Andy Walker wrote:
If the WC match is between Soviet GMs and held in the USSR, it's
hard to argue that any other country should have had much of a say
in the match conditions.

I disagree. If we're to call these people `world champions' rather
than `Soviet champions', the world needs to have had a say in how the
champion is decided. Which it did, through FIDE.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Evil Pointy-Haired Cat (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a cuddly pet that's completely
clueless but it's genuinely evil!

David Richerby wrote:
J.D. Walker wrote:
One possibility of ensuring more decisive match results would be to
change the way draws are scored. I like the idea of giving White
.45 of the point and Black .55 of the point. Mathematicians might
come up with a better way to split the point. A drawn 24 game match
would seem to be much more unlikely with this idea.

There are a number of problems with that proposal. First and
foremost, doesn't it encourage both players to play for the draw with
black?

It might not actually help too much, either. If the match is going to
be tied, it's likely that most of the games will be drawn. With only
a few wins, it's quite likely that all the wins will be with the white
pieces, which means that the match will still be tied with the
suggested scoring system.

It also has a rather counter-intuitive property. Suppose that a match
is played that would have been drawn under standard scoring of half a
point each for a draw. It follows that the players both won the same
number of games. But now look at the number of wins each player has
with each colour. Every win a player gets with a particular colour is
one less draw with that colour. In particular, winning more games
with black means drawing fewer games with black, which means fewer
points.

Consider the following four-game match, with Alice having white in the
first game.

Alice + = - = 2.1
Bob - = + = 1.9

It seems a bit strange that Bob loses the match, given that he won his
game as black, which is harder than winning with white.

I like this result better than a tie, but I agree that the idea needs an
adjustment.

I suppose you could try to fix this by changing the scores for wins,
to compensate for the points `lost' by not getting the draw.

How would the following work out?

White win = +1
Black win = +1.11
White draw = .45
Black Draw = .50

This would seem to encourage wins, and make tied matches less likely.
It also tries to give Black a scoring edge to balance the first move
edge of White. Maybe the exact scoring edge would need to be fine tuned...

If players can get used to decimal results as opposed to whole
number results it should work fine in tournaments also. We can do
it. Look at how we adapted to the metric system! Oops, I forgot,
we didn't.

The rest of the world did. :-P

Right you are sir...
--

"Do that which is right..."

Rev. J.D. Walker

On Apr 24, 2:03 pm, "David Kane" wrote:

EVANS: But this clause was a bigger mathematical advantage than
the one FIDE had denied Fischer.

Larry Evans later came under fire when this
sweeping claim was debunked.

It's not a question that can be answered mathematically.
Having a chance at a rematch and having an advantage
in a match itself are two separate things.

Larry Evans and his ratpack have chronic troubles
with such elementary logic.

Not only that, the whole issue was a red herring,
intended to divert attention away from the unfairness
of Bobby Fischer's "demands". The argument runs
something like this:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

1) The demands made by BF may have been unfair,
but they were less unfair than X.

2) FIDE has given X to somebody "we" don't even
like.

3) So then, giving in to BF's unfair demands was
the correct action for FIDE; they messed up.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Does Evans argue that Fischer never became World Champion
because he refused to offer Spassky a rematch? Of course not.

Boris Spassky did not get a rematch, so it would
appear that this was more about bashing Anatoly
Karpov than it was about rematches or even fairness.


I am not personally a fan of the rematch clause, even though
some rematches have produced good chess. However, it
could be viewed as compensation of a different sort for
playing a match without any advantage, as Karpov did
three times.

One issue is that rematches often involve the same
two players, again and again-- which can get a little
bit tedious. The same two guys, playing the same
openings, over and over and over... .


Note that the current FIDE system includes a bizarre form
of rematch, though it doesn't pertain to a head-to-head match.
Kramnik "lost" to Anand (i.e. finished behind him in a
tournament) so now gets his "rematch".

We got a (very brief) glance into some issues in
a recent "interview" by nearly-IMnes of one of the
top players. Unfortunately, that "interview" was
dominated by the interviewer's personal agenda,
and did not try to focus on the interviewee, on
what *he* thought. He barely mentioned a beef
or two before being directed right back toward
the old Adorjan agenda.

With the leader of the pack, the agenda includes
bashing FIDE, bashing the USCF, bashing GM
Karpov, shifting the blame for GM Fischer's
premature retirement to FIDE, etc., etc. In some
cases, it turns out that Larry Evans has simply
lifted "his" opinions wholesale from others, and
they are in turn parroted by his underlings, be he
right or wrong.


-- help bot

On Apr 24, 1:59*pm, David Richerby
wrote:
J.D. Walker wrote:
One possibility of ensuring more decisive match results would be to
change the way draws are scored. *I like the idea of giving White
.45 of the point and Black .55 of the point. *Mathematicians might
come up with a better way to split the point. *A drawn 24 game match
would seem to be much more unlikely with this idea.

There are a number of problems with that proposal. *First and
foremost, doesn't it encourage both players to play for the draw with
black?

It might not actually help too much, either. *If the match is going to
be tied, it's likely that most of the games will be drawn. *With only
a few wins, it's quite likely that all the wins will be with the white
pieces, which means that the match will still be tied with the
suggested scoring system.

It also has a rather counter-intuitive property. *Suppose that a match
is played that would have been drawn under standard scoring of half a
point each for a draw. *It follows that the players both won the same
number of games. *But now look at the number of wins each player has
with each colour. *Every win a player gets with a particular colour is
one less draw with that colour. *In particular, winning more games
with black means drawing fewer games with black, which means fewer
points.

Consider the following four-game match, with Alice having white in the
first game.

* Alice + = - = *2.1
* Bob * - = + = *1.9

It seems a bit strange that Bob loses the match, given that he won his
game as black, which is harder than winning with white.

I suppose you could try to fix this by changing the scores for wins,
to compensate for the points `lost' by not getting the draw.

In fact, it's because of this very property that I decided against
giving extra points to Black for a draw in my Dynamic Scoring
proposal. Instead, I give the extra points for a minor victory, and
then gradually taper them off as one gets to checkmate.

John Savard

David Kane wrote:
"David Kane" wrote:
Kasparov's manipulations to keep the title by leaving FIDE are
well known. They may not be historically out of line with
champion's behavior pre-FIDE, but neither it is anything to boast
about. He played just two title defenses in a 10-year period.

I knew Parr was too stupid and lazy to count the months, but I guess
I should have expected somebody to! Based on your research, I will
correct my statement to "He played just two title defenses in a 9.75
year period" (Hasn't anyone ever heard of rounding??)

Oh, please. The FIDE schedule called for matches in 1987, 1990, 1993
and 1996. Look -- there's a nearly nine-year period from just after
the end of the 1987 match to just before the start of the 1996 match!
It would be nearly ten years if the 1987 match had been played in
January and the 1996 match in December.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Slimy Chicken (TM): it's like a farm
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ animal but it's covered in goo!

Rich Hutnik wrote:
Then you have a Titanic type situation, where things are doomed and
nothing will change it? Just keep riding it out in hopes another
Bobby Fischer comes along? Not sure how chess will produce another
Bobby Fischer, unless there is another Cold War. Kasparov is
probably the closest to Fischer, but how large of an impact did he
have on Chess?

I would guess that, outside the USA and/or among people aged under 50,
Kasparov is better known than Fischer among the general public.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Addictive Swiss Dictator (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a totalitarian leader but it's
made in Switzerland and you can never
put it down!

Quadibloc wrote:
Maybe it would be harder to successfully play for draws if even
perpetual check counted as a tiny win; so just possibly my humble
contribution and/or kooky idea could help...

I doubt it. Perpetual check is a way of rescuing a lost position, not
a way of trying to steer a position with equal chances towards a draw.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Aluminium Book (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ romantic novel that's really light!

On Apr 24, 2:39*pm, "J.D. Walker" wrote:

How would the following work out?

White win = +1
Black win = +1.11
White draw = .45
Black Draw = .50

This would seem to encourage wins, and make tied matches less likely.
It also tries to give Black a scoring edge to balance the first move
edge of White. *Maybe the exact scoring edge would need to be fine tuned....

At least the amount for a win is bigger than the amount for a draw;
this is good because normally each player in a match or tournament
spends half his time as White and half his time as Black. Which means
that if you subtract .05 from all the black scores, you get an
'equivalent' scoring scheme as far as motivating the players is
concerned in most cases. (Of course, in a Swiss, some players won't
get alternating colors, and so compensation for that is also an issue
- but a separate one from motivating behavior in the usual case.)

John Savard

On Apr 24, 2:40*pm, help bot wrote:

* Larry Evans and his ratpack have chronic troubles
with such elementary logic.

* Not only that, the whole issue was a red herring,
intended to divert attention away from the unfairness
of Bobby Fischer's "demands". *The argument runs
something like this:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

*1) The demands made by BF may have been unfair,
but they were less unfair than X.

*2) FIDE has given X to somebody "we" don't even
like.

*3) So then, giving in to BF's unfair demands was
the correct action for FIDE; they messed up.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, they're almost right.

If the premises are true, they support the conclusion:

They messed up even worse than they would have done had they done what
*we* wanted.

Of course, you are right that the conclusion that giving in to no
unfair demands is even better follows forcefully from the premises as
well; but perhaps they also claim that RJF's demands _weren't_ unfair,
at least not really.

John Savard

On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 13:39:28 -0700, "J.D. Walker"
wrote:


How would the following work out?

White win = +1
Black win = +1.11
White draw = .45
Black Draw = .50


Looks good. As a side benefit, I'd guess that it would cut back the
number of times tie-breakers would need to be applied.

How do you think this would impact Swiss pairings?