winning long GM tournaments by establi****ng some early
wins and then cruising home by taking easy draws, or for that
matter by being content to draw against their near-peers and
being better than them at crunching the lower order. Indeed,
it would likely increase the latter tendency, because losing to
a rival would have increased significance.
>>>>>Sponsor****p is almost always connected with popularity.
>>>>>There aren't that many eccentric millionaires throwing
>>>>>money around.
>>>> Try looking at [eg] the 4NCL.
[...]
>You seem to like the idea of chess having to beg
>for scraps from eccentric millionaires, dictators
>controlling FIDE, etc.
You posed that proposition. Who said anything about
"begging"? AFAIK, Rentero, Ilyumzhinov, and other sponsors
simply were chess lovers who chose to pour money into "their"
game.
> 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.
It does. I freely admit that I have never tried to raise
millions for a WC-standard event, but I have played my part in
fund-raising at the local level, and we have always managed to
persuade companies and individuals to part with hard cash to
sponsor juniors or clubs, or to provide equipment, or to pay for
venues, etc. Chess has a good image. The shenanigans around
(a) post-1974 Fischer, (b) the split between FIDE and Kasparov,
and (c) "toiletgate" and similar have IMNSHO done *far* more to
spoil that image than the number of draws at Corus.
--
Andy Walker
Nottingham
|
