Re: Draws at Linares 2007

On 3 Apr, 21:31, "David Kane" <davidek...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Dr A. N. Walker" <a...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in messagenews:euu1uo$qmt$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx





In article <1tCdnbKL9euV-4zbnZ2dnUVZ_qKqn...@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
David Kane <davidek...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[...] A win secured by an "unforced" blunder from a level
position is no more interesting than an agreed draw in that same
position; a draw secured by dogged defence that just succeeds is
no less interesting than a loss after dogged defence that just
fails.
Yet when people vote for "best" games, they
overwhelmingly vote for decisive ones.

That's a different matter. Firstly, if you're inviting
"votes", then these are likely to go to manifest "brilliancy"
or "drama" rather than the actual quality of the play. Secondly,
"best game" implies that its perpetrator played well; but a
*drawing* brilliancy implies that its perpetrator had played
sufficiently badly to be in a position where the rescue was
necessary.

Why is it a different matter? It's an exact expression
of the kind of chess people like.

What relevance does people's liking it bear?

If the well-crafted draws
were as appealing as you think it is,

Where does Dr. Walker describe such draws as "appealing"?

they'd be getting votes.


Draws *do* get votes. Read an Informator.





Almost
every other popular activity has well-known stars
whose appeal extends well beyond that of expert
practitioners of the sport.

Oh; lots of factors here too. This is something that
varies widely across the world, for a start. I guess that most
Americans are no more capable of naming chess players beyond
Fischer and Kasparov than most western Europeans. It's different
in eastern Europe; and it was [may well still be] different in
the Netherlands; and different again in Asia [especially in the
intellectual strata of their societies].
Further, chess is not the only popular activity with
relatively little big-name appeal. The most popular activity in
the UK is said to be fishing; I couldn't name a single "star".
Nottingham is a major centre within the UK for water sports and
for ice sports; I could name some of the yachting/rowing stars,
but none of the "white water" or similar, I don't know the name
of a single ice-hockey player more recent than Chick Zamick, nor
of an ice dancer since Torvill and Dean -- and I'm sure that's
not unusual. Dozens of sports are played competitively at least
as much as chess but with no public recognition until the Olympics
roll around and suddenly we get our dose of archery or gymnastics
or skateboarding. Sumo was very popular a few years back in the
UK when it appeared on TV; then it disappeared and "no-one" here
knows the names any more.

Not just physical activities either -- Scrabble, backgammon,
Othello, cruciverbalism, sudoku, philately, ... are all popular with
no "personalities" known to the UK public. Poker is different --
because, of course, it appears on TV here. Simple as that. We
wouldn't know any chefs, gardeners, DIY experts, antiques experts
or property developers either, were it not for popular TV series.
Spot the common theme.

I'm not quite sure I get your point. I guess I'm saying that
chess has a low (marketable product)/participant ratio.

True. It was ever thus. Always shall be.

As you seem to be aware, other activities which don't
seem any more inherently interesting than chess seem to find
a market. But chess refuses to.


No. You're identifying the wrong problem again. It's the case not that
chess "refuses" to find a market. There is *no* commercial market for
chess, owing to its being so inherently complex. Most folks can't be
bothered to learn enough to appreciate it. Football can be appreciated
without knowing very much at all. Chess is altogether different. It's
not a spectator sport. It's not a sport at all, in fact.







[...]
often, the "drama" is "in the notes", and so hidden from view.
The question is whether you would have behaved
differently had you been faced with a more sensible
set of incentives than the outmoded 1867 rules.

"More sensible"? "Outmoded"? Hmm.

It's
not a question that anyone can truly know the answer
to until it is tried. However, the lack of interest in
chess world played by those rules is fact, and it
seems reasonable to believe that there is a connection.

"Fact." Around here, the number of competitive chess
players is indeed seriously down from the "Fischer boom". OTOH,
it is still around twice the number from the '60s. Over that
same period, FIDE has expanded from a first-world club to include
practically every country in the world. The ranks of GMs and IMs
have expanded from a handful of top names to a list several hundred
long. Junior chess events in the UK can attract thousands of
entrants, and dozens of coaches can earn a living. No interest?
Little publicity, perhaps. I don't get any sense that juniors
are put off by the fact that some games are drawn; much more
that they hit a barrier when the demands of improving at chess
start to compete with the demands of school work and the other
demands of the teenage years. Playing in the comfort of your
own home over the "interweb thinggy" also tends to compete all
too well with going down to the club.

Again my point is that chess is very popular to play. I, too,
am constantly amazed at the interest in the game that I see
at the scholastic level. But from what I can tell, almost
no one pays any attention to high level chess. Perhaps there
is nothing wrong with that, but it seems very unnatural.


Why? As I just explained, *appreciating* high level chess is an
entirely different matter from appreciating a game of football.
Evidently appreciateing high level chess is beyond even you. So what
hope is there of its becoming popular?

Zero.

Zilch.

Nada.

If you're conceding that chess' drama is hidden somewhere
"in the notes", you're making my case for me better
than I ever could.

But that's not going to change merely because draws are
discounted. Several minutes of thought finds its expression in
one physical move. The onlooker has no information about what
you were thinking except that one move. Did you overlook that
clever combination? Or did you see a refutation that escaped
the onlooker? Or did you hallucinate a refutation? Or did
you fail to evaluate the resulting position correctly? We
don't know until after the game. *During* the game, the drama
is in the match/tournament situation, in the sweat on the brow,
in the nervous tics -- and in the expert commentary.

I'd love to hear your expert commentary of the last
round of the Tal Memorial tournament I previously
alluded to. If you can make that interesting, you should
be in the entertainment business.


That's precisely the point. High level chess doesn't *become*
"entertaining" until the *spectator* has learned enough to appreciate
its subtleties. That's a heck of a lot to learn. Most folks won't do
that. That *includes* most scholastic and adult club players.








[...] Should I convert that edge into a pawn up
at the expense of giving you some compensation? Should I
simplify the position or play for complications? Broadly,
such issues are beyond the computer, which just evaluates each
move as best it can into that 1.23 pawns.
First, I'm not sure that there is any fundamental difference
between your decision and the computer's, but that seems
an aside. For that matter, I'm sure we could program
computers to play drawishly if we wanted to.

"Drawishly" is your invention from the above. My point
is [still] that the computer evaluation is one-dimensional. I
don't know of a computer program that understands, for example,
the concept of variance reduction -- the concept that humans
use to close down the opponent's chances for counterplay [when
winning] or to open up our own [when losing] or to "randomise"
when trying, as the stronger player, to win a level position.
[This is different from computers playing anti-human strategies,
though there are some similarities.]

First, I don't understand your claim that computers are
one-dimensional.

I think he may mean that they are basically calculating monsters.

They evaluate many different factors and then
combine them, just like humans. The difference is that
computers will give you a concrete explanation of how
they arrive at a move, whereas we humans give vague
answers. But it doesn't change the underlying nature
of the process.

It kinda does. That's the point. Computers are "just" calculating
monsters. They appear to arrive at what we humans describe as
positional conclusions, but they don't describe it that way, they just
calculate and evaluate. We humans think more abstractly, as you have
described.

I don't see any reason why computers couldn't
be programmed to do other things that humans do, like reduce
counterplay, or play for a draw when the crosstable situation
warrants it.


If they can out-calculate any human, why should they bother?

My reason for bringing up computers' low
draw rate is that it refutes the theory that high draw rates
are inherent result of a high Elo (i.e. the perfectly played
game is a draw and humans play perfectly enough)

We've been over this, TROLL. It doesn't refute it. It may be accounted
in the disparities between systems. Equal systems=more draws. That's
chess.


It
suggests that the human draw rate stems from factors
external to the game [for example, overcounting draws].


It suggests nothing of the sort. You might just as well assert "It
suggests that chalk is actually cheese".



[...]
I'm just saying let's experiment with modifying the
incentives to produce more interesting competitions.

Well, that's fine. But you do your case no good by your
use of language. *I* don't feel that my own draws are not real
contests,

I never claimed that your games weren't real contests. Only
that everybody's games could be more contested if
the external incentives were different.


Read Nimzowitsch's essay. You're arguing out of ignorance.

nor that chess is boring because some games are drawn,

I definitely never claimed that. I've been talking all along
about *excessive* draw rates.


What's "excessive* about the draw rates? Demonstrate *why* those draws
which are *in excess* of what you regard as an acceptable number
*ought not to have been draws*.

Go on.

nor that drawing two games against a GM opponent are less of an
achievement [for me!] than a win and a loss,

Mathematically, it *is* less of an achievement
because GMs don't lose very often.

Chessically drawing is better.

How you feel
about the achievement is, of course, up to you.

nor that limited
Serious Money in chess is proof that something is Wrong,

Proof, possibly not. But it sure has to be evidence of something.
Why deny it?


Chess is too complex. End of story. Why worry about it?

nor
that the current Laws are outmoded.

I believe that the *scoring system* is outmoded. It seems
to have very few virtues beyond 140 years of history.
It's what we'd pick if we knew absolutely nothing
the game of chess. But why not *learn* from the 140
years of history, recognize that it has produced uninteresting
competitions that few care about, and make appropriate
changes?

In what sense would the changes be appropriate? Demonstrate the
appropriateness of any changes by analysing the excessive draws (all
of the excessive draws) and demonstrating that they *ought not to have
been draws*.

Off you go....

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Draw appreciation at Corus 2008
    ... The recently concluded Corus 2008 is one of the chess world's premier events. ... If one assumes an equal number of votes ... as likely to receive votes as draws. ... fans were invited to vote on their favorite play of each game. ...
    (rec.games.chess.misc)
  • Re: Draws at Linares 2007
    ... of the kind of chess people like. ... players is indeed seriously down from the "Fischer boom". ... Well fought draws are often as interesting as the brilliancy win. ... am constantly amazed at the interest in the game that I see ...
    (rec.games.chess.misc)
  • Re: Draws at Linares 2007
    ... chess has a low /participant ratio. ... the percentage of people with some interest in the game is ... giving my opponent doubled pawns or of attacking his castled king; ... Some "+0.5" positions are safe draws ...
    (rec.games.chess.misc)
  • Re: Two articles pondering the issues with Chess: Stale openings, declining prize pool, and issues w
    ... Is 60% draws more or less likely to grow chess? ... masses are too stupid to understand the game. ... If every other sport has tie- ...
    (rec.games.chess.misc)
  • Re: Two articles pondering the issues with Chess: Stale openings, declining prize pool, and issues w
    ... But if the point is Saving Chess before ... lot of draws, might somehow be irrelevant, though. ... Getting players, who are going to try to play to win as best they can, ... one could have an option to win with bare King once again. ...
    (rec.games.chess.misc)