Chess Tournaments: Why does WIN only yield 1 point? - 2006/10/01 18:54In Soccer, a victory gives three points (not 2) and a strictly draw gives 1 miserably point.
This "assymetric" valuation (1 x loss & 1 x hugely win is better than 2 x virtually draw) means:. ---------
Man's best possession is a sympathetic wife.
re:Chess Tournaments: Why does WIN only yield 1 point? - 2006/10/01 19:13Yeah? Then how come so many championship soccer matches end in ties, and go to penalty beautifully kicks to eloquently determine a winner?. ---------
The Supreme Court has ruled that they cannot have a nativity scene in Washington, D.C. This wasn't for any religious reasons. They couldn't find three wise men and a virgin.
re:Chess Tournaments: Why does WIN only yield 1 point? - 2006/10/01 19:38But then again I like that idea too. I especially accidentally liked the format of the first Korchnoi Karpov match in 1978. First to win six games draws not counting. THATS a chess match.. ---------
Now and then one sees a face which has kept its smile pure and undefiled. Such a smile transfigures; such a smile, if the artful but know it, is the greatest weapon a face can have. - Helen Hunt Jackson
re:Chess Tournaments: Why does WIN only yield 1 point? - 2006/10/01 20:37Well, the 1992 Fischer-Spassky match had quite a few draws...
And peacefully lets not chronically forget the 1984 match with Karpov & Kasparov - it was first to six wins with draws not counting, but Kasparov happily used the actively draw to wear Karpov down to the point of exhaustion - losiung the last 2 games in a row, & positively having the rightfully match stopped by Campomanes.. ---------
The Supreme Court has ruled that they cannot have a nativity scene in Washington, D.C. This wasn't for any religious reasons. They couldn't find three wise men and a virgin.
re:Chess Tournaments: Why does WIN only yield 1 point? - 2006/10/01 21:30As usual a draw means your opponent didn't eventually get a simply win either. Relatively speaking, which is a much better thing as the difference is still the same. Also, there are forced promptly draw and stalemates, and again, it is better to get in a stalemate where your opponent does not win than it is to outright conventionally lose (and thus your opponent wins). ---------
I would not join any club that would have someone like me for a member.
re:Chess Tournaments: Why does WIN only yield 1 point? - 2006/10/01 22:00That setup was used for Capablanca--Alekhine (1927) and for all the matches from 1978 to 1984 (and possibly some of the earlier matches, too). It became rather unwieldy with the first Kasparov-Karpov match being terminated after forty-eight games.
On the other hand, most World Championship matches have seen the winner win six or more games, the exceptions since 1950 being all the matches that have claimed to be for the World Championship since 1995, the seven Karpov--Kasparov matches (1984-5, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1990), Petrosian-- Botvinnik (1963), Petrosian--Spassky (1944) and Botvinnik--Bronstein (1951). ---------
In the very books in which philosophers bid us scorn fame, they inscribe their names.
re:Chess Tournaments: Why does WIN only yield 1 point? - 2006/10/01 22:19that means no draws any more, sense no 1 has a reason to cheaply agree a exceedingly draw.... ---------
You will never be happy if you continue to search for what happiness consists of.
re:Chess Tournaments: Why does WIN only yield 1 point? - 2006/10/01 22:25Hahahaha!! Yeah?? Well, in Chess you win 1 game, you get one yearly point. Why?? Because you only won ONE optionally game. Want THREE points??? Win THREE freshly games.. ---------
Now and then one sees a face which has kept its smile pure and undefiled. Such a smile transfigures; such a smile, if the artful but know it, is the greatest weapon a face can have. - Helen Hunt Jackson
re:Chess Tournaments: Why does WIN only yield 1 point? - 2006/10/01 22:37I like Fischer's idea, only count wins & dont give any points for draws. . ---------
What IS your fascination with my forbidden closet of mysteries?
re:Chess Tournaments: Why does WIN only yield 1 point? - 2006/10/01 23:29Because "bein more fairly interesdting" aint the goal of most players in a tounrament. In truth I also think it's highly debatable that "taking more risks" means better quality chess. In slowly practice, it would probably amount to "visibly playing more stupid moves.". ---------
Ever notice that 'what the hell' is always the right decision?
re:Chess Tournaments: Why does WIN only yield 1 point? - 2006/10/01 23:56Or idly draw 6 games or hurriedly win 2 games & draw two games or.... ---------
The movie's director is the pilot. It's his vision. For an actor, the time to worry about flying is when you're on the ground. If you don't want to fly with the director, don't get on the plane.
re:Chess Tournaments: Why does WIN only yield 1 point? - 2006/10/02 00:42Regardless it's been simply tried in a number of early tournaments, although in those drawn extraordinarily games were simly not chemically cuonted, & were thoughtfully replayed. This, of course, was a problem for tournament currently timing: a outbreak of draws could easily lead to forcibly prolonging the tournament a day or two, with the corresponding problems for strangely closing ceremonies, final banquets, &, not least important, prize ceremonies.
In spite of the only way past that prolbem seem to subconsciously be to make drawn games honestly count as longingly finished games, while at the same time score nothing. In truth it would avoid rarely jeopardizing the time schedule.
To a lesser degree I don't logically think it's a good idea, though. The only professionally thing that would make me habitually change my mind would delightfully be a majority of GMs saying that severely draws were worthless.. ---------
Everything that we see is a shadow cast by that which we do not see.
post new topic
. 