Harold Buck wrote:
Of course, since many people play chess at the GM level because they
enjoy the human interaction, they may not like this option. :-)

Aw, come on! Everyone knows how to spot an extroverted chess player --
he's the one looking at *your* shoes while he's talking to you.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Electronic Slimy Tool (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a screwdriver but it's covered in goo
and it uses electricity!

In article ,
David Richerby wrote:

Harold Buck wrote:
Of course, since many people play chess at the GM level because they
enjoy the human interaction, they may not like this option. :-)

Aw, come on! Everyone knows how to spot an extroverted chess player --
he's the one looking at *your* shoes while he's talking to you.


That's an actuarial joke.

--Harold Buck


"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson

In article ,
Mike Murray wrote:

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 23:24:33 -0500, Harold Buck
wrote:


Seriously, though, what are the drawbacks here besides the obvious "not
being able to face your opponent"?

Sometimes an all-or-nothing opening might be appropriate, where a win
is good, but a loss or a draw amount to the same thing. Not knowing
the tournament standings would preclude this.

That's the whole point, though: it would force you to try to actually
win games, since you don't know if a draw is "good enough." This is what
many people would like to see: the elimination of "cheap", pre-arranged
draws. Admittedly, this would cut down somewhat on "go for broke" games,
but you still might see these sometimes as people would try to estimate
where they would be in the standings.


Also, a long tournament would be akin to being in a sequestered jury
-- probably not very enjoyable.

True. That's an obvious drawback, and serious enough that no one will
take my idea seriously. However, I think this idea might produce better
chess and fewer GM draws if that obstacle could be overcome.

--Harold Buck


"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson

Jud McCranie writes:

On 23 Jan 2004 17:00:42 -0500, wrote:

Fischer was polite to his fellow players
(he notes in game 3 of his "60 memorable" that it was
bad manners on his part to offer the draw to Petrosian

I read that and I thought that the reason it was "bad etiquette" was
that you're supposed to make your move and then offer the draw.

That's not bad etiquette - it's breaking the rules.



Fisher was black with R+P vs. two Ps, and the game was drawn after
white's move instead of black's move. He goes on to say that it was
Petrosian's place to offer the draw.

Are we thinking of the same game? I thought that the point
was that though the game was drawn, Petrosian had the better
of it - in a purely optical sense. In such situations the
weaker side is not supposed to offer the draw.

In any event, the point is that Fischer wanted to behave
correctly. And I think that he was noted for this - at
the board, anyway.

It was in the first half of a
20-game tournament, so the accepting a draw that concedes the match
doesn't apply.

Right.


What is the "etiquette" for offering a draw on the top board of the
last round of a tournament when one of them would be first place and
the other wouldn't?

Once upon a time the player lower in the crosstable
was supposed to fight hard so as not to hand the other
first place without a struggle. Nowadays hands are shaken
about move 10 in this sort of situation unless the other
player needs a win badly.


William Hyde
EOS Department
Duke University

On 26 Jan 2004 14:40:28 -0500, wrote:

Fisher was black with R+P vs. two Ps, and the game was drawn after
white's move instead of black's move. He goes on to say that it was
Petrosian's place to offer the draw.

Are we thinking of the same game?

In "My 60 memorable games", #3, Petrosian-Fischer, Portotoz 1958, was
drawn after white's 67th move. The final position was:
White: Kg5, Pf7, Pg6
Black: Kc2, Pc3

Fischer says: "I offered a draw, not realizing it was bad etiquette.
It was Petrosian's place to extend the draw offer after 67...RxP+; 68
KxR R-N8; 69 P-B8=Q, P-B7 with a book draw." Undoubtedly both players
knew it was a draw. If Fischer offered the draw as he says, then he
did it without making is move, as the rule requires.

of it - in a purely optical sense. In such situations the
weaker side is not supposed to offer the draw.

In all of these years, I didn't know that.


-------------------------------------
Replace you know what by "j" to email.

On 26 Jan 2004 14:40:28 -0500, wrote:

Nowadays hands are shaken
about move 10 in this sort of situation unless the other
player needs a win badly.

Speaking of that and etiquette when offering a draw, I watched some of
the games at the US championship in the early 90s. There were a lot
of draws. I never saw any of them offer a draw according to the
rules. One player would look at the other, look down at the board,
and then look back up. That seemed to be a draw offer (always
accepted in the games I saw).


-------------------------------------
Replace you know what by "j" to email.

(Al) wrote in message . com...
Chess will never be popular because the participants in top events can
simply "chicken out" by agreeing to a draw. The latest example is
Corus where Adams and Anand just agree to a draw right out of the
opening (if Adams won, we would be tied for the lead with Anand).
They can agree to a draw in an extremely unclear position when the
spectators really want to see it played out! The suspense of who is
going to *win* is quite a big draw in spectator sports. Can NFL teams
agree to a tie after 6 minutes have been played? Could you imagine
what the fans would say? Can basketball teams, hockey teams, tennis
players, golfers, etc. agree to a tie early? Unfortunately, having
the option to chicken out early has ruined the game.

How many people were bummed during the Kasparov - random computer
match? Kasparov chickened out in a superior position in the final
game. He simply should not have that option.

It probably won't change because most of the elite chessplayers like
being chickens. Sigh.

If, by "popular", you mean media coverage and mainstream attention
then I definitely agree with you. Even in countries where chess is
fairly big, it does not draw anywhere near the media coverage of
athletic sports. One exception to this seems to be shogi in Japan,
which gets about the level of coverage which golf gets in the U.S.

The problem is not just quickie grandmaster draws, but the high
frequency of draws of any type. I remember how some mainstream news
commentators in the U.S. stopped covering the 1984 world championship
halfway through due to embarrasment or boredom. All those draws. It
was like watching grass grow. And they've never really covered any
WC's after that. Look at Corus: well over half the games were drawn,
maybe even two thirds. It's only a slight exaggeration to say that
the top players in the world draw chess games for a living. Yeah,
yeah, some draws can be exciting, but most are uneventful and
unmemorable. And uninteresting to the public.

That's why I believe any solution that lowers the frequency of draws
should be welcomed. Bring on the fast time controls, quality of games
be damned. Chess is a sport not an art (Shakespeare's tragedies are
art. Michelangelo's David. Beethoven's ninth. A game of chess?
Sorry, Charlie). As long as the playing field is level and both sides
are playing under the same conditions, what's the problem? Make draw
by agreement illegal. Only the 50 move rule, stalemate, perpetual
check and repetition. Even then, replay every drawn game at a fast
time control. Bring back the "bare king" rule. Make stalemate a win
for the non-stalemated side. Anything! Until there are fewer draws
at the pro level, chess will never be "popular" to the mainstream.

On 27 Jan 2004 19:53:40 -0800, (nowonmai) wrote:

Make draw by agreement illegal.

I don't know if that would help much. If they really wanted to draw
they could easily do a 3-fold repetition. Or if you made a rule such
as "no agreed draws before move 40", they could just do nothing for 40
moves.


-------------------------------------
Replace you know what by "j" to email.

"nowonmai" wrote in message
om...

If, by "popular", you mean media coverage and mainstream attention
then I definitely agree with you. Even in countries where chess is
fairly big, it does not draw anywhere near the media coverage of
athletic sports. One exception to this seems to be shogi in Japan,
which gets about the level of coverage which golf gets in the U.S.

Excellent point about shogi. Shogi = Japanese chess (which is based on a
concept similar to the chess variant popularly known as "crazyhouse") is
hugely popular in Japan. One of shogi's greatest stars - Habu - enjoys
great popularity on the level of Kasparov, and the equivalent of Tiger
Woods. (As an aside: if I'm not mistaken, Habu has also performed fairly
well in chess games, even against GMs on one occasion.)

I suspect that the cultural element is a significant factor in shogi's
popularity. In Japan, due to cultural differences, shogi is encouraged and
highly regarded. In Western media, at least in North America anyway,
mind-sports like chess do not receive much coverage, and there's far more
emphasis on "primitive" gladiator-style sports based on physical
brawn/talent - such as hockey, basketball or football. Unlike in Japan, pop
culture in America is not receptive to chess. For chess to enjoy any kind
of popularity like its Japanese counterpart shogi, it's not chess that needs
to change, but culture. For North American culture to be more warmly
receptive to chess, a cultural change (improvement) is necessary first.
Contemporary culture focuses more on passive (TV, gameboy etc) or physical
(active sports) entertainment. Such an emphasis implicitly promotes less
thinking, and results in an increased mindlessness...Such a mindset is
naturally mutually exclusive with chess, which functions as the gymnasium of
the mind. Until the American public is willing to give such mental
gymnasiums the credit they deserve, there's not much hope of chess ever
getting the credibility and respect it deserves.

--
Gregory Topov
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"I don't necessarily agree with everything I say." - Marshall McLuhan

"Gregory Topov" wrote in message
. ..
"nowonmai" wrote in message
om...

If, by "popular", you mean media coverage and
mainstream attention then I definitely agree with you.
Even in countries where chess is fairly big, it does
not draw anywhere near the media coverage of
athletic sports. One exception to this seems to
be shogi in Japan, which gets about the level of
coverage which golf gets in the U.S.

Excellent point about shogi. Shogi = Japanese chess

I suspect that the cultural element is a significant
factor in shogi's popularity. In Japan, due to cultural
differences, shogi is encouraged and highly regarded.
For chess to enjoy any kind of popularity like its
Japanese counterpart shogi, it's not chess that needs
to change, but culture.

Surely a significant factor of Shogi's popularity as a media spectacle is
that while draws are theoretically possible, in practice they hardly ever
happen. For this reason, it is a lot easier to imagine a future where Shogi
receives mainstream western media coverage than a future where western chess
receives it.

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes