In article ,
"David Kane" wrote:

We need to get
those sports up to the "right" level of 70% draws, don't we?

Do 70% of your games end in draws?

70% of mine sure don't. Can I see a hand from anybody on the newsgroup
who sees that high a draw percentage in their own games.

While it's true the draw percentage is higher at the very top level, I'm
not sure why we should care about that.

(For the record, my draw percentage on FICS - where I've been splashing
around at about 2000, standard, for what it's worth - is about 7%. Not
70. 7.)

-Ron

"Ron" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"David Kane" wrote:

We need to get
those sports up to the "right" level of 70% draws, don't we?

Do 70% of your games end in draws?

70% of mine sure don't. Can I see a hand from anybody on the newsgroup
who sees that high a draw percentage in their own games.

I exaggerated a bit. The arguments remain the same at 55%, the GM level.

While it's true the draw percentage is higher at the very top level, I'm
not sure why we should care about that.

Chess is one of the most popular games in the world based on the
number of people who actually play the game. Yet few players are
able to make decent incomes from chess. The reason? Because
the majority of high-level games are "overhead" which kills any attempts
to make the high level game worth following.

However, while I think the draw problem is in need of solving, I think
incremental approaches (e.g.BAP scoring) which don't change
the basic rules of the game are a better try.

On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 16:56:38 GMT, Ron
wrote:

Do 70% of your games end in draws?

70% of mine sure don't. Can I see a hand from anybody on the newsgroup
who sees that high a draw percentage in their own games.

Several things at work here. I have a few draws in tournament and
correspondence games. 11% of my tournament games have been draws
(less than that in correspondence), and several of them are my most
memorable games - ones I continue to think about. But I don't
remember the last time I had a draw in a club game, must have been
years ago. But top players make a lot fewer mistakes, so more draws.

You aren't going to win a weekend Swiss with 50% draws. But in a
top-level round-robin tournament or a match, the strategy is different
too. You can afford a lot of draws.
--
Replace you know what by j to email

In article ,
"David Kane" wrote:

Chess is one of the most popular games in the world based on the
number of people who actually play the game. Yet few players are
able to make decent incomes from chess. The reason? Because
the majority of high-level games are "overhead" which kills any attempts
to make the high level game worth following.

I think you're assuming too much here.

I could just as easily postulate that the reason why you can't make
money from chess is because chess is boring to watch. The game, as
played by professionals, is completely over the head of fans who are
even in the 90th percentile of chessplayers.

Do you think American Football would be so popular to watch if the only
people who understood it were those who played professionally?

This would be the case if the draw rate was 55% or 5%.

-Ron

"Ron" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"David Kane" wrote:

Chess is one of the most popular games in the world based on the
number of people who actually play the game. Yet few players are
able to make decent incomes from chess. The reason? Because
the majority of high-level games are "overhead" which kills any attempts
to make the high level game worth following.

I think you're assuming too much here.

I could just as easily postulate that the reason why you can't make
money from chess is because chess is boring to watch. The game, as
played by professionals, is completely over the head of fans who are
even in the 90th percentile of chessplayers.

This postulate does nothing to change the basic equation:
appeal comes from drama, and high level chess'
draw-worshipping culture is inimical to drama. Chess
is *not* uniquely complex (e.g. poker, go). But
human nature is human nature.

Do you think American Football would be so popular to watch if the only
people who understood it were those who played professionally?

The vast majority of people who enjoy watching
or following sports do not play nor understand
them particularly well. But they can appreciate
their drama.

This would be the case if the draw rate was 55% or 5%.


The high incidence of pro-draw
arguments on rgcp has led me
to consider that perhaps chess'
*defining* characteristic is its reverence
for the draw.

David Kane wrote:
David Richerby wrote:
David Kane wrote:
Ahh, but you've forgotten that it takes competence to get up a pawn
in the first place.

Nonsense!

1.d4 e5 2.dxe5 [etc]

1. These moves are not mandated by the rules of chess.

So what?


2. If you think that you could win under the new rules from the
above pawn-up positions without chess competence, then you know
*very* little about chess.

You didn't say anything about winning from pawn-up positions. You
just claimed that `it takes competence to get up a pawn in the first
place'. I gave eighteen examples in which one player or the other
gains a pawn without having to display any particular competence:
indeed, the pawn was given to him by his opponent without any direct
material compensation. This comprehensively shows the statement `it
takes competence to get a up a pawn' to be false, except in the
trivial sense that one needs sufficient competence to make legal
moves and accept the offer of a pawn.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Simple Confusing Goldfish (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a fish but you can't understand
it and it has no moving parts!

In article ,
"David Kane" wrote:

This postulate does nothing to change the basic equation:
appeal comes from drama, and high level chess'
draw-worshipping culture is inimical to drama.

Again, I disagree. Draws are not less dramatic than wins. Some draws are
very undramatic ... but then again so are some wins.

In fact, by cheapening wins, you make them less dramatic. Drama comes
from the difficulty required to obtain something.

-Ron

David Kane wrote:
This postulate does nothing to change the basic equation: appeal
comes from drama

Not in chess, it doesn't. Honestly. If you think that it's dramatic
when two people sit across a table pushing little bits of wood (or,
worse, plastic) around on little squares, according to an entirely
arbitrary set of rules... Well, if you think that, I think there's
something wrong with you.


and high level chess' draw-worshipping culture

There is no `draw-worshipping culture'. There are a lot of draws but
they're not worshiped. Likewise, there's an awful lot of pig **** in
the world but nobody worships that, either.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Dangerous Portable T-Shirt (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a fashion statement but you can
take it anywhere and it could explode
at any minute!

"David Richerby" wrote in message
...
David Kane wrote:
David Richerby wrote:
David Kane wrote:
Ahh, but you've forgotten that it takes competence to get up a pawn
in the first place.

Nonsense!

1.d4 e5 2.dxe5 [etc]

1. These moves are not mandated by the rules of chess.

So what?


2. If you think that you could win under the new rules from the
above pawn-up positions without chess competence, then you know
*very* little about chess.

You didn't say anything about winning from pawn-up positions. You
just claimed that `it takes competence to get up a pawn in the first
place'. I gave eighteen examples in which one player or the other
gains a pawn without having to display any particular competence:
indeed, the pawn was given to him by his opponent without any direct
material compensation. This comprehensively shows the statement `it
takes competence to get a up a pawn' to be false, except in the
trivial sense that one needs sufficient competence to make legal
moves and accept the offer of a pawn.


Congratulations, Mr. Richerby. You've made the astonishing finding
that pawn up positions occur in chess. Unfortunately, it has no
bearing on my rebuttal to Mr. Kingston's claim that because
pawn-up endings are wins under the proposed rules (instead
of draws), that the proposed rules reward incompetence.

I could not win a single of your pawn up games against a
GM under the proposed rules. Is that because I have too much
chess competence?

Please understand what you are responding to before
posting. Thank you.

"David Richerby" wrote in message
...
David Kane wrote:
This postulate does nothing to change the basic equation: appeal
comes from drama

Not in chess, it doesn't. Honestly. If you think that it's dramatic
when two people sit across a table pushing little bits of wood (or,
worse, plastic) around on little squares, according to an entirely
arbitrary set of rules... Well, if you think that, I think there's
something wrong with you.

Yet the 100th best golfer in the world wins prizes of
over a million dollars per year.


and high level chess' draw-worshipping culture

There is no `draw-worshipping culture'.

There is - and you're part of it.