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.

That's one of the main reason's why Fischer is missed so much in the
chess world. Korchnoi, Fischer were born with that kill or be killed
spirit. Kasparov had it for awhile but it looks like he is doing
other things now and sadly it appears that chess is starting to take a
back seat in his life now. A perfect example in in one candidates
match Ivanchuk had a 5 - 0 lead over Yudasin. In the 6th game
Ivanchuk offered a draw. Fischer would never do that. Ask Taimanov
and Larsen.

EZoto

"Al" wrote in message
om...
Chess will never be popular because the participants in top events can
simply "chicken out" by agreeing to a draw.

The idea of grandmaster draws in the early stages of a game also baffles me.
Let the players fight it out and at least get to an end game! There's no
need to agree to a draw when the middle game just starts, even if the
position is evenly balanced. Who knows, maybe someone will make a slight
mistake allowing the other to capitalize. That's the whole point of the
game! Battle it out! Just because both players played the opening evenly
doesn't mean they should quit. They should play out the position, and only
if it's going to be an even result in the end game should draws be agreed
upon.

Is it perhaps a fear of losing that motivates these GM draws somewhat? With
a more aggressive Fischer type wanting-to-win attitude, surely you will not
agree to a draw if most of the battle has not yet been fought, in the hope
your opponent will make a slight mistake that you can capitalize on. And if
neither side has made such a mistake by the end game and it's a clearly
drawn position, then by all means agree to a draw. But not before hand.

Short, agreed-upon GM draws are indeed bad for chess, and do nothing to
enhance its popularity.
--
Gregory Topov
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"I don't necessarily agree with everything I say." - Marshall McLuhan

In article ,
(Al) wrote:

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.


Hey, nice troll.

[If you're not a troll and really interested in this topic, why don't
you do a google search and read the 3,492,522 posts on this topic over
the past 2 years. Then come back if you have something new to add.]

--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 ,
"Gregory Topov" wrote:


Is it perhaps a fear of losing that motivates these GM draws somewhat?


Uh, yeah. It sure isn't from a fear of winning or drawing, so fear of
losing is the only other option.

--Harold Buck


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

If you're not a troll and really interested in this topic, why don't
you do a google search and read the 3,492,522 posts on this topic over
the past 2 years. Then come back if you have something new to add.]

--Harold Buck


I guess some people would rather read about a topic on a news group than do a
google search. If everyone decided to do a google search for information that
would render one reason for a news group pointless. Remember it is better to
be a smart ass than a dumb ass!

EZoto writes:

That's one of the main reason's why Fischer is missed so much in the
chess world. Korchnoi, Fischer were born with that kill or be killed
spirit. Kasparov had it for awhile

The Kasparov-Anand and Kasparov-Kramnik matches were
disastrous for chess, I think. Few people will want
to give money to players who won't fight. Though
Fischer-Karpov was at least as big a disaster, I have
to admit.


but it looks like he is doing
other things now and sadly it appears that chess is starting to take a
back seat in his life now. A perfect example in in one candidates
match Ivanchuk had a 5 - 0 lead over Yudasin. In the 6th game
Ivanchuk offered a draw. Fischer would never do that. Ask Taimanov
and Larsen.


Offering a draw to Larsen would have been pointless, as
he wouldn't have taken it. Larsen had a perpetual check in
game six but he played for the win. So Larsen should also
have been on your list of fighting players, even if in
this case the decision to fight didn't turn out well.

I don't know if Taimanov would have taken a draw offered
in game six. That would end the match, and Taimanov
probably hoped he could get a won position (as he did
in game three, for example), and this time convert it.
Not in hopes of winning the match, but to salvage some
of his reputation.

Or he might have made the practical decision, as Yudasin
did. He was black in game six, after all.

In that less practical era, offering a draw which if
accepted would conceed the match was considered rude
unless the position was clearly drawn. Kortchoi offered
Reshevsky draws in two games (one adjourned) in their
match and there was some grumbling about it even though
Reshevsky stood worse in the adjourned game (he took
the deal). 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
- he was clearly learning the informal rules in force then).



William Hyde
EOS Department
Duke University

In article ,
(PJDBAD) wrote:

If you're not a troll and really interested in this topic, why don't
you do a google search and read the 3,492,522 posts on this topic over
the past 2 years. Then come back if you have something new to add.]

--Harold Buck


I guess some people would rather read about a topic on a news group than do a
google search. If everyone decided to do a google search for information that
would render one reason for a news group pointless. Remember it is better to
be a smart ass than a dumb ass!


OTOH, they shouldn't be surprised if no one wants to talk about their
FAQ because it's been done to death.

--Harold Buck


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

Offering a draw to Larsen would have been pointless, as
he wouldn't have taken it. Larsen had a perpetual check in
game six but he played for the win. So Larsen should also
have been on your list of fighting players, even if in
this case the decision to fight didn't turn out well.

Missed that one. Larsen was another one.

EZoto

"Al" wrote in message
om...
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.

I have never understood the obsession of people to make chess "popular."
It's a game for two people that brings great joy to all who appreciate it.
Do I need to see it played in an stadium with tens of thousands of
spectators to enjoy it more? No.

Yes, I deeply sympathize with the greats at the top for not being able to
make a decent living from their art and their love. But I also realize the
same holds true for millions of musicians, painters, and similarly gifted
people around the globe. I don't think painters, to take one, are desperate
to have their works shown during the next Olympics.

What gives with so many chessplayers?
--
Ian Burton
[Please Reply to Newsgroup]