"Rich Hutnik" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Sep 22, 11:33 am, "David Kane" wrote:

The way you have described it, doubling would be rare and redoubling
extremely rare. At high level chess, games rarely swing from one side
having an overwhelming advantage to the other side having an overwhelming
advantage.

It's true that devaluing draws relative to wins would likely reduce draws.
Various alternative scoring methods have been proposed for just that
purpose. But that really doesn't have anything to do with the doubling
cube.

Part of the idea for the doubling cube is to resolve the draw issue.

But you've given no persuasive explanation as to how the doubling cube
would help the draw issue at all. With your scheme, it would only come
into play in very lopsided situations. So it addresses the "people
taking too long to resign" issue.

There have been many measures including alternative scoring
proposals that do address the draw issue. A few have been
tried in small experiments.




A larger framework issue for the question is one about how do you make
chess more appealing for people to watch over television, so that the
game would grow in popularity. There is currently, I believe, a chess
match that is going for $1.5 million in prize money to the winner.
These stakes should draw more media attention than it is. Are the
games being televised?

I believe that solving the draw problem is necessary to substantially
increase chess' fan appeal, but doubt that it is sufficient.


You could end up saying, "Run speedchess or Bughouse" as possible
answers, but is this what people want?

Ok, I will start another thread with this more general question. It
is, why should poker get such TV coverage and chess not?

- Rich