Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old November 15th 05, 08:06 PM
David Kane
 
Posts: n/a
Default BAP

The Bainbridge Slugfest was announced with
the following:

Ballard Anti-Draw Point system (BAP):
3 points for Black win,
2 pts for White win,
1 pt for Black draw,
0 pts for White draw.

An excerpt from Mr. Ballard's Explanation
of the system:
"The usual flurry of last round draws in
almost all tournaments makes chess
unmarketable on TV. No excitement,
no drama, no TV money for chess.
Chess will NEVER succeed in the
American TV market until we eliminate
the draw as anything other than a very
rare outcome. With my anti-draw point
system, I am hoping to make 100% of
games fighting games with risk and
uncertainty, i.e. dramatic potential."

I applaud the effort. His grasp of the
problem appears spot-on.


  #2   Report Post  
Old November 15th 05, 08:30 PM
Mike Nolan
 
Posts: n/a
Default BAP

"David Kane" writes:

The Bainbridge Slugfest was announced with
the following:


Ballard Anti-Draw Point system (BAP):
3 points for Black win,
2 pts for White win,
1 pt for Black draw,
0 pts for White draw.


So a white draw is the equivalent of a loss with either white or black?
It seems to that discourages risky play on the part of white, which seems
inconsistent with the label of a 'slugfest'.
--
Mike Nolan

  #3   Report Post  
Old November 15th 05, 09:22 PM
David Kane
 
Posts: n/a
Default BAP

I don't understand your point. If cautious
play might lead to a draw for White,
he shouldn't play cautiously because
he'd win zero points.

For either White or Black, a win is worth
2 more than a draw. Hence the disincentive
to draw. It also seems to make Black the
preferred color. The announcement
mentioned that all would have equal White
and Black.


"Mike Nolan" wrote in message
...
"David Kane" writes:

The Bainbridge Slugfest was announced with
the following:


Ballard Anti-Draw Point system (BAP):
3 points for Black win,
2 pts for White win,
1 pt for Black draw,
0 pts for White draw.


So a white draw is the equivalent of a loss with either white or

black?
It seems to that discourages risky play on the part of white, which

seems
inconsistent with the label of a 'slugfest'.
--
Mike Nolan



  #4   Report Post  
Old November 16th 05, 01:05 AM
Mike Nolan
 
Posts: n/a
Default BAP

"David Kane" writes:

I don't understand your point. If cautious
play might lead to a draw for White,
he shouldn't play cautiously because
he'd win zero points.


For either White or Black, a win is worth
2 more than a draw. Hence the disincentive
to draw. It also seems to make Black the
preferred color. The announcement
mentioned that all would have equal White
and Black.


Suppose that I, a lowly C player, have white against an expert.
By this scoring system I get the SAME CREDIT if I manage to draw
the game as if I lose it.

That doesn't seem reasonable to me.

If you want to say that a win with black is worth more than one
with white, I can live with that, I've noodled that one around
more than once myself.

But a draw should always be worth more than a loss, regardless of
whether I have white or black.
--
Mike Nolan
  #5   Report Post  
Old November 16th 05, 02:20 AM
David Kane
 
Posts: n/a
Default BAP


"Mike Nolan" wrote in message
...
"David Kane" writes:

I don't understand your point. If cautious
play might lead to a draw for White,
he shouldn't play cautiously because
he'd win zero points.


For either White or Black, a win is worth
2 more than a draw. Hence the disincentive
to draw. It also seems to make Black the
preferred color. The announcement
mentioned that all would have equal White
and Black.


Suppose that I, a lowly C player, have white against an expert.
By this scoring system I get the SAME CREDIT if I manage to draw
the game as if I lose it.

That doesn't seem reasonable to me.


I think the idea is to create a generation of
chessplayers for whom the point-splitting
mentality will seem equally unreasonable!

If you want to say that a win with black is worth more than one
with white, I can live with that, I've noodled that one around
more than once myself.

But a draw should always be worth more than a loss, regardless of
whether I have white or black.


What you are describing is the
current reality. This reality
has made the notion of
"high-level competitive chess"
little more than a joke. There are
just too many times when players,
responding rationally to the tournament
conditions, opt to not play.
I don't know if the BAP system
is perfect, but it at least addresses
the problem..





  #6   Report Post  
Old November 17th 05, 03:43 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
FiFiela
 
Posts: n/a
Default BAP

This system only makes some sense at the very top were players are
almost equally skilled and color allocation is criticial to winning
chances.

For the rest of us (or even Mr. Ballard), how about 3 points for a win,
1 point for a draw and zero points for a loss. Either color. A win
and a loss = 3 points; two draws = 2 points.

Or perhaps, 5 points for the win and 1 point for a draw. Either color.
A win and a loss = 5 pts; Two draws = 2 points. Players who take
chances for wins, pull away from the pack.

Our current system is like a basketball game win two points for a made
shot and one point for both teams for a missed shot.

  #7   Report Post  
Old November 17th 05, 03:52 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
Randy Bauer
 
Posts: n/a
Default BAP


"FiFiela" wrote in message
ps.com...
This system only makes some sense at the very top were players are
almost equally skilled and color allocation is criticial to winning
chances.

For the rest of us (or even Mr. Ballard), how about 3 points for a win,
1 point for a draw and zero points for a loss. Either color. A win
and a loss = 3 points; two draws = 2 points.

Or perhaps, 5 points for the win and 1 point for a draw. Either color.
A win and a loss = 5 pts; Two draws = 2 points. Players who take
chances for wins, pull away from the pack.

Our current system is like a basketball game win two points for a made
shot and one point for both teams for a missed shot.


Except why is a draw the same as a missed shot? Many very strong players
have suggested that a draw is the "correct" result in chess. I've had many
a draw that I found more satisfying than run of the mill victories. What
happens when the white player overreaches trying to win and fights back for
a draw? Is that effort not to be rewarded?

Ties exist in lots of sports and sporting events. If you wish to break the
ties, fine, but why mess with the scoring system to do so? I know of no
other sport or game that adopts such a convoluted method of scoring to
"combat" the issue of ties. Soccer has its shootouts, hockey has its
penalty shots, football its sudden death (although in the pros a tie is
still possible), baseball its extra innings. Don't these all strike you as
superior to this crazy scoring method?

Randy Bauer


  #8   Report Post  
Old November 17th 05, 05:38 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
DK
 
Posts: n/a
Default BAP

My guess is that a 33% hit for draws (2 points instead of 3) will change
anyone's behavior.

"FiFiela" wrote in message
ps.com...
This system only makes some sense at the very top were players are
almost equally skilled and color allocation is criticial to winning
chances.

For the rest of us (or even Mr. Ballard), how about 3 points for a win,
1 point for a draw and zero points for a loss. Either color. A win
and a loss = 3 points; two draws = 2 points.

Or perhaps, 5 points for the win and 1 point for a draw. Either color.
A win and a loss = 5 pts; Two draws = 2 points. Players who take
chances for wins, pull away from the pack.

Our current system is like a basketball game win two points for a made
shot and one point for both teams for a missed shot.



  #9   Report Post  
Old November 17th 05, 05:49 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
DK
 
Posts: n/a
Default BAP


"Randy Bauer" wrote in message
news[email protected]_s72...

"FiFiela" wrote in message
ps.com...
This system only makes some sense at the very top were players are
almost equally skilled and color allocation is criticial to winning
chances.

For the rest of us (or even Mr. Ballard), how about 3 points for a win,
1 point for a draw and zero points for a loss. Either color. A win
and a loss = 3 points; two draws = 2 points.

Or perhaps, 5 points for the win and 1 point for a draw. Either color.
A win and a loss = 5 pts; Two draws = 2 points. Players who take
chances for wins, pull away from the pack.

Our current system is like a basketball game win two points for a made
shot and one point for both teams for a missed shot.


Except why is a draw the same as a missed shot? Many very strong players
have suggested that a draw is the "correct" result in chess. I've had

many
a draw that I found more satisfying than run of the mill victories. What
happens when the white player overreaches trying to win and fights back

for
a draw? Is that effort not to be rewarded?

Ties exist in lots of sports and sporting events. If you wish to break

the
ties, fine, but why mess with the scoring system to do so? I know of no
other sport or game that adopts such a convoluted method of scoring to
"combat" the issue of ties. Soccer has its shootouts, hockey has its
penalty shots, football its sudden death (although in the pros a tie is
still possible), baseball its extra innings. Don't these all strike you

as
superior to this crazy scoring method?

I can't think of any sports that has any following
which has draws like chess. In none of the sports
you mention above do two teams ever decide
to not show up and call it a draw, even if a draw
is a possible result of a game.

I do agree that breaking ties is more satisfactory than
trying to eliminate them through incentives, especially
given your argument that they may be the "correct"
result. However, from an organizing point of view
that would be more difficult to accomplish and so
I think the BAP experiment is to be applauded.


  #10   Report Post  
Old November 17th 05, 06:04 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
DK
 
Posts: n/a
Default BAP


"DK" wrote in message
. ..
My guess is that a 33% hit for draws (2 points instead of 3) will change
anyone's behavior.


I meant "will *not* change anyone's behavior".
Soccer leagues often use this scoring method even
though the phenomenon of playing for a tie
is nowhere near as prevalent as it is in chess.

The 5 vs. 2 point idea is closer to
the BAP proposal, but I speculate that
the White/Black symmetry will make
it less of a deterrent to draws. The
1 point reward for not playing would
still be there and I feel that today's crop
of players would still use it to avoid
each other.


"FiFiela" wrote in message
ps.com...
This system only makes some sense at the very top were players are
almost equally skilled and color allocation is criticial to winning
chances.

For the rest of us (or even Mr. Ballard), how about 3 points for a win,
1 point for a draw and zero points for a loss. Either color. A win
and a loss = 3 points; two draws = 2 points.

Or perhaps, 5 points for the win and 1 point for a draw. Either color.
A win and a loss = 5 pts; Two draws = 2 points. Players who take
chances for wins, pull away from the pack.

Our current system is like a basketball game win two points for a made
shot and one point for both teams for a missed shot.





Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:44 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Chess"

 

Copyright © 2017