|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 43 OF 48 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Oct-11-11 | | nathanschulz: <I guess I should be less subtle. The 3-1-0 system is absolutely retarded.>
+1 |
 |
| Oct-11-11 | | nathanschulz: or is it +3? |
|
Oct-11-11
 | | tpstar: <Some of the angry reactions to the +3 system have an almost moralizing tone to them, as if the traditional system is something handed down to us from the gods> A long-running discussion on this site is whether professional chess has a short draw problem or not. People who don't see any problem with short draws (not just draws) find it insulting to invoke Sofia Rules making GMs play out only to reach a specific number of moves, or else penalizing the two players regarding their right to agreed draws throughout the game. People who see the short draw problem notice fewer elite tournaments and declining sponsorship overall, which is directly related to the short draw problem. I believe this particular group of six players wouldn't need the 3-1-0 system to play fighting chess, whereas other groups of six would require real incentives to actually fight instead of agreeing to short draws. |
|
| Oct-11-11 | | Magnusch: < TheVillageIdiot: "..I think your point system stinks." > You can't be serious! Hmm.. I suspect you're some kind of idiot, aren't you? < ;) > |
|
| Oct-11-11 | | diceman: <Magnusch: < TheVillageIdiot>
You can't be serious!
Hmm.. I suspect you're some kind of idiot, aren't you?> It takes a village. |
|
| Oct-11-11 | | goodevans: Perhaps the way to address the short draws issue is through the rating system rather than through individual tournament scoring systems. |
|
Oct-11-11
 | | HeMateMe: In the final round, Ivanchuk is playing something called "The Rio Gambit Accepted". A touch of irony? |
|
Oct-11-11
 | | YouRang: The real problem that the 3-1-0 scoring system seeks to solve are draws that appear to be unfought and lazy. The problem is that it penalizes *all* draws, whether unfought or hard fought. IMO, the best proposed solution to the real problem is the Sofia rule, where we simply disallow the players from agreeing to a draw if the draw appears to be unfought (in the opinion of the arbiter). To my knowledge, the Sofia rule has been used many times, effectively stopping unfought draws with no great negative consequences. If some tournament (like Bilbao) wants to use 3-1-0 as their 'gimmick', fine, but chess should leave the standard scoring system alone. |
|
Oct-11-11
| | tpstar: It may seem like a fine point but the purpose of 3-1-0 is to reward wins and not penalize draws, although there is a legitimate psychological overtone. If two short draw specialists like [You-Know-Who] and [You-Know-Who] decide to play a short draw, the other participants will be happy because they can really overtake both of them by scoring 3 points for a win. Serves them right for playing a short draw. I don't see anything wrong with trying out novel scoring systems, and if the players complain, they may vote with their feet. |
|
| Oct-11-11 | | The Rocket: <"Naka will not win with MC, this simply won't happen"> I agree he must win against him. |
|
| Oct-11-11 | | Dionysius1: Hi all Any one else having problems accessing the video cam at http://ams01.egihosting.com/11831 ? |
|
Oct-11-11
 | | Maatalkko: In the discussion of 3-1-0 scoring, we should keep in mind that 1-0.5-0 scoring is still used for rating purposes. 3-1-0 is an unofficial system chosen by the organizers to award prizes. We are not seeing kamikaze play in 3-1-0 events because ratings are too important. Ratings will still show the objective strength of a player regardless of his drawing percentage. However, 3 point scoring suits the sponsors by creating a more exciting tournament. Vallejo-Pons should get paid more than Anand because his eight decisive games generated more excitement than Anand's anemic six draw performance. I think the dual system works pretty well. |
|
| Oct-11-11 | | cuppajoe: <Perhaps the way to address the short draws issue is through the rating system rather than through individual tournament scoring systems.> How would that work? |
|
| Oct-11-11 | | rapidcitychess: <cuppajoe>
Most likely counting a draw under 20 moves as a loss. But that sounds rather crazy. |
|
| Oct-11-11 | | mcvishy: Anand should pull it off from here :)with Ne7+ . Following it off with Rd5 |
|
| Oct-11-11 | | Akavall: <Perhaps the way to address the short draws issue is through the rating system rather than through individual tournament scoring systems.> The ratings are meant to reflect strength, so punishing short draws makes no sense at all. Doing so would render ratings useless. |
|
| Oct-11-11 | | panzerkampf: In a normal chess pointing system, Carlsen would be the champion, with football system, it is a tie. Who will be the leader, any tie break rules? |
|
| Oct-11-11 | | chessmoron: So who won the tournament? |
|
Oct-11-11
 | | Kinghunt: Carlsen and Ivanchuk will now have a two game blitz playoff to determine the winner, to be followed by a single armageddon game is that is indecisive. |
|
| Oct-11-11 | | TheVillageIdiot: <You can't be serious! Hmm.. I suspect you're some kind of idiot, aren't you?> Ok, I maybe an Idiot but I'm no fool. Give me one good argument why your point system could work and is fair. I gave you my arguments now give me yours chump. |
|
| Oct-11-11 | | Akavall: <Maatalkko: In the discussion of 3-1-0 scoring, we should keep in mind that 1-0.5-0 scoring is still used for rating purposes. 3-1-0 is an unofficial system chosen by the organizers to award prizes. We are not seeing kamikaze play in 3-1-0 events because ratings are too important. Ratings will still show the objective strength of a player regardless of his drawing percentage. However, 3 point scoring suits the sponsors by creating a more exciting tournament. Vallejo-Pons should get paid more than Anand because his eight decisive games generated more excitement than Anand's anemic six draw performance. I think the dual system works pretty well.> So we should have two prizes. One for strongest play; it would go to Carlsen. One for most entertaining play; it would go to Ivanchuk. This would be much better than seeing this tie-break. |
|
| Oct-11-11 | | karban: When the tie break starts? Will they wait for Anand-Vallejo game? |
|
Oct-11-11
 | | Marmot PFL: Of course they will wait for the last game to finish, but probably not long after that, |
|
Oct-11-11
| | Marmot PFL: 5 or 10 minutes after the last game ends |
|
| Oct-11-11 | | cuppajoe: For those who are interested, I compared the games between Anand, Aronian, Carlsen and Nakamura in Bilbao with their games in the Tata Steel tournament earlier this year. Tata Steel used traditional scoring. While the proportion of drawn games was exactly the same in the two tournaments (5/6 in Wijk aan Zee vs. 10/12 in Bilbao), the average draw was more than 10 moves longer in Bilbao. The difference might be due to the football scoring system in Bilbao (the players are more willing to draw out the game in search of three points) but it might also be because of some other factor (Tata Steel was a longer tournament, maybe they were tired). I won't comment on the other merits and demerits of football scoring. |
|
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 43 OF 48 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
