< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
|Feb-22-03|| ||BLD9802: I do not know if this is true or not, but I read somewhere that in the 19th Century, draws did not count toward one's overall score in a tournament. |
|Feb-22-03|| ||drukenknight: what difference would it make? It would not change the final ranking of players in a tournament if you count a draw as 0 or 1/2. |
In some old tournaments they would do this: Players played each other twice but if there was a draw they would replay the game with colors reversed. If you had white now you had black etc. if you drew again then both players did not get a score for that game.
So maybe you are referring to that.
If you do it that way, then yes it does make a difference, a drawing master like Petrosian or Schlechter or Capa.a might not do as well as an attacker
|Feb-23-03|| ||Giuoco Piano Man: Is any site following these games live? And does anyone know the schedule of play? As for this draw- sometimes a first round draw is just the two players "feeling each other out" as it were. They both have much at stake- Kramnik is defending his title- and Garry is no doubt thinking about his reputation- In my opinion Kasparov is the greatest player ever and yet the last time he played he was booed by the audience of chess fans live on a T.V broadcast seen around the world. He has to be thinking about that! Speaking as one of his real fans- I just pray to God that he quickly returns to his old form. |
|Feb-23-03|| ||Spitecheck: Actually it would change the standings, the player (A) who drew every game would have the same score as the player(B) who lost all his games bar the one he drew originally with (A)....Sound to complicated? Okay draw offered...? |
|Feb-23-03|| ||Plasmatics: Yawn-city.
They should be forced to play a certain number of moves before allowing a draw by agreement. Maybe 30.
|Feb-23-03|| ||ksadler: It wouldn't surprise me if every game between each of Ponomariov, Kasparov, Kramnik and Leko would be drawn in this tournament. Since for sure they will be in matches against each other, why show your hand? It's of course Kasparov and Kramnik will not both win their matches and not have to play each other, but if they do, why not save your innovations for then? |
|Feb-23-03|| ||Spitecheck: Further to KSadler's comments, to me this tournament represents an opportunity for the aforementioned players to use openings other than that which they will use in the matches. |
If one is to impose their will on the contest, including the contest that will happen after both matches, now would be a perfect time to start (IMO).
Kasparov with Ponomariov especially, Ponomariov's form has been down lately, Kasparov can "convince" Ponomariov that he will not be up to the task come match time.
Look at Spassky versus Fischer, Fischer had Spassky defeated before it came to a fight over the board.
This would be the more exciting route, IE watching the players trying to butcher one another, rather than craftily parrying all counterplay for yourself and your opponent.
Kramnik's draw offer however showed that's he is not in any real mood to "prove" his superiority.
|Feb-24-03|| ||drukenknight: If there are too many draws, simply decrease the time control. do we really need see a 5 hour game of chess?|
Play game in 20 or game in 30. I know do a round robin for the first couple of rounds game in 10, then the semi finals play game in 15, the final games in 20. Or whatever. You could play an entire tournament in one day.
|Feb-24-03|| ||Spitecheck: Here's an idea if a player offers a draw, his opponent has the option not only to refuse but (if he wishes) switch sides also!! Might get rid of some of the short draws :). |
|Feb-24-03|| ||ongyj: I think the idea of switching sides is very innovative! But cutting time control is out of the question. In the past, many heroic games are produced in the classical time controls(1st 40 moves within 2 hours, next 20 with 1 hour and ...). Today, with the GMs already mugging openings from computers, cutting the time simply makes the battle of wits meaningless ie. it further decreases the quality and playability of this royal game... |
|Mar-20-03|| ||ksadler: I haven't seen this posted here, but GM Ashley feels the same way about draws and makes the same number of points that we all do (in this forum as well as in Kibitzers cafe). Here is the link for those interested: http://www.chesscenter.com/twic/ash... |
|Mar-20-03|| ||uneek: Good artical! And a very nice site! I am surprised that I never heard of this site before this. I think I like it here! |
|Jun-30-03|| ||sangfroid: I beleive that Kramnik was playing for the draw with his knight luring the h pawn maneuver. I personally belive that Kasparov has a nice defense going for him, and has the better side towards a nice end game with his well placed peices. Anyways, after the Bxh6 sacrafice, it is drawn with perpetual check. Kasparov could prevent that with Kh7, which only exposes his king to possible check, and I believe weakens his position, and he would rather accept a draw then weaken his position a bit to play for a win. Well, thats my belief. |
|Oct-13-03|| ||rndapology: Doesn't the black bishop and queen control the g5 square? Where's the perpetual? |
|Dec-02-03|| ||Bears092: <ksadler>
I disagree with just about everything Mr. Ashley writes there. He puts the entertainment value of a large, but most uncaring, audience over the tournament strategy of chess players who do this to make a living.
If you are a player who is still learning, there is no reason to avoid a good battle. If your livelyhood depends on your performance, sometimes it would be better to take the half point when offered.
|Dec-02-03|| ||ughaibu: Chess players are paid to produce good entertaining chess. If they dont realise that they are liable to extinction. |
|Dec-02-03|| ||Bears092: No, they are not.
They are paid to come and compete and see who's the best. Tournament strategy is part of that competition.
|Dec-02-03|| ||ughaibu: Why do we play? Why do we look at their games? It's for entertainment. How many people want to read bare tables of tournament results? Appearance fees tend to exceed prize money, so.... |
|Dec-02-03|| ||Reisswolf: Here's another suggestion to discourage grandmaster draws: award 3 points for a win and 1 point for a draw. This way, a win will be worth more than two draws, and this will convince players that it is more profitable to pursue a win rather than draw twice. (They use pretty much the same sysetm in soccer.)|
I do think that the spectators have a "right" to a good, fighting game of chess.
|Dec-02-03|| ||refutor: <3 points for a win, 1 for a draw> i was curious so i applied this to Hotel Bali Stars (2003)|
"Old" is 1/2 point for draw, "new" is 1 point for a draw, 3 for a win
Name, Old, New
Topalov 7, 18
Anand 6.5, 16
Radjabov 6.5, 17
Pons 6, 15
Karjakin 5, 14
Hillarp Person 4.5, 12
Mamedyarov 4.5, 13
Azmaiparashvili 4.5, 12
Graf 4, 10
Polgar 4, 10
Romero Holmes 2.5, 6
it had a negligible difference in the standings (changed tiebreaker between hillarp person, mamedyarov, azmaiparashvili and radjabov and anand)
|Dec-02-03|| ||technical draw: <refutor> Simply changing the mathematics at the end of a standard scoring tournament is inconclusive since the dynamics of playing would be different under a different scoring system. But I liked your idea anyway. |
|Dec-03-03|| ||ughaibu: In the UK there used to be a talent show in which the worth of a contestant's act was judged by audience response using a "clapometer", that would be a fun way to divide up the prize fund. I think the loser's play is very important but in order to avoid rehearsed games one would need weighting for the winner, say 60-40. |
|Dec-03-03|| ||ruylopez900: Kramnik was obviously playing for the draw, his response to Kasparov accepting the Gambit was not to claim the center as his own, but to fortify his one pawn that has been advanced. |
|Dec-15-03|| ||d4Nf6Bg5: 18 move draw? Thats messed up. I guess that Kramink wasn't feeling good or something (Why would he want to draw with white?). If I was kasparov, I would have kept going. |
|Dec-15-03|| ||Benjamin Lau: Ruylopez900, Kramnik wouldn't have been able to claim the center as his own anyway. If he had played 3. e4 or 4. e4 (I'm assuming this is what you are referring to), then Kasparov would have been able to put a lot of pressure on the center, eventually causing Kramnik to push e5, possibly overextending his pawns. In either case, while I don't argue that Kramnik might have been playing for the draw, you cannot claim that he was playing for the draw simply because of his timid setup Nf3, e3, etc. That's how he plays all the time. It's his style. |
As it stands, a draw looks correct. Black has the better piece placement and pawn structure in my opinion, but white has much more space to maneuver with.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·