Rich Hutnik wrote:
On Sep 22, 2:44 pm, " wrote:
One possible scenario in a small open tournament using this proposed
rule. Mr. Big, rated 1800, is playing Mr. Little, rated 1100 in a
first-round pairing.

Another idea could be to adjust the points for a draw, based upon
the ratings of chess players. In the case of Little getting issued
the challenge, if he accepts, he then gets half the amount of the
double for a draw. If Little challenges Big, then Big only gets one
point for a draw.

Nobody challenged anybody. In a tournament, the tournament director
tells you who to play.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Psychotic Sword (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ razor-sharp blade but it wants to
kill you!

Rich Hutnik wrote:
David Richerby wrote:
Suppose that white has doubled (once), that no other doubling has
happened (i.e., the game is being played for double stakes) and the
game is drawn. You've explicitly said that black gets one point
(twice the usual). I have assumed that white gets the same score
as black for this game -- one point. You haven't actually said
what white scores for this game, though -- did you intend something
other than one point?

White would not score.

OK. Thanks for filling in that important detail. So, that at least
prevents genuinely drawn positions from scoring arbitrarily highly, as
nobody in his right mind would double in such a position.

However, this introduces the problem that doubling is an explicit
announcement `I am playing for the win', and, with the doubler scoring
no points if the game is drawn, the opponent should, in most cases
accept the double and play for the draw as if his very life depended
on it. This might even *increase* the number of draws!

If, for example, someone is short on time, their opponent could
end up doubling to get them to resign if their opponent feels they
don't have enough time to get off a win or a draw before the time
runs out.

That, in itself, sounds like a bad thing: time scrambles become
lethal so players are encouraged not to use all of their time, i.e.,
to rush their moves. You may well get fewer draws but does the
quality of the won games suffer?

The core of this issue is how to make the chess able to captivate the
interest of people to watch it on television, who don't play the
game. In the current format, with an excess amount of draws, the
result is events that the average person isn't interested in
watching.

Are you American, by the way? I ask because this morbid fear of draws
seems to be an American preoccupation. Draws are very common in
football (soccer) and cricket, two of the most popular sports on the
planet, in terms of both participation and spectators. Not as common
as in chess but still pretty common.

Really, draws are not the reason that chess doesn't make good
television.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Mentholated Metal Cat (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a cuddly pet that's made of steel but
it's invigorating!

On Sep 23, 8:48 am, David Richerby
wrote:
OK. Thanks for filling in that important detail. So, that at least
prevents genuinely drawn positions from scoring arbitrarily highly, as
nobody in his right mind would double in such a position.

However, this introduces the problem that doubling is an explicit
announcement `I am playing for the win', and, with the doubler scoring
no points if the game is drawn, the opponent should, in most cases
accept the double and play for the draw as if his very life depended
on it. This might even *increase* the number of draws!

I think the issues with draws is not that they are draws, but the fact
that closure on a multigame tournament match isn't advancing further
as a result. Maybe having it so the champ can play defensive
throughout and have things end in ties. You end up with something
anti-climatic.

Are you American, by the way? I ask because this morbid fear of draws
seems to be an American preoccupation. Draws are very common in
football (soccer) and cricket, two of the most popular sports on the
planet, in terms of both participation and spectators. Not as common
as in chess but still pretty common.

Really, draws are not the reason that chess doesn't make good
television.

I am American. American media represents what the masses tend to
demand and follow, and if you hit it, you manage to capture the
largest mob of watchers if you manage to do things a certain way. And
I will say it isn't a draw issue alone that is really the issue, but
the fact that someone can watch something for awhile, and nothing get
closure from it. I started another thread for people to ponder
this. People who don't play or follow something normally do want
drama and so on, and high points, and people coming back. They want
story. If you can somehow do this with chess and the draw issue, then
keep it the same way. I would say speed chess and bughouse would make
better television, but do people want chess to become that to people?

- Rich

On Sep 23, 8:33 am, David Richerby
wrote:
Rich Hutnik wrote:
Part of the idea for the doubling cube is to resolve the draw issue.
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?

Dude, draws are not the reason that chess is not popular on TV. Chess
is not popular on TV because absolutely nothing happens for fifteen
minutes or more at a time and, then when something does eventually
happen, you need extensive training to understand its significance.

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

Because something actually happens in poker.

Have you ever watched prolong poker being played? There is a bunch of
even LESS action that you have with chess. There is more activity,
but less action. It is reality TV editing that is why you get what
appears to be more action than there is. Similar would need to be
done with chess and other abstract strategy games. But, there are
other issues. What poker does have that makes it watchable TV is big,
unexpected things that can happen, which you can show at the right
moments, and do a television show with editing all the bits together.
Poker is not shown live for this reason, but edited and shown later,
as a collection of highlights. Also, poker has a lot of player vs
player, and not just different board positions. Showing it as a
struggle of players against each other makes for drama, something that
could possibly be done with chess. The question is: What do you do?

This is in another thread.

- Rich

"Rich Hutnik" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Sep 23, 8:48 am, David Richerby
wrote:
OK. Thanks for filling in that important detail. So, that at least
prevents genuinely drawn positions from scoring arbitrarily highly, as
nobody in his right mind would double in such a position.

However, this introduces the problem that doubling is an explicit
announcement `I am playing for the win', and, with the doubler scoring
no points if the game is drawn, the opponent should, in most cases
accept the double and play for the draw as if his very life depended
on it. This might even *increase* the number of draws!

I think the issues with draws is not that they are draws, but the fact
that closure on a multigame tournament match isn't advancing further
as a result. Maybe having it so the champ can play defensive
throughout and have things end in ties. You end up with something
anti-climatic.

Are you American, by the way? I ask because this morbid fear of draws
seems to be an American preoccupation. Draws are very common in
football (soccer) and cricket, two of the most popular sports on the
planet, in terms of both participation and spectators. Not as common
as in chess but still pretty common.

Really, draws are not the reason that chess doesn't make good
television.

I am American. American media represents what the masses tend to
demand and follow, and if you hit it, you manage to capture the
largest mob of watchers if you manage to do things a certain way. And
I will say it isn't a draw issue alone that is really the issue, but
the fact that someone can watch something for awhile, and nothing get
closure from it.


Exactly correct. The defenders of draws in chess are incapable
of admitting that draws are an integral part of the strategy of
play, not, as in other sports, the more or less accidental result
of a normally played game.

In chess, players can trade off most of their pieces and make it hard
to win. The analog in soccer would be both teams agreeing to decrease
the width of the goal to 1 meter. That is not permitted by the rules.
Even in the last minute, the 0-0 tie can be broken by a skillfully
executed break. GMs start with narrow goals and move the goal posts
in with each move, until they are down to a 1-meter width
and they decide to go home.

In soccer there is drama, In chess' highest level, there rarely is.
It's as simple as that. By the way, many soccer leagues do use
scoring systems which devalue ties, and not just in the US.
Chess' resistance to even those minimal measures seems
to stem from some psychological attachment to draws
being seen as a "just" outcome.

Chess' popularity is limited because its practitioners reject
societal norms such as "play to win". Perhaps there is nothing
wrong with that - who says chess shouldn't be the activity where
draw lovers rule the roost? One reason I believe chess could
be more popular if it adopted mainstream values is my
experience with scholastics. That's the segment with by far the
widest appeal, and it also has few draws. Kids starting out
at the game play to win.


I started another thread for people to ponder
this. People who don't play or follow something normally do want
drama and so on, and high points, and people coming back. They want
story. If you can somehow do this with chess and the draw issue, then
keep it the same way. I would say speed chess and bughouse would make
better television, but do people want chess to become that to people?

- Rich

On Sep 23, 1:58 pm, "David Kane" wrote:
Exactly correct. The defenders of draws in chess are incapable
of admitting that draws are an integral part of the strategy of
play, not, as in other sports, the more or less accidental result
of a normally played game.

Chess and other abstract strategy games face enough challenges getting
television time. You have poker as a breakthrough in some regard on
this, being sustainable. It is time for chess to join the ranks
also. Have people play for draws, doesn't help.

In chess, players can trade off most of their pieces and make it hard
to win. The analog in soccer would be both teams agreeing to decrease
the width of the goal to 1 meter. That is not permitted by the rules.
Even in the last minute, the 0-0 tie can be broken by a skillfully
executed break. GMs start with narrow goals and move the goal posts
in with each move, until they are down to a 1-meter width
and they decide to go home.

Also, in soccer, they can go to a shootout to break the tie when
needed. Exactly how do you do this in chess? Have it so the
defending champ, or whomever, can play to a draw, doesn't help the
game. Waiting for someone to make ONE mess up somewhere, so that you
get ONE point, and then expose everyone to a dozen more draws, isn't
exciting. If it were a SINGLE game that had this, and shorter, that
is possible. But to drag it out weeks with this as a result?

In soccer there is drama, In chess' highest level, there rarely is.
It's as simple as that. By the way, many soccer leagues do use
scoring systems which devalue ties, and not just in the US.
Chess' resistance to even those minimal measures seems
to stem from some psychological attachment to draws
being seen as a "just" outcome.

Playing for a draw is not just and it isn't in keeping with the point
of chess. If draws will be part of the game, and part of the strategy
(in another context, you need to have a defensive player and an
offensive player, with the defender winning if he manages to get a
draw), then you need to have it so that this happen is reflected in
the score at least. You reframe getting someone to draw as a win of a
sort for one of the players. You play multiple games done in this,
that then force a breakthrough of a sort there.

Chess' popularity is limited because its practitioners reject
societal norms such as "play to win". Perhaps there is nothing
wrong with that - who says chess shouldn't be the activity where
draw lovers rule the roost? One reason I believe chess could
be more popular if it adopted mainstream values is my
experience with scholastics. That's the segment with by far the
widest appeal, and it also has few draws. Kids starting out
at the game play to win.

I will say that there are several other factors to. One is that there
needs to be a format of poker that spectators who don't know the game
can watch and follow the players, and root for them. Another is that
there needs to be greater stakes. Also, chess and other strategy
games are hard and not for everyone.

There is work that needs to be done here. At least chess can own up to
the draw issues it has, and integrate it somehow into the scoring so
you reframe draws as wins somehow. I did suggest doubling cube as a
way to do this. Another way is give the half point to the black
player for the draw, but not the white player. If black is going to
play defensive, might as well reward them for it. The point would be
to push the multigame match to a closure point.

- Rich

On Sep 23, 8:37 am, David Richerby
wrote:
Rich Hutnik wrote:
You could have it so that the only time you can double is when you
are up a material advantage on your opponent.

So whoever makes the first capture of an exchange can immediately
double? If you have a genuine material advantage, there's a good
chance that your opponent has already resigned.

I don't mean to sound snide but this comment suggests you don't know
an awful lot about the game you're trying to `fix'.

Dave.

It is possible doubling merely ends up as a way to repackage a request
to resign, in a more relevant way to scoring.

- Rich

On Sep 23, 8:38 am, David Richerby
wrote:
Rich Hutnik wrote:

On Sep 22, 2:44 pm, " wrote:
One possible scenario in a small open tournament using this proposed
rule. Mr. Big, rated 1800, is playing Mr. Little, rated 1100 in a
first-round pairing.

Another idea could be to adjust the points for a draw, based upon
the ratings of chess players. In the case of Little getting issued
the challenge, if he accepts, he then gets half the amount of the
double for a draw. If Little challenges Big, then Big only gets one
point for a draw.

Nobody challenged anybody. In a tournament, the tournament director
tells you who to play.

Dave.

Challenge, as in doubling.

- Rich

Rich Hutnik wrote:

Playing for a draw is not just and it isn't in keeping with the point
of chess. If draws will be part of the game, and part of the strategy
(in another context, you need to have a defensive player and an
offensive player, with the defender winning if he manages to get a
draw), then you need to have it so that this happen is reflected in
the score at least. You reframe getting someone to draw as a win of a
sort for one of the players. You play multiple games done in this,
that then force a breakthrough of a sort there.


Isn't this exactly the way top-level chess is played? Drawing with
Black *is* considered a "win of a sort".


--
Kenneth Sloan
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/

On Sep 23, 7:04 pm, Kenneth Sloan wrote:
Rich Hutnik wrote:

Playing for a draw is not just and it isn't in keeping with the point
of chess. If draws will be part of the game, and part of the strategy
(in another context, you need to have a defensive player and an
offensive player, with the defender winning if he manages to get a
draw), then you need to have it so that this happen is reflected in
the score at least. You reframe getting someone to draw as a win of a
sort for one of the players. You play multiple games done in this,
that then force a breakthrough of a sort there.

Isn't this exactly the way top-level chess is played? Drawing with
Black *is* considered a "win of a sort".

But scoring-wise, it isn't. It acts as if it doesn't change the score
one bit.

So, how would you deal with the case of the chess champion only having
to keep drawing in order to retain the title?

- Rich