Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old October 27th 07, 01:13 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 3,026
Default Guy Macon's suggested changes to USCF/FIDE rules

THE TIES THAT BIND

But if you set up a system where the champion holds onto the title
with a draw, then you will end up having the
champion get the equivalent for draw odds throughout the entire
tournament. -- Rich

In boxing, a champion keeps the title on a tie, but draw odds in chess
is a huge advantage for the simple reason that a draw is the logical
outcome of a good game.
The history of the world chess championship is a case study in how
champions sought to extend their reign by hook or crook.

At Steinitz-Zukertort in 1886, often cited as the first official title
match, the rules were simple and fair: the first side to win 10 games
without counting draws. Steinitz achieved the goal in 20 games and
decreed that in future matches he would retain the crown in case of a
9-9 tie. Now challengers had to win by at least two points (10-8) to
overcome this hurdle, a controversy that reared its ugly head 100
years later.

-- GM Larry Evans in THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS (page 175) now
available for $10 less a 20% discount if ordered online from www.cardozapub.com



Rich Hutnik wrote:
On Oct 27, 1:34 am, help bot wrote:
On Oct 26, 11:53 pm, Rich Hutnik wrote:

To state chess today is some sort of "perfect game" complete with
about 80% draws


Chess has no such problem as this; only among the
very top players -- who obviously do not contest a lot of
their games -- is the draw rate a serious problem in
chess.


Do not the very top players represent the best of the best when it
comes to chess? If 80% is the norm for the best of the best at chess,
then should not something be done about it?

If you have a beef with top players not contesting
their games "on the level", then why not address that
HEAD ON? Why sneak around poking and prodding
at the rules, tie-breaks or scoring systems?


How do you address it head on unless something is done to change the
way multiple games are scored? Also, my beef is mostly with the
delusional belief that some people have that chess is some perfect
game that came from the Divine and is now and forever meant to be
unchanged, when in fact that is not the history of chess.

Please, don't embarrass yourself by trying to pretend
that *everyone* draws 80% of their games, as the
supposed result of an alleged flaw in the scoring
system. We have no problem with draws among those
players who follow the rules by conducting a real
contest before agreeing to draw.


The point is people play to optimize the best results of what they are
playing. If players aren't supposedly "playing right" then you have
an issue with the way you are structuring tournaments.

I am reminded of someone I know who was trying a new games out. He
sat back and waited and waited at it, not doing much. The game
designer was questioning this person, asking him if he was a coward or
whatnot. It was the case of how the game was structured, where it
rewarded waiting and waiting. If you set up a system that rewards
draws, you will get more draws.

Here's an example
of exactly how this problem works: in the 1970
Olympiad, Boris Spassky allegedly offered a draw in
a level position to his opponent, who turned the then
world champion down. That opponent's name was
Bobby Fischer, and the game did not end in an
uncontested draw, but proceeded from just move 23
to a decisive result, based on a contest of skill. It
made little difference that these were two of the
strongest players alive, or that the position was
level, or that half the pieces had already been
exchanged. That's real chess for you.


Ok, that is real chess. But if you set up a system where the champion
holds onto the title with a draw, then you will end up having the
champion get the equivalent for draw odds throughout the entire
tournament. Sure, you may feel that "That's real chess for you", but
if you don't set up a system to reward real chess being played, you
will get something drawish that has NOTHING to do with a specific game
of chess being played, but actually the meta-elements you added to
chess tournaments for practical reasons. And people will game
whatever system you set up. How can you expect it to be any
different, "good sportsmanship"? Good sportsmanship involves playing
by the rules.

- Rich


  #2   Report Post  
Old October 27th 07, 01:18 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,576
Default Guy Macon's suggested changes to USCF/FIDE rules

On Oct 27, 7:13 am, " wrote:
THE TIES THAT BIND

But if you set up a system where the champion holds onto the title
with a draw, then you will end up having the
champion get the equivalent for draw odds throughout the entire
tournament. -- Rich

In boxing, a champion keeps the title on a tie, but draw odds in chess
is a huge advantage for the simple reason that a draw is the logical
outcome of a good game.
The history of the world chess championship is a case study in how
champions sought to extend their reign by hook or crook.

At Steinitz-Zukertort in 1886, often cited as the first official title
match, the rules were simple and fair: the first side to win 10 games
without counting draws. Steinitz achieved the goal in 20 games and
decreed that in future matches he would retain the crown in case of a
9-9 tie. Now challengers had to win by at least two points (10-8) to
overcome this hurdle, a controversy that reared its ugly head 100
years later.

-- GM Larry Evans in THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS (page 175) now
available for $10 less a 20% discount if ordered online fromwww.cardozapub.com



Rich Hutnik wrote:
On Oct 27, 1:34 am, help bot wrote:
On Oct 26, 11:53 pm, Rich Hutnik wrote:


To state chess today is some sort of "perfect game" complete with
about 80% draws


Chess has no such problem as this; only among the
very top players -- who obviously do not contest a lot of
their games -- is the draw rate a serious problem in
chess.


Do not the very top players represent the best of the best when it
comes to chess? If 80% is the norm for the best of the best at chess,
then should not something be done about it?


If you have a beef with top players not contesting
their games "on the level", then why not address that
HEAD ON? Why sneak around poking and prodding
at the rules, tie-breaks or scoring systems?


How do you address it head on unless something is done to change the
way multiple games are scored? Also, my beef is mostly with the
delusional belief that some people have that chess is some perfect
game that came from the Divine and is now and forever meant to be
unchanged, when in fact that is not the history of chess.


Please, don't embarrass yourself by trying to pretend
that *everyone* draws 80% of their games, as the
supposed result of an alleged flaw in the scoring
system. We have no problem with draws among those
players who follow the rules by conducting a real
contest before agreeing to draw.


The point is people play to optimize the best results of what they are
playing. If players aren't supposedly "playing right" then you have
an issue with the way you are structuring tournaments.


I am reminded of someone I know who was trying a new games out. He
sat back and waited and waited at it, not doing much. The game
designer was questioning this person, asking him if he was a coward or
whatnot. It was the case of how the game was structured, where it
rewarded waiting and waiting. If you set up a system that rewards
draws, you will get more draws.


Here's an example
of exactly how this problem works: in the 1970
Olympiad, Boris Spassky allegedly offered a draw in
a level position to his opponent, who turned the then
world champion down. That opponent's name was
Bobby Fischer, and the game did not end in an
uncontested draw, but proceeded from just move 23
to a decisive result, based on a contest of skill. It
made little difference that these were two of the
strongest players alive, or that the position was
level, or that half the pieces had already been
exchanged. That's real chess for you.


Ok, that is real chess. But if you set up a system where the champion
holds onto the title with a draw, then you will end up having the
champion get the equivalent for draw odds throughout the entire
tournament. Sure, you may feel that "That's real chess for you", but
if you don't set up a system to reward real chess being played, you
will get something drawish that has NOTHING to do with a specific game
of chess being played, but actually the meta-elements you added to
chess tournaments for practical reasons. And people will game
whatever system you set up. How can you expect it to be any
different, "good sportsmanship"? Good sportsmanship involves playing
by the rules.


- Rich- Hide quoted text -


- Show quoted text -


When do I get my copy of the book?

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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Guy Macon's suggested changes to USCF/FIDE rules Guy Macon rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 66 October 28th 07 06:30 PM
Counting knight moves foot rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 42 October 13th 07 01:12 PM
How to use the rules of the Socratic Method in our search for truth [email protected] rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 0 March 7th 06 09:20 PM
Book sales, Schiller, and USCF Taylor Kingston rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 305 October 21st 05 10:51 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:09 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Chess"

 

Copyright © 2017