Many posters have pointed out regarding "grandmaster" draws being a
disapointment to fans who expect to see fighting chess. It has also been
pointed out that it is tournament results not individual game results that
count. Many a general has lost battles and still won the campaign.

In light of the above and the chess scene today, chess fans would do well to
change their expectation and face the facts. Just like using the on/off switch
on the TV, if you don't want to see draws, don't attend games that are likely
to be drawn in an individual match. In a tournament, there are always other
games and the big picture to consider. If you are a player as well as a fan,
you would do well to worry about how you can use draws to your own advantage in
stead of bitching about other players.

Modern day fans shouldn't act surprised and hurt to see so many draws, they
should expect them because that is the way it is. Having said all of this, I
think that one way to minimize draws out side of tournament play would be to
have more suddend death events ( shades of yesteryear) not clock wise, but
winner take all. One game events would give a win in each game more meaning.
Short three game matches would put it all on the line. I would let the
champions have a prize advantage to encourage players to risk their titles. In
the event of a drawn match and this idea would end draws by any means, the
champion would retain his title or an escrow system could be set up where
neither player would get the title, the champion having lost it and the
challenger not having one it. This way the players would actually be playing
for the title and bragging rights, at all levels of chess, and not just the
money.

"PJDBAD" wrote ...
Many posters have pointed out regarding "grandmaster" draws being a
disapointment to fans who expect to see fighting chess. It has also been
pointed out that it is tournament results not individual game results that
count. Many a general has lost battles and still won the campaign.


In my opinion draws are part of chess. BUT when two players
both play with the intent to draw and shake hands after a dozen
moves it does look bad.

I know there have been many suggestions concerning this issue.
I favor a win being worth 1 point and anything else is 0. That
way a player with 2 wins and 2 losses is ahead of the player with
4 draws.

Just my $0.02,
Patrick

"PJDBAD" wrote in message
...

Modern day fans shouldn't act surprised and hurt to see so many draws,
they
should expect them because that is the way it is. Having said all of this,
I
think that one way to minimize draws out side of tournament play would be
to
have more suddend death events ( shades of yesteryear) not clock wise, but
winner take all.

No need to go through all of that, just don't invite Kramnik to any more
tournaments.

--
"Let thy speech be better than silence, or be silent."
- Dionysius the Elder

In article ,
"RPM1" wrote:


"PJDBAD" wrote ...
Many posters have pointed out regarding "grandmaster" draws being a
disapointment to fans who expect to see fighting chess. It has also been
pointed out that it is tournament results not individual game results that
count. Many a general has lost battles and still won the campaign.


In my opinion draws are part of chess. BUT when two players
both play with the intent to draw and shake hands after a dozen
moves it does look bad.

I know there have been many suggestions concerning this issue.
I favor a win being worth 1 point and anything else is 0. That
way a player with 2 wins and 2 losses is ahead of the player with
4 draws.



As has been pointed out many times, this would simply encourage any game
that is "drawn" to be decided by a coin flip. That is, if you and I are
going to draw and get 0 points each, we somehow randomly decide who will
play to lose so one of us gets a point (and on average we each expect to
get 1/2 point per "drawn" game in the long run).

Of course, they won't just pull out a coin and flip it. They're sneakier
than that, but they'd find a way.

--Harold Buck


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

"Harold Buck" wrote ...
"RPM1" wrote:
"PJDBAD" wrote ...

I know there have been many suggestions concerning this issue.
I favor a win being worth 1 point and anything else is 0. That
way a player with 2 wins and 2 losses is ahead of the player with
4 draws.

As has been pointed out many times, this would simply encourage any game
that is "drawn" to be decided by a coin flip. That is, if you and I are
going to draw and get 0 points each, we somehow randomly decide who will
play to lose so one of us gets a point (and on average we each expect to
get 1/2 point per "drawn" game in the long run).

I highly doubt that player A will agree to take a dive with the
understanding
that someone else will allow player A to win later.

So if you and I are in a tournament and we have a drawn position and I tell
you to resign and I'll lose next time we play, you would tip your king
over?!
I'm up for that!

Patrick

In article ,
"RPM1" wrote:

"Harold Buck" wrote ...
"RPM1" wrote:
"PJDBAD" wrote ...

I know there have been many suggestions concerning this issue.
I favor a win being worth 1 point and anything else is 0. That
way a player with 2 wins and 2 losses is ahead of the player with
4 draws.

As has been pointed out many times, this would simply encourage any game
that is "drawn" to be decided by a coin flip. That is, if you and I are
going to draw and get 0 points each, we somehow randomly decide who will
play to lose so one of us gets a point (and on average we each expect to
get 1/2 point per "drawn" game in the long run).

I highly doubt that player A will agree to take a dive with the
understanding
that someone else will allow player A to win later.

Then you don't understand probability and the phrase "the long run."

So if you and I are in a tournament and we have a drawn position and I tell
you to resign and I'll lose next time we play, you would tip your king
over?!
I'm up for that!


Um, no. But they have a system now where they agree before the game
begins that they will play for a draw. People don't cheat on this,
because if they did then word would get out and they'd never be able to
make a deal when they needed a draw to win a tournament.

This wouldn't be much different: there'd be an agreement before the game
that if the game were going to be drawn then they'd "flip a coin" to see
who wold resign. They'd be highly motivated to do this, since if the
game was drawn--under the proposed win=1, loss=draw=0 system--neither
person would get anything. By agreeing to "flip a coin"--again, I don't
think they'd make it so obvious--then they'd have a 50% chance of 1
point and a 50% chance of 0, which has an expected value of 0.5 points
for each player. Any sane person would prefer an expected value of 0.5
over 0.0.


--Harold Buck


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

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 17:59:05 -0500, "RPM1"
wrote:

In my opinion draws are part of chess. BUT when two players
both play with the intent to draw and shake hands after a dozen
moves it does look bad.

I know there have been many suggestions concerning this issue.
I favor a win being worth 1 point and anything else is 0. That
way a player with 2 wins and 2 losses is ahead of the player with
4 draws.

As you said in the first paragraph, draws are a part of chess. If
both lose if it is a draw (as in your second paragraph) then both
players lose if there is insufficient mating material, there is a
stalemate, 3-time repetition, or 50 moves w/o a capture or a pawn
move. I don't think it makes sense for both players to "lose" a draw.
But I'm sure people have said this before.


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

"Jud McCranie" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 17:59:05 -0500, "RPM1"
wrote:

In my opinion draws are part of chess. BUT when two players
both play with the intent to draw and shake hands after a dozen
moves it does look bad.

I know there have been many suggestions concerning this issue.
I favor a win being worth 1 point and anything else is 0. That
way a player with 2 wins and 2 losses is ahead of the player with
4 draws.

As you said in the first paragraph, draws are a part of chess. If
both lose if it is a draw (as in your second paragraph) then both
players lose if there is insufficient mating material, there is a
stalemate, 3-time repetition, or 50 moves w/o a capture or a pawn
move. I don't think it makes sense for both players to "lose" a draw.
But I'm sure people have said this before.

Does it make sense for 2 draws to equal a win? If players were not
rewarded for draws then they would avoid them. If we're talking
about "fans", I think tournaments and matches would be more exciting
for spectators. You would still have the exciting draws where a player
pulls a draw out of a lost position because the player would not want
the opponent to get the point. But I believe the "Grandmaster draws"
would be less likely, (I'm not buying the "you win this one and I'll win
the next one" argument).

Patrick

In article ,
"RPM1" wrote:

Does it make sense for 2 draws to equal a win?

Yes, because it makes chess a zero-sum game. There's one point available
for the game. Either you get it, or I do, or we "tie" and split it.

If players were not
rewarded for draws then they would avoid them. If we're talking
about "fans", I think tournaments and matches would be more exciting
for spectators. You would still have the exciting draws where a player
pulls a draw out of a lost position because the player would not want
the opponent to get the point. But I believe the "Grandmaster draws"
would be less likely, (I'm not buying the "you win this one and I'll win
the next one" argument).

Grandmasters are not stupid. If faced with a draw and the prospect of
neither one getting a point, they'll opt for a chance at a point instead
of the certainty of no points, for the same reason they now agree to
draws before the game: they want the best chance of winning the most
money.

--Harold Buck


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

Harold Buck wrote:
"RPM1" wrote:
I highly doubt that player A will agree to take a dive with the
understanding
that someone else will allow player A to win later.

Then you don't understand probability and the phrase "the long run."

A chess tournament isn't `the long run'. It's not much more than ten
games and many are shorter.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Unholy Boss (TM): it's like a middle
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ manager but it's also a crime against
nature!