"John Rowland" wrote in message
...

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.


Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't shogi also played without time
controls? Games regularly last 8 hours or more. Surprisingly to some
perhaps, this hasn't detracted from its popularity in Japan. It seems then
that reducing classical time controls isn't the key to improved acceptance
of chess. It is Western culture's thinking about chess that needs to
change, not the thinking time we give the players!

As an aside, can you imagine what eliminating time controls would do to
chess? For instance, it was a blunder in time trouble (36.Rxd4) that cost
Karpov the decisive 24th game which handed the World Championship to
Kasparov in 1985. Shogi style time controls for chess might have changed
the outcome of many games. Admittedly in many respects shogi is even more
complicated than chess because of the possibility to replace captured pieces
on the board.

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

"Gregory Topov" wrote in message
.. .
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't shogi also played without time
controls? Games regularly last 8 hours or more. Surprisingly to some
perhaps, this hasn't detracted from its popularity in Japan. It seems
then
that reducing classical time controls isn't the key to improved acceptance
of chess. It is Western culture's thinking about chess that needs to
change, not the thinking time we give the players!

To elaborate, quoting from my earlier post in another thread:

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 American culture to be more warmly receptive to
chess, a cultural change (improvement) is necessary first. Contemporary
American culture focuses more on passive entertainment (TV, GameBoy etc) or
the achievements of physical sports (basketball, football, hockey etc).
Such an emphasis implicitly promotes less thinking, and results in an
increased mindlessness. The influence of television has largely contributed
to this development, and an overall dumbing-down has resulted. A passive
and thoughtless 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:
As an aside, can you imagine what eliminating time controls would do to
chess?

Time controls were introduced relatively recently (late 19th century?
even later?) because some players were taking too long with their moves
and games were lasting well over ten hours.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Miniature Nuclear Gnome (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a smiling garden ornament that's
made of atoms but you can hold in it
your hand!

"Gregory Topov" wrote in message ...
"John Rowland" wrote in message
...

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't shogi also played without time
controls? Games regularly last 8 hours or more. Surprisingly to some
perhaps, this hasn't detracted from its popularity in Japan. It seems then
that reducing classical time controls isn't the key to improved acceptance
of chess. It is Western culture's thinking about chess that needs to
change, not the thinking time we give the players!

Shogi does use time controls. Rather rapid ones at the amatuer level,
rather long ones (up to 4 or 5 hours per side) at the pro level. The
shogi public does not mind the long time controls because the games
are almost always decisive.

My whole point is that, in the popular view (and even from many a
chess lover's view), draws are boring. And there are just too many in
high level chess. My point in advocating short time controls in chess
is to increase the number of decisive games. If a game can't be won
on the board, it could at least be won on time. And yes, with shorter
time controls, more mistakes will be made. Which means there are more
opportunities to win.

As an aside, can you imagine what eliminating time controls would do to
chess? For instance, it was a blunder in time trouble (36.Rxd4) that cost
Karpov the decisive 24th game which handed the World Championship to
Kasparov in 1985. Shogi style time controls for chess might have changed
the outcome of many games. Admittedly in many respects shogi is even more
complicated than chess because of the possibility to replace captured pieces
on the board.

I definitely do NOT think long shogi time controls are good for chess.
Quite the opposite. Chess, because it is more drawish, needs
*shorter* controls. It needs more decisive games. The more time
control blunders the better!

In article ,
(nowonmai) wrote:

My whole point is that, in the popular view (and even from many a
chess lover's view), draws are boring.

Well, pre-arranged 12-move draws are boring. I don't have a problem with
a game that is actually *played* that ends up a draw.

And there are just too many in
high level chess. My point in advocating short time controls in chess
is to increase the number of decisive games.

Most people would think that was pretty silly. We end up with a K vs. K
endgame, and I win because I move my pieces a little faster than you?
Why is *THAT* satisfying?

If a game can't be won
on the board, it could at least be won on time. And yes, with shorter
time controls, more mistakes will be made. Which means there are more
opportunities to win.




--Harold Buck


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

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 16:01:13 -0500, Harold Buck
wrote:

Well, pre-arranged 12-move draws are boring.

Absolutely, and unethical.


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

In article ,
Jud McCranie wrote:

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 16:01:13 -0500, Harold Buck
wrote:

Well, pre-arranged 12-move draws are boring.

Absolutely, and unethical.


And I think the whole "we hate draws, let's get rid of them" thing is
fueled by that fact that they are prevalent despite being unethical. If
FIDE could swing a big enough stick to make them cut it out, then there
would be far less compaining about draws.

--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 in message ...
Most people would think that was pretty silly. We end up with a K vs. K
endgame, and I win because I move my pieces a little faster than you?
Why is *THAT* satisfying?

--Harold Buck

Obviously, this would be a draw due to insufficient material. I'm not
suggesting we change the rules about what constitutes a forced draw
(except maybe stalemate). Repetition, perpetual check, 50 move rule
would still be in force (and stalemate if they must have it). My
point is that, if there's still sufficient material on the board, a
player can try to win on time rather than agree to a draw. There
would still be draws, but fewer.

"Harold Buck" wrote in message news:no_one_knows-

Well, pre-arranged 12-move draws are boring.

Absolutely, and unethical.


And I think the whole "we hate draws, let's get rid of them" thing is
fueled by that fact that they are prevalent despite being unethical. If
FIDE could swing a big enough stick to make them cut it out, then there
would be far less compaining about draws.


Notice that FIDE championships are made to get rid of prearranged draws. In
the matches there should be winners and losers.

A different situation is in closed tournaments. Do you call Anand`s short
draw (14 moves) in the last round in Wijk aan Zee event unethical and boring
? Thanks to the quick draw he secured the first prize. So it was an element
of his tournament strategy. If you want to get rid of prearranged and quick
draws completely then just incorporate the FIDE scheme to all tournaments.
It will be effective and spectacular to the audience ;-)

Regards,
Jerzy

"nowonmai" wrote in message
om...
Shogi does use time controls. Rather rapid ones at the amatuer level,
rather long ones (up to 4 or 5 hours per side) at the pro level. The
shogi public does not mind the long time controls because the games
are almost always decisive.

I definitely do NOT think long shogi time controls are good for chess.
Quite the opposite. Chess, because it is more drawish, needs
*shorter* controls. It needs more decisive games. The more time
control blunders the better!

It should be noted that one of the reasons shogi is more decisive is because
of the nature of the game. As you point out, it is not the time controls
that make shogi decisive, but the game itself.

I do not think the solution for chess is to make more games decisive by
introducing errors/blunders through time pressure. That could detract from
the beauty of the game. Then the decisiveness would result from time
pressured blunders, rather than the nature of the game as in shogi.

An easier solution to the premature (pre-arranged?) agreed-upon draw: some
"drawn" games might get a more decisive result simply if the players could
not agree to a draw prematurely, except in the usual cases: three-fold
repetition, perpetual check, and the 50 move rule. By playing through a
position, a decisive result may become apparent. And if it is a draw in the
end, at least chess fans will be assured that game really was a draw, and
not a canned pre-arranged affair.

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