Re: "Kasparov Retails Title on a Draw": Does this headline do

On Apr 22, 7:22=A0am, "J.D. Walker" <j.d.wal...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> I have no problem with fighting draws. =A0To me, they are good chess.

Fighting draws can indeed be very good chess. Since the "expected
value" of chess seems to be less than a forced win for White, it seems
reasonable that a draw is less likely to contain a blunder by one
player than a win.

But the problem I'm trying to solve isn't to get Grandmasters to play
better chess. They're Grandmasters, and they _are_ playing Grandmaster-
level chess. It isn't broken, so I can't fix it.

Non-fighting draws can be addressed by various stratagems (i.e. 1/3 -
1/3) but they lead to certain complications of another kind that I'm
unprepared to address.

The problem I'm trying to solve, thus, isn't non-fighting draws, nor
is it inferior play. Instead, I am looking at what I think is a larger
perceived problem; that Chess isn't as popular as it was in the grand
old days before Steinitz, because the players know too much about
positional play, so fireworks like Queen sacrifices don't happen as
often.

So my ambitions here can be criticized as meretricious. I'm trying to
make Chess seem exciting not just to those who can savor advanced
positional play, but instead to bring back excitement even a
woodpusher can appreciate.

Getting even a small fraction of a point on the scoreboard is
something that's worth sacrificing a Queen for - and this is why I'm
trying to narrow down the range of draws, so that while defensive play
can still protect one against checkmate, it still doesn't fully
deprive one's opponent of valuable things to do - either gaining a
minor victory, or preventing you from obtaining one.

John Savard