Re: On draws


"Guy Macon" <http://www.guymacon.com/> wrote in message
news:16CdnbiDINkwyvva4p2dnAA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



David Kane wrote:

It wasn't me who invoked the "tic-tac-toe" argument.

My apologies for being unclear. When I asked how to
avoid draws in tic-tac-toe, I was, for the sake of humor,
contrasting tic-tac-toe (which is known to be a draw) with
perfect play with Chess, (which has not been solved.) The
humor lies in imagining a rule change that would somehow
convince one of the tic-tac-toe players to lose on purpose.
You appear to have misunderstood and assumed that I believe
that chess is a draw. If you find yourself coming to the
conclusion that an apparently intelligent person is claiming
something that is obviously false or even stupid, you might
consider asking him whether your interpretation is correct.

Actually, I was attributing some sophistication to you.
Nobody with any experience in chess would deny that
there are elements fundamental to the game of chess
that account for some of its draws. "E" players playing
blitz games draw. Computers draw. Correspondence
players draw. Players playing casual games draw.
Clearly, draws do occur with all manner of external
incentive.

The error is in assuming that the actual GM draw rate is
produced by the game itself. I am essentially arguing
for external incentives that return the GM draw rates
to its natural level, not for a zero draw rate.

So the real issue is that if we can program computers
not to draw (and as far as I know programmers have *not*
done anything special to avoid draws), then why
can't we program human GMs the same way?

Sure we can. Reduce the score for a draw. Make it 0.49 points
and there will be a slight avoidance of draws. Make it 0.00
points and GMs will avoid draws and losses pretty much equally.
Make it -1.0 points and GMs will frantically try to lose in drawn
positions while their opponents do likewise. Make it +2.00 points
and most games will be drawn. We can "program" the GMs pretty
much any way we wish. Heck, give both sides 10 points for any
game that ends on the second move and you will see a bunch of
GM games ending in scholar's mate.

We not only *can* do it, but we *should* do it.

Why? Because that is your personal preference? Why should
your preference for fewer draws be given more weight than
my preference for keeping Chess as it is now? Because you
have invented a word ("Drawnik") that disparages those who
do not share your personal preferences?


Because it is not solely my preference. If I am right, then
more people will play chess. More people who play chess will
follow games of the top players. Being a chess professional
will pay better. Playing chess will get more respect. Regular
chessplayers will have a high-level game worth talking about.

Just like golf, baseball, etc. and just about every other competitive
activity known to man.

Now I grant that some are so attached to draws that even if
it were obvious that we could realize a ten-fold increase in
interest, they would oppose it. Others have even expressed
that they *like* chess as a small, oddball activity.



Humans play sometimes to find the best move and sometimes
to find a drawing move (because that's what pays in the
meta-game of surviving in the chess world). The humans are
playing optimally given their incentives. But it's not
chess, or at least an inferior form of chess, corrupted
by poorly chosen external incentives given to the players.

That's an interesting opinion, but my opinion (and the opinion
of several others here) is that the game of Chess is just fine
as it is, that there is nothing "inferior" or "corrupted" about
the present meta-strategy, and that the external incentives
given to the players are well-chosen. The above is purely a
matter of opinion, and my opinion has as much weight as yours.


Sure. But the disconnect between the large numbers of
amateurs who enjoy chess, and their lack of interest in top
players still needs explaining. Those who share your opinions
that the existing chess world is Utopian aren't bringing much
money into the game, are they? Perhaps you should open
yourself to other opinions.

No "drawnik" here has argued that agreeing to a draw after
8 moves is desirable.

Actually, the attachment to draws is so strong that several
*have* argued that in this newsgroup, but admittedly not
in this thread.

That's interesting. I would like to see what arguments they
posted. Could it be that they were actually arguing that
an occasional 8-move draw is preferable to making huge changes
to Chess with no way of knowing the effect of those changes?

Spin it however you like. I am not going to waste time on
quibbling over "desirable" vs. "preferable".

I would really like to see a direct quote or Message-ID where
such an argument was made rather than rely on your
characterization of what was argued. I haven't found your
characterizations of what I have have argued to be particularly
accurate. I never implied that that chess is a draw, for example.

What they *did* argue is that a well played game ending
in a draw is no less desirable than a well played game
ending in a victory.

First, this is simply false.

That is a matter of opinion, not fact.


Well played games ending in draws are nowhere near as popular,
memorable etc. as well-played games ending in victory.

If your goal is popular and memorable games, simply replace
the FIDE rules with NFL rules. Football games are far more
popular and memorable than chess games. "popular and memorable"
isn't my preference if attaining it means changing Chess.

I'd say even some poorly played games ending in victory
are among chess' most famous games.

If your goal is famous games, simply replace chess sets
with firearms. The shootout at the OK corral and the
Kennedy assassination are far more famous than any chess
game. "famous" isn't a goal that I seek, especially if
attaining it means changing Chess.

You need to read your own information on
straw arguments. How is it not relevant that
chessplayers enjoy famous decisive games, even
if not so perfectly played? Not expecting an
answer, but spare me the ludicrous "chess will
never be as popular as sex, food and football"
diversions.





Yet the drawniks pretend that the incentives that create the
above 8-mover are (magically?) somehow not present in *other*
games.

Please document the above claim with a direct quote or
Message-ID where such an argument was made.


It is implied in every argument. 8-movers are portrayed
as an aberration, rather than a rational outcome of
a set of perverse incentives, incentives which corrupt the
game in general, but no one is willing to talk about.

I think that the Game of chess is just fine the way it is.
Many others agree with me. There are a number of people who,
like you, wish to change the game to correct some perceived
flaw, but each of you tweakers wish to tweak it in a different
way, and none of your proposed tweaks has gained wide acceptance.
Why do you think that is?


There are many explanations.
1. Human nature's reluctance to change.
2. Self-selection. The minority capable of
rationalizing that drawfests are great
entertainment stay in chess, others gravitate
to other activities more in keeping with
conventional values.
3. Politics. Those who are currently big in
the chess world wouldn't be if chess were
more mainstream. It is to their personal
advantage to keep chess less appealing.
4. Difficulty in testing alternatives. The chess
market at the GM level is so weak that
there is little opportunity to experiment
with anything untried.
5. Stupidity. Discussions of risk-reward,
meta-strategy are simply beyond the capacity
of many.
etc.

Almost all sports change and evolve. Let me
give you an example. Figure skating used to consist
of two elements: a compulsory portion (the figures) and
a free skate. But that changed. Why? Because
eventually the skating community came to some
conclusions. First, that the compulsory figures
weren't really what defined the best skater. Second,
that it was not interesting to watch a free skate
final that didn't have much meaning because
the event was significantly determined by the
compulsories.

Over time, the sport changed its scoring method
by decreasing, and eventually eliminating, the compulsories.
And the change in the sport was substantial. There was
a gigantic increase in the athleticism of the skaters, and
bigger TV audience, which brought in revenues and
increased prizes. Now I'm sure that skating had
its traditionalists who resisted any change, and probably
suffered through some of the illogical "skating will
never be football" idiocy. But eventually the nonsense
was stripped away and the basic question "What
will make this sport better?" was asked and answered.
That is my hope for chess.



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Who is Edward Winter?
    ... You are confusing the number of possible games ... for the misuse of statistics and math in chess. ... Another English error on my part. ... commentary regarding agreeing to a draw. ...
    (rec.games.chess.misc)
  • Re: On draws
    ... perfect play with Chess, The ... that chess is a draw. ... GM games ending in scholar's mate. ... That's an interesting opinion, but my opinion (and the opinion ...
    (rec.games.chess.misc)
  • Re: Reformed Chess
    ... amount of time and energy been invested in Chinese Chess or Shogi, ... You wrote "more games would have been produced". ... In my games there are only a few where the game ended after a few moves in a friendly draw, and I have the impression that this is the case for most other players as well. ... investigating variants. ...
    (rec.games.chess.misc)
  • Re: Two articles pondering the issues with Chess: Stale openings, declining prize pool, and issues w
    ... In this, the current state of chess openings is discussed, and the ... This discusses the draw issues with chess on the highest level. ... and they fail to subdue the high draw rate. ... the top 8 playing double round robin, so each player plays 14 games. ...
    (rec.games.chess.misc)
  • Re: Draws at Linares 2007
    ... position is no more interesting than an agreed draw in that same ... Americans are no more capable of naming chess players beyond ... am constantly amazed at the interest in the game that I see ... computers to play drawishly if we wanted to. ...
    (rec.games.chess.misc)
Loading