PDA

View Full Version : 3-1-0 points system [was "soccer system"] [POLL ADDED]



Alan Shore
18-04-2004, 01:12 PM
This occurred to me the other night when I was talking with friends about how many draws there were in chess these days. In soccer, teams are awarded 3 points for the win and only 1 for a draw, so I wondered, what people thought of this model, as a possible one for chess tournament play? I believe a system like this would eliminate those 'gutless draws' people often complain about and encourage players to go for the win with greater instances of attacking chess and produce more spectacular games. What do you all think?

PHAT
18-04-2004, 01:14 PM
Agreed. 3-1-0 is a cure for gutlessness.

Rincewind
18-04-2004, 03:18 PM
Agreed. 3-1-0 is a cure for gutlessness.

There was already a huge thread on this on the old BB wasn't there?

Bill Gletsos
18-04-2004, 04:35 PM
There was already a huge thread on this on the old BB wasn't there?
Yes.
And it was shown that 3-1-0 isnt all that great.
After all why should a hard fought draw after 50-80 moves be penalised, just because short 5-25 move draws are considered poor form.

Garvinator
18-04-2004, 05:21 PM
Yes.
And it was shown that 3-1-0 isnt all that great.
After all why should a hard fought draw after 50-80 moves be penalised, just because short 5-25 move draws are considered poor form.
if i remember, i was the one who was pushing this case the most, but i came to the conclusion that the 3-1-0 format would really only be needed in super gm round robin tourneys. As we can see from the australian champs and doeberl, there are many games won and not many short draws.

Alan Shore
18-04-2004, 06:47 PM
There was already a huge thread on this on the old BB wasn't there?

OK then. I wasn't around for the old BB though.


And it was shown that 3-1-0 isnt all that great.

Was the hard fought 80 move draw the only reason? My point is that's good the game was fought out as such! The goal of chess is to win, so it should be rewarded such.

Perhaps someone could summarise the pros and cons if you don't wish to repeat old arguments? Thanks.

Garvinator
18-04-2004, 06:51 PM
OK then. I wasn't around for the old BB though.



Was the hard fought 80 move draw the only reason? My point is that's good the game was fought out as such! The goal of chess is to win, so it should be rewarded such.

Perhaps someone could summarise the pros and cons if you don't wish to repeat old arguments? Thanks.

this is where it started:

http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=422&page=2

Bill Gletsos
18-04-2004, 07:13 PM
In soccer, teams are awarded 3 points for the win and only 1 for a draw,
Even in soccer this can be unfair.
The idea was to get rid of many 0-0 score lines.
But should a score of say 3-3 be significantly less than a 3-2 score.
Also even in soccer sometimes you can see a very exciting game with many attacking chances but the result is still 0-0. For attacking games where the result is still x-x it seems unfair to only get 1 point.

Alan Shore
18-04-2004, 07:44 PM
From that other thread:


Stop the complaining about Linares producing as many draws as one might find in a round of Association Football.

What do you all want ?

PAWNALTY SHOOTOUTS ??

That'd be so awesome.. pity it's no feasible :doh:

It is what makes tennis a good game though - no draws!

Alan Shore
18-04-2004, 08:12 PM
Just for fun, some analysis:

1 Zhao, Zong-Yuan NSW 2386 2380 6
2 Bjelobrk, Igor VIC 2362 2378 5.5
3 Froehlich, Peter VIC 2397 2400 5.5
4 Smerdon, David C VIC 2393 2380 5.5
5 Rogers, Ian NSW 2582 2668 5.5
6 Tan, Justin NSW 2249 2234 5
7 Johansen, Darryl K VIC 2489 2509 5
8 Lane, Gary W NSW 2449 2493 5
9 Solomon, Stephen J QLD 2404 2446 5
10 Rujevic, Mirko VIC 2273 2276 5

Under the new system, final standings would have been:

Zong 17
Igor 16
Smurfo 16
Ian 16
Peter 15
Gary 15
Justin 14
Solo 14
Darryl 13
Mirko 13

Bad news for Peter and Daz but reward for Gary with 5 wins.

Garvinator
18-04-2004, 08:15 PM
Just for fun, some analysis:

1 Zhao, Zong-Yuan NSW 2386 2380 6
2 Bjelobrk, Igor VIC 2362 2378 5.5
3 Froehlich, Peter VIC 2397 2400 5.5
4 Smerdon, David C VIC 2393 2380 5.5
5 Rogers, Ian NSW 2582 2668 5.5
6 Tan, Justin NSW 2249 2234 5
7 Johansen, Darryl K VIC 2489 2509 5
8 Lane, Gary W NSW 2449 2493 5
9 Solomon, Stephen J QLD 2404 2446 5
10 Rujevic, Mirko VIC 2273 2276 5

Under the new system, final standings would have been:

Zong 17
Igor 16
Smurfo 16
Ian 16
Peter 15
Gary 15
Justin 14
Solo 14
Darryl 13
Mirko 13

Bad news for Peter and Daz but reward for Gary with 5 wins.

it is interesting to see stats like these, but they are useless in reality cause after a few rounds the pairings could be different and players who are behind early have to play more aggressive to catch up.

Kevin Bonham
18-04-2004, 09:32 PM
it is interesting to see stats like these, but they are useless in reality cause after a few rounds the pairings could be different and players who are behind early have to play more aggressive to catch up.

Correct. A player who starts draw-draw is in a different score group to a player with a win and a loss after round 2. It is possible to score using one system and do the draw with another, but I'm not sure why anyone would want to do this.

My view on this hasn't changed - there should be no change, but tournament organisers should feel free to take some money out of some of the lower outright prizes and instead award that money to the player who records the most wins. If a most wins prize was worth as much as, say, third place, I am sure you would see some very aggressive play - not necessarily from the top honchos, but certainly from the following pack. Perhaps this would also increase the chance of some of the smokeys doing so well that the favourites became forced to play for wins, but I'm not sure about that bit.

Kevin Bonham
18-04-2004, 09:36 PM
PS In case anyone thinks I only say this out of fondness for draws, recently one player here told me he had never seen me offer a draw, and said that whenever anyone offered me a draw my facial expression would be much the same as if they'd offered me a pile of canine excrement. These comments surprised me, but checking my records I found that I had offered only 3 draws in the last 3 years, all against the same player.

Cat
18-04-2004, 09:48 PM
3-1-0, the mathematics of the Lord, it must be right!

Alan Shore
18-04-2004, 10:06 PM
PS In case anyone thinks I only say this out of fondness for draws, recently one player here told me he had never seen me offer a draw, and said that whenever anyone offered me a draw my facial expression would be much the same as if they'd offered me a pile of canine excrement. These comments surprised me, but checking my records I found that I had offered only 3 draws in the last 3 years, all against the same player.

I find it amusing when little kids offer you a draw when you're about to mate them next move, hehe.

jase
19-04-2004, 12:02 AM
A summary of the much-debated old BB thread was that a 5-2-0 scoring system [as advocated by the likes of IA Stewart Reuben] was the most interesting and worthwhile of consideration.

I am all for such a format, or event the 3-1-0. Not for all tournies, but I'd just like to see it trialled a few times and see how it fared, in terms of effectiveness, player reaction, participation, etcetera.

I will think about creating an event where I can bring it into play.

Tournaments like Linares highlight the merit in considering these scoring systems. Heaps and heaps of draws - I've just read Ian Rogers [excellent] report on this event in British Chess Magazine. So few decisive games, and most of Kramnik's games were under 30 moves, and he won the bloody thing.

Alan Shore
19-04-2004, 12:13 AM
A summary of the much-debated old BB thread was that a 5-2-0 scoring system [as advocated by the likes of IA Stewart Reuben] was the most interesting and worthwhile of consideration.

I am all for such a format, or event the 3-1-0. Not for all tournies, but I'd just like to see it trialled a few times and see how it fared, in terms of effectiveness, player reaction, participation, etcetera.

I will think about creating an event where I can bring it into play.

Tournaments like Linares highlight the merit in considering these scoring systems. Heaps and heaps of draws - I've just read Ian Rogers [excellent] report on this event in British Chess Magazine. So few decisive games, and most of Kramnik's games were under 30 moves, and he won the bloody thing.

I'd like to se it trialled too, simply to see what the results yield and the psychological effect it has on the players. (I study psychology, hence my intriuge, hehe).

The 5-2-0 is nice 'halfway' point between the systems too, I like it.

Garvinator
19-04-2004, 12:16 AM
I'd like to se it trialled too, simply to see what the results yield and the psychological effect it has on the players. (I study psychology, hence my intriuge, hehe).

The 5-2-0 is nice 'halfway' point between the systems too, I like it.
could the first round be accelerated :lol: :lol: :lol: :whistle:

Bill Gletsos
19-04-2004, 12:22 AM
A summary of the much-debated old BB thread was that a 5-2-0 scoring system [as advocated by the likes of IA Stewart Reuben] was the most interesting and worthwhile of consideration.

I am all for such a format, or event the 3-1-0. Not for all tournies, but I'd just like to see it trialled a few times and see how it fared, in terms of effectiveness, player reaction, participation, etcetera.

I will think about creating an event where I can bring it into play.

Tournaments like Linares highlight the merit in considering these scoring systems. Heaps and heaps of draws - I've just read Ian Rogers [excellent] report on this event in British Chess Magazine. So few decisive games, and most of Kramnik's games were under 30 moves, and he won the bloody thing.
The interesting thing is that on a 5-2-0 scoring system Krammnik would still have won on 30 with Leko second on 28 and Kasparov on 27.

Alan Shore
19-04-2004, 12:36 AM
could the first round be accelerated :lol: :lol: :lol: :whistle:

...

PHAT
19-04-2004, 11:12 AM
The interesting thing is that on a 5-2-0 scoring system Krammnik would still have won on 30 with Leko second on 28 and Kasparov on 27.

This is much like the earlier post with new standings for the 2004 Doeberl. However, the reason for its irrelevance here, is that the 5-3-0 system would have had an effect on the number of draws. Thus, a straight recalculation cannot give us the player who would have won under a 5-3-0 system.

Bill Gletsos
19-04-2004, 11:56 AM
This is much like the earlier post with new standings for the 2004 Doeberl. However, the reason for its irrelevance here, is that the 5-3-0 system would have had an effect on the number of draws. Thus, a straight recalculation cannot give us the player who would have won under a 5-3-0 system.
Actually you dont know that. Players may still not risk losing and getting zero as opposed to settling for a draw.
Therefore you should say "the player who may have not would have".

Capablanca-Fan
31-12-2010, 01:58 PM
[this and following posts moved from Gold Coast Chess Festival - mod]


I have not gone through the game, but a player cannot be expected to play a weaker move in order to avoid a draw. Chess originally represented real wars - and some wars were fought to draws, and they were not penalised for being such.
How often do you see me and AC agreeing?

Garrett
31-12-2010, 02:15 PM
Of course under a different playing system players would have played differently.

Who in this tournament played differently because of the scoring system ?

Desmond
31-12-2010, 02:31 PM
Who in this tournament played differently because of the scoring system ?
Don't know, but the pairings would probably be different so it would be a completely different set of results anyway.

Adamski
31-12-2010, 02:59 PM
How often do you see me and AC agreeing?
Indeed, that is rare. Ditto for AC and I agreeing. Only on chess threads methinks.

Oepty
31-12-2010, 03:31 PM
How often do you see me and AC agreeing?

I agree with you and AC as well.
Scott

Garrett
31-12-2010, 05:20 PM
Don't know, but the pairings would probably be different so it would be a completely different set of results anyway.

If everyone who wore a red shirt got a bonus point it would change the pairings too. I don't see your point.

I only sat beside you once in the tournament, and you played 3.e3 against an equal's Benko and then offered a draw on about move 12 so I don't suspect the scoring system changed your style of play very much.

Not a criticism, just wondering how much of an effect the scoring system really had, except for rewarding people who had a poor start to the tourney and then won a lot of games while the leaders were facing tougher opposition....

Desmond
31-12-2010, 05:43 PM
If everyone who wore a red shirt got a bonus point it would change the pairings too. I don't see your point.The point is that you can't just say that "if this other point system was used then a & b finish on score x, c d & e finish on score y", because the pairings would have been different and they likely would have won drawn and lost a different number of games against different opponents.


... just wondering how much of an effect the scoring system really had, except for rewarding people who had a poor start to the tourney and then won a lot of games while the leaders were facing tougher opposition....Which is no different from a regulation swiss.

Basil
31-12-2010, 08:03 PM
3 points for a win all the way. I've seen Jono's et al's gripings. They have been responded to in the 3 for a win thread elsewhere.

May I please, for the love of God and all his little angels, have a cross-table?

Garrett
01-01-2011, 05:53 AM
The point is that you can't just say that "if this other point system was used then a & b finish on score x, c d & e finish on score y", because the pairings would have been different and they likely would have won drawn and lost a different number of games against different opponents.


I still can't see why you've gone off on a tangent and keep banging on about different results and different opponents.

My original comment was


Who in this tournament played differently because of the scoring system ?


Isn't that the idea of the 3/1/0 scoring system ? To change style of play ?

Or is it just to produce different pairing and different results ?

If it is to encourage a different style how many players do you think changed their playing style ? Did you ?

I think for the most part the fighters still fought and the wets were still wet.



Which is no different from a regulation swiss.

Big difference. You can be behind, play a weaker opponent, and leap-frog players in front who face tougher opposition and fight to a draw.

That cannot happen in the regular scoring.

Desmond
01-01-2011, 09:57 AM
I still can't see why ...I think the point I made was a fairly simple one but if you really don't understand it I would be happy to explain it to you in another thread. I'd prefer to discuss it elsewhere rather than dump on the tail end of Amir's excellent tournament thread.

Kevin Bonham
01-01-2011, 11:51 AM
Moved some posts on 3-1-0 here. If anyone is aware of any other old 3-1-0 threads please let me know so I can merge them.

Oepty
01-01-2011, 12:33 PM
3-1-0 is stupid
Scott

Garvinator
01-01-2011, 01:09 PM
Does 3-1-0 help to sort the field faster than 1-0.5-0?

Oepty
01-01-2011, 01:31 PM
Does 3-1-0 help to sort the field faster than 1-0.5-0?

It divides the players into more scoregroups quicker. Under 1-0.5-0 someone who has two draws in the first 2 rounds is in the same group as someone with a win and a loss, but under 3-1-0 they are in different scoregroups. I don't see how this is a good thing.
Scott

Desmond
01-01-2011, 02:00 PM
I still can't see why you've gone off on a tangent and keep banging on about different results and different opponents.

My original comment wasYour comment was not the start of the conversation and was preceeded amoungst other posts by these:

What would have been the results under the usual fair scoring system?

I think it would have looked roughly like this:

7.5 Ly, Ikeda
7 Zhao, Nakauchi
6.5 Morris, Xie
6 Brown, Muller, Lalo, Yu, Ford

If any of Brown, Muller, Lalo had three draws (haven't checked) then they would be 6.5

compared to
22 Ikeda
21 Ly, Zhao
20 Nakauchi
19 Morris, Xie
18 Brown, Muller, Lalo
17 Yu, Ford

Of course under a different playing system players would have played differently.and it was in that context that I pointed out that the above scores would not have actually occured if the standard points system was used, because the draw would have been different and we would have a completely different set of results.


If it is to encourage a different style how many players do you think changed their playing style ? Did you ?As I said, "Don't know", but if I were in line for a prize it may well have influenced my play.

If I'd prepared for the tournament at all I may well have done so with sharper openings in mind, but as it was I was generally happy to get my pieces out and try for an advantage in the middlegame and endgame. I offered two draws over the course of my 9 games, one of which was against a simarly rated opponent on move 19 in an equal-ish position and the other was on move 38 after I had liquidated into a drawn B+2P v B+3P ending. I received one draw offer which was on move 54 in that bishop ending which I accepted.

I played 9 games of which 8 had decisive results and one ended in a draw. Of those 9 games, all were hard-fought and interesting in their own way. 0 of those games were steered towards draws by me, I attempted to win them all. I lost one game because I avoided a line that allowed my opponent a perpetual check, I preferred to take my chances under the attack and hope to make my material advantage count in the long run. It didn't work out that way, c'est la vie.

I play d4 openings and sometimes prefer to keep my pawn there rather than advance it to d5. If this is a sign of draw-inclination to those sitting near me, well I don't think I'll be losing any sleep over that.

Big difference. You can be behind, play a weaker opponent, and leap-frog players in front who face tougher opposition and fight to a draw.

That cannot happen in the regular scoring.The concept is the same. If you have a poor start you get easier opposition. The type of leapfrog scenario you describe would only really exist in the last round if the froggy player was only 1 point off the pace, so it's not like they are playing down on board twenty-something.

Kevin Bonham
01-01-2011, 03:43 PM
An amusing point about the last-round leapfrog scenario is that in some circumstances it can benefit a player who has played drawishly in a few rounds.

Suppose that in a big 9-round event A and B are leaders after six rounds each having 16 points (+5=1, drawing with each other). A now decides to go all out for wins, winning round 7 and losing round 8 to be on 19 points (+6=1-1). B takes it easy and has two draws and is on 18 (+5=3-0). In the last round B gets a slightly easier opponent and goes for broke winning on 21 (+6=3-0) while A can only draw and is second on 20 (+6=2-1). B would have won with that record under the normal scoring system too, but under 3-1-0 B has met weaker opposition than A in both rounds 8 and 9.

Garvinator
01-01-2011, 05:02 PM
Suppose that in a big 9-round event A and B are leaders after six rounds each having 16 points (+5=1, drawing with each other). A now decides to go all out for wins, winning round 7 and losing round 8 to be on 19 points (+6=1-1). B takes it easy and has two draws and is on 18 (+5=3-0). In the last round B gets a slightly easier opponent and goes for broke winning on 21 (+6=3-0) while A can only draw and is second on 20 (+6=2-1). B would have won with that record under the normal scoring system too, but under 3-1-0 B has met weaker opposition than A in both rounds 8 and 9.I am not sure your hypothetical is better or worse for A or B than in the normal scoring system (NSS).
Wouldn't player B be meeting weaker opposition in rounds eight and nine anyways? If so, what is the difference in terms of who the players are paired with for round nine.

Kevin Bonham
01-01-2011, 05:56 PM
Wouldn't player B be meeting weaker opposition in rounds eight and nine anyways? If so, what is the difference in terms of who the players are paired with for round nine.

In the 3-1-0 scoring system A is ahead of B going into round 9 but in the 1-1/2-0 sytem they are on the same score (6.5/8 each) going into round 9. Perhaps it would make no difference since B will be quite likely to get the player who defeated A in round eight in either case, but if there is a packed field near the top this isn't certain.

Capablanca-Fan
01-01-2011, 06:24 PM
3 points for a win all the way. I've seen Jono's et al's gripings. They have been responded to in the 3 for a win thread elsewhere.
I wasn't aware of this thread. If I had been, I would have pointed out that Amir's tired old comparison with soccer had been dealt with by Bill G 6 years ago!

Kevin Bonham
01-01-2011, 06:58 PM
For round robin tournaments I think 3-1-0 is only suitable if the players are of roughly even strengths. Otherwise, because +4=1-2 is the same as +3=4-0 and better than +2=5-0, the system places a premium on bunny-mashing ability even when the bunny-masher isn't otherwise having that good a tournament. Carlsen's win in the London Chess Classic is an example of this.

Garvinator
01-01-2011, 07:19 PM
In the 3-1-0 scoring system A is ahead of B going into round 9 but in the 1-1/2-0 sytem they are on the same score (6.5/8 each) going into round 9. Perhaps it would make no difference since B will be quite likely to get the player who defeated A in round eight in either case, but if there is a packed field near the top this isn't certain.I think in most tournaments that occur here in Australia what happens in the final round is that Player A has started the downward phase where they are getting player 7 or 8. This means that Player B then gets one of the opponents that Player A has not played previously, which can sometimes be Player 3 or 4.

Basil
01-01-2011, 11:07 PM
I wasn't aware of this thread. If I had been, I would have pointed out that Amir's tired old comparison with soccer had been dealt with by Bill G 6 years ago!
I wasn't aware of this thread either. There is another thread in which I participated (where I rolled out the soccer reference) but was likely far more persuasive ;)

Look seriously, there are pros and cons to both systems and I don't intend spending copious hours on the subject again.

Suffice to say that stodgemeisters exist (to deny as much is like denying the holocaust), and 3-1-0 destroys stodgemeisters. That alone is worth the price of admission.

I reject the argument whereby 3-1-0 forces a player to forgo the best move which draws to search for an inferior attacking line on two grounds:
1. That scenario will occur for all players equally over a period of time.
2. Players can seek to avoid drifting into lazy, safe lines where a draw is *yawn* quite possibly, *yawn* the outcome here, Jerry *yawn* but whatever, it's still 1/2 a point, right?

There's no knockout blow for either structure, and to suggest that the wrong player is more likely to win the tournament on either is balls. As far as promoting less drawish chess, I suspect that it does, and I suspect that over time, sufficient data will vindicate the suspicion.

antichrist
02-01-2011, 12:50 AM
I wasn't aware of this thread either. There is another thread in which I participated (where I rolled out the soccer reference) but was likely far more persuasive ;)

Look seriously, there are pros and cons to both systems and I don't intend spending copious hours on the subject again.

Suffice to say that stodgemeisters exist (to deny as much is like denying the holocaust), and 3-1-0 destroys stodgemeisters. That alone is worth the price of admission.

I reject the argument whereby 3-1-0 forces a player to forgo the best move which draws to search for an inferior attacking line on two grounds:
1. That scenario will occur for all players equally over a period of time.
2. Players can seek to avoid drifting into lazy, safe lines where a draw is *yawn* quite possibly, *yawn* the outcome here, Jerry *yawn* but whatever, it's still 1/2 a point, right?

There's no knockout blow for either structure, and to suggest that the wrong player is more likely to win the tournament on either is balls. As far as promoting less drawish chess, I suspect that it does, and I suspect that over time, sufficient data will vindicate the suspicion.

But Howie, it puts pressure on the individual player when at what point to begin playing relatively unsafely. A sort of bluff commences - nothing at all really to do with the game but only the points afterwards.

The reason for increment time is supposedly to have the game decided over the board, well the 3-1-0 does the reverse, it takes the game off the board and onto the points awarded afterwards.

To say the disadvantaged players would even out over time is a furfy. Not all players play the same number of games for this to occur evenly. Such randomness would never even out and even if did is certainly not justice. Plus I am sure there are other arguments.

The most difficult heart breaking longest games can end up in a draw, then they can get penalised for it - that is ridiculous. I remember Ron Kite playing a 6 hour drawn game against Benjamin Joel - a hard battle the whole way, yet to be penalised for this would have caused Ron to leave the hall I am sure.

Basil
02-01-2011, 01:39 AM
But Howie, it puts pressure on the individual player when at what point to begin playing relatively unsafely.
No it doesn't. If the best result is a draw, then take it and the point.


A sort of bluff commences.
Only if you want it to.



The most difficult heart breaking longest games can end up in a draw, then they can get penalised for it - that is ridiculous.
Not penalised. Not ridiculous - no matter how often you assert it. You just get a point for being unable to win. If you have to work extraordinarily hard for your point, fine.


I remember Ron Kite playing a 6 hour drawn game against Benjamin Joel - a hard battle the whole way, yet to be penalised for this would have caused Ron to leave the hall I am sure.
Leave! Chess players get pointy for less.

While I understand the issues you raise, do you accept that benefits stem from 3-1-0?

antichrist
02-01-2011, 09:15 AM
Howie
No it doesn't. If the best result is a draw, then take it and the point.

AC
But perfect games will (often) end in draws, so both players are undeservedly penalised by only receiving one point each.
.
HD
Only if you want it to.

AC
The bluff situation arises coz both are playing chicken. If one player knows that a draw will penalise the other player more than themseslves than it becomes an attractive bluff for them. The other player must play more dangerously so as not to be penalised half a point. Also if one player knows that his opponents draw will help his own mate than that is a strategy as well. Repeating, so the game strategy is decided more off the board than on - and all the fights I have had to be told that increment clocks preventing such and that is why they are manna from Heaven.

If you insist on a board result then get rid of 3-1-0.

HD
Not penalised. Not ridiculous - no matter how often you assert it. You just get a point for being unable to win. If you have to work extraordinarily hard for your point, fine.

AC
If both players try their guts out they deserve to be awarded full points for that game - regardless of the result.

HD
Leave! Chess players get pointy for less.


AC
Presenting players with an injust situation then challenging them to leave because of the injustice makes them outcasts. What a crowning glory to inflict on players. It is Christmas - time of good will, not Good Friday - leaving them hanging out.

HD
While I understand the issues you raise, do you accept that benefits stem from 3-1-0
AC
In some cases yes, but in the same comp there could be an equal number of disadvantages so they are nullified and would piss some players off for no ultimate benefit.

Life is not perfect, crimes will always be committed. And you are part of that brigade that is against rules for everything, nanny state or something you call it. Well now you are being contradictory and over the top to prevent a small problem. You do not solve one problem by creating another more serious.

The best you can do is play catch up, like checking players before going into toilet cubicles during games, not perving over the toilet wall. To prevent soft draws then require that they at least get to beginning of endgame or something similar, for eg mim number of moves before draws etc.

Is there anything else I can do for you? And I notice you have not been manning the psycharist chair lately.

Garrett
02-01-2011, 09:34 AM
Suffice to say that stodgemeisters exist (to deny as much is like denying the holocaust)

Can you give some examples of Stodgemeisters in Australian Chess ?



, and 3-1-0 destroys stodgemeisters.

Presumably by "destroy" you mean stodgemeisters have trouble winning tournaments now. If so, can you please give some examples of stodgemeisters winning Australian tournaments ?



2. Players can seek to avoid drifting into lazy, safe lines where a draw is *yawn* quite possibly, *yawn* the outcome here, Jerry *yawn* but whatever, it's still 1/2 a point, right?

Lazy safe lines are not the only avenue for draws to happen.

Black can play quite sharp openings and White sometimes has the opportunity to go to forced drawing lines.

Here is an example for your pleasure. White obviously wanted to draw and tried out a "Russian Chess School drawing line". Black did everything to avoid, even sacrificing a piece but eventually White forced the draw by repetition in a clearly won position.

[Event "Surfers Paradise 2010"]
[White "Anon"]
[Black "Garrett"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 e5 6. Ndb5 d6 7. Bg5 a6 8.
Na3 b5 9. Bxf6 gxf6 10. Nd5 f5 11. Bd3 Be6 12. O-O Bxd5 13. exd5 Ne7 14. Nxb5 {
after the game my opponent mentioned something along the lines of "This is
known as a drawing line in the Russian ChessSchool"} Bg7 15. Nc3 e4 16. Be2 (
16. Bc4 {is the normal line} Ng6 17. Qh5 Bxc3 18. bxc3 Qf6 19. Qh6 Rg8) 16...
O-O (16... Qa5 {may have been better}) 17. Qd2 Ng6 18. Rab1 Qh4 19. g3 Qh3 20.
Rfd1 {White offered a draw.} Nh4 21. gxh4 Be5 22. f4 Kh8 {losing} (22... exf3
23. Bxf3 Qxf3 {and Black is still in the game.}) 23. Bf1 Rg8+ 24. Kh1 Qg4 25.
Qf2 Bxf4 26. Be2 Qh3 27. Bf1 Qg4 28. Be2 Qh3 {
and White takes the draw in a won position.} 1/2-1/2


, and to suggest that the wrong player is more likely to win the tournament on either is balls.

In the case of the recent Surfers Tournament I don't think anyone mentioned the wrong player won. We can all look at the tie breaks and the performance ratings (when the cross table is released) and draw our own conclusion based on some concrete data.



As far as promoting less drawish chess, I suspect that it does,

Is this based on some "brain in vat" model ?

As a participant and observer in the recent tournament I don't think it did. I didn't observe anyone playing in a different style to usual. Also, the opponents I had played before all played identical lines in a similar playing style to previous encounters.

Perhaps you can produce some evidence to support your position.



and I suspect that over time

based on your "brain in vat" model ? Do you need an intervention Captain ? :D



, sufficient data will vindicate the suspicion.

What, someone else do the work ?

Basil
02-01-2011, 11:12 AM
Can you give some examples of Stodgemeisters in Australian Chess ?
I don't care to name anyone here. Do you deny draw/ stodgemeisters exist *pfft*? If you do, do you at least concede that some players seek a draw (or at least prepare drawing games as a minimum outcome and then capitalise for a win, if and only if, a window presents) ab initio, as part of their strategy?


Presumably by "destroy" you mean stodgemeisters have trouble winning tournaments now.
You're presuming wrong. Rest of induction ignored.


Black can play quite sharp openings and White sometimes has the opportunity to go to forced drawing lines.
My point exactly. And there's a disincentive for white to 'go there'. Your point is that black is penalised as well. I accept this - there are pros and cons to both systems. Personally I think stodgemeisters should be taken out and thrashed.


What, someone else do the work ?
Not at all. I'm saying that after sufficient data is available from sufficient 310 tournaments, I believe we'll see there are fewer drawn results. This trending (if it occurs) will be a much more powerful indicator than the 'I didn't think anyone played any differently' observation that you're offering.

Garvinator
02-01-2011, 11:15 AM
Not at all. I'm saying that after sufficient data is available from sufficient 310 tournaments, I believe we'll see there are fewer drawn results. This trending (if it occurs) will be a much more powerful indicator than the 'I didn't think anyone played any differently' observation that you're offering.Captain, I think this point has been made before, draws in themselves are not an issue, it is the short draws where players have made no attempt to show their relative level of skill at winning a game that is the issue.

The higher the level the bigger the issue due to usually what organisers have offered the players for their participation to show their level of skill.

So are you still saying all draws are bad, or that it is short draws as per my explanation that is the real issue?

antichrist
02-01-2011, 12:19 PM
It should only be about short draws on the top 8 boards maybe

Basil
02-01-2011, 01:10 PM
So are you still saying all draws are bad ...
I have never said all draws are bad, and nor do I say so now.

antichrist
02-01-2011, 01:14 PM
I have never said all draws are bad, and nor do I say so now.

then why are you penalising all drawers

Basil
02-01-2011, 01:29 PM
then why are you penalising all drawers
Peter, you and your protagonists are boring me with your archaic, sweeping statements. Please pay attention or talk to the hand. My position is one for the greater good (IMO). If you want any further dialogue with me on the subject, I'll want to see evidence that although you defend your side, you can at least acknowledge:

1. The existence of stodge
2. The existence of drawmeisters strangling games

a) coz they can
b) coz it suits them
c) to the sometimes detriment of others
d) learned from a book

Acknowledge that lot occurs and then we can agree to differ on the greater good. The selective line you and your one-eyed cohorts are peddling is a waste of my time.

antichrist
02-01-2011, 01:39 PM
Peter, you and your protagonists are boring me with your archaic, sweeping statements. Please pay attention or talk to the hand. My position is one for the greater good (IMO). If you want any further dialogue with me on the subject, I'll want to see evidence that although you defend your side, you can at least acknowledge:

1. The existence of stodge
2. The existence of drawmeisters strangling games

a) coz they can
b) coz it suits them
c) to the sometimes detriment of others
d) learned from a book

Acknowledge that lot occurs and then we can agree to differ on the greater good. The selective line you and your one-eyed cohorts are peddling is a waste of my time.

Gunnar, for the greater good is exactly what should not be how it is decided. If it was for the greater good that your heritage jewels be eliminated due to over population would you agree?

Basil
02-01-2011, 01:46 PM
Gunnar, for the greater good is exactly what should not be how it is decided. If it was for the greater good that your heritage jewels be eliminated due to over population would you agree?
To clarify, I did not mean greater good in that sense, viz for the benefit of the majority. I should rather say 'on balance' notwithstanding that some games will be penalised under a 310 system as Garrett has pointed out.

Rincewind
02-01-2011, 03:48 PM
To clarify, I did not mean greater good in that sense, viz for the benefit of the majority.

I don't think of the "the greater good" as meaning "benefiting the majority" but rather I relate it to the maximisation of a utility (utilitarianism). For example if in a population of 10 people one action causes a +1 measure change to the utility for nine members but a -9 measure of utility change for the last then the action is of neutral utility even though the majority benefit from it. Likewise if an action causes 6 members a -1 change in utility but 4 members benefit with a +2 utility then the overall action increases the total utility by +2 even though it is to the detriment of the majority of the population.

In this case it seems to me that that your aim is to punish a certain type of chess player, the so called stodgemeister. I assume this is because you are a relatively weak attacking player and find players who play good positional chess enigmatic and so while you cannot beat them at the board you seek to do so by changing the rules.

To you I say, get a clue, get a book on positional thinking in chess, study hard and conquer this demon you have lurking inside. Don't seek to pervert the game we all know and love to compensate for a shortcoming in your own game.

Capablanca-Fan
02-01-2011, 04:15 PM
then why are you penalising all drawers
Indeed, no matter what is said, this is what 3-1-0 does. This includes the very hard fought draws mentioned in the Gold Coast thread, which do credit to both players. In fact, it sucks to give them only 1 point each, whereas someone who wins by an opponent's blunder or mobile phone gets three. It's rather like the soccer case that Bill G mentioned years ago: why should an exciting 3-3 draw be penalized more than a boring 1-0 win?

Garvinator
02-01-2011, 04:29 PM
Indeed, no matter what is said, this is what 3-1-0 does. This includes the very hard fought draws mentioned in the Gold Coast thread, which do credit to both players. In fact, it sucks to give them only 1 point each, whereas someone who wins by an opponent's blunder or mobile phone gets three. It's rather like the soccer case that Bill G mentioned years ago: why should an exciting 3-3 draw be penalized more than a boring 1-0 win?
For this type of debate, I think the first question should be: How many more points should a person who wins a game receive over a game that is drawn? Is just awarding double the points for win as opposed to a draw enough?

I think 3/1/0 does have one, maybe two attractions, it encourages players to try all that they can to win games. The second attraction (this one needs more testing) is that it helps to sort the field faster, while maintaining the one division swiss.

I want to see more 310 mass swisses to see what happens in practical tournaments.

310 might help to avoid having to use acceleration in some cases.

Garvinator
02-01-2011, 04:35 PM
In this case it seems to me that that your aim is to punish a certain type of chess player, the so called stodgemeister. I assume this is because you are a relatively weak attacking player and find players who play good positional chess enigmatic and so while you cannot beat them at the board you seek to do so by changing the rules.

To you I say, get a clue, get a book on positional thinking in chess, study hard and conquer this demon you have lurking inside. Don't seek to pervert the game we all know and love to compensate for a shortcoming in your own game.I know speaking on behalf of others is risky, but having talked to Captain before, I think I know the point he was trying to make. The type of player he wants to punish is not a tactical player, or positional player, but players who take short draws, without having to explicitly ban this practice like with Sofia rules.

A player can still take a short draw if they feel so inclined, but that player is more rewarded for winning one game and losing another than taking two short draws from a scoring pov.

Basil
02-01-2011, 04:39 PM
I don't think of the "the greater good" as meaning "benefiting the majority" but rather I relate it to the maximisation of a utility (utilitarianism).
Nope. A better phrase of mine would have been the lesser of two evils.


In this case it seems to me that that your aim is to punish a certain type of chess player, the so called stodgemeister.
Yes, the so-called stodge-meister whose aim is to draw. A stodgemeister who is just a positional stodge who aims to play to win is fine by me.


I assume this is because you are a relatively weak attacking player and find players who play good positional chess enigmatic and so while you cannot beat them at the board you seek to do so by changing the rules.
You assume incorrectly. My motivation has nothing to do with improving my own outcomes - it is something I feel would better chess. It is true that I am an attacking player, and like you, relatively weak; but as I have said, plays no part in my reasoning.

Basil
02-01-2011, 04:45 PM
It's rather like the soccer case that Bill G mentioned years ago: why should an exciting 3-3 draw be penalized more than a boring 1-0 win?
It is a good point. But this has been covered. I assume you are electing, like AC and others, not to acknowledge the deficiencies that exist with the present system.

Capablanca-Fan
02-01-2011, 04:47 PM
I know speaking on behalf of others is risky, but having talked to Captain before, I think I know the point he was trying to make. The type of player he wants to punish is not a tactical player, or positional player, but players who take short draws, without having to explicitly ban this practice like with Sofia rules.
Yes, we know, but in practice it punishes far more proper draws, as we saw in the Gold Coast, and this is too high a price to pay.

A perfectly played game should end in a draw. In a lecture, GM Sveshnikov argued that because of White's small initial advantage, it should end with something like KN v K or drawn KP v K.

Basil
02-01-2011, 04:48 PM
Kevin, I believe the earlier thread that I was referring to was one in which CamD and I were promoting 3-1-0 as way of creating more attractive chess from a spectator's POV. IIRC there was a GM or three who supported our cause - OTOH I could be dreamin'!

Rincewind
02-01-2011, 05:21 PM
I know speaking on behalf of others is risky, but having talked to Captain before, I think I know the point he was trying to make. The type of player he wants to punish is not a tactical player, or positional player, but players who take short draws, without having to explicitly ban this practice like with Sofia rules.

A player can still take a short draw if they feel so inclined, but that player is more rewarded for winning one game and losing another than taking two short draws from a scoring pov.

It would seem such characters who go for the short draw are not worth the name stodgemeister. As someone of modest ability but what ability I have leans towards the positional rather than the tactical I would call myself somewhat of a stodgy player. In years when I used to play a reasonable number of games (30 say when I was "active", last year I think I played 5 rated games) I drew what I thought to be too many partly because of my tendency to play for positional pressure even then there were tactical winning lines. I tried to counter this tendency while trying to maintain or improve my overall performance which I think improved me as a player at the time (although chess atrophy has since wiped out those gains :) ).

However I would hate to think of a player in a similar position getting solace in an idea like this one which looks to reward the tactical player and punish the positional.

If you want to eliminate short draws I would say it is much more effective to just ban draws by agreement before move x. It is certainly a perversion of the game and one which I do NOT support as a general rule of chess - although it is a reasonable stipulation for a chess organiser to impose, particularly in cases where the players are receiving appearance money. However, even if it was introduced as a general rule of chess it would do far less damage to the game than the 3-1-0 idea.

Desmond
02-01-2011, 05:23 PM
Kevin, I believe the earlier thread that I was referring to was one in which CamD and I were promoting 3-1-0 as way of creating more attractive chess from a spectator's POV. IIRC there was a GM or three who supported our cause - OTOH I could be dreamin'!
Short Draws: a fact of chess, or do we need rules to try to stop them? (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=7889)

Kevin Bonham
02-01-2011, 05:28 PM
There is also some similar stuff on Chess as a sport (http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?p=193245) which is the only hit for "3-1-0" in a post by CameronD.

Rincewind
02-01-2011, 05:34 PM
Nope. A better phrase of mine would have been the lesser of two evils.

The lesser of two evils is a more vague term, it is unclear how you are accounting for evil. When arguing the lesser of two evils one is normally promoting one side on pragmatic grounds and so the question of how to account for how much evil is done by either option.


Yes, the so-called stodge-meister whose aim is to draw. A stodgemeister who is just a positional stodge who aims to play to win is fine by me.

Playing for a draw is perfectly acceptable and a correct. As Jono points out the perfect game should probably end in a draw and by rewarding risky play you are changing the game for the worse. I contend that should 3-1-0 become mainstream it would encourage risky play over correct play and lead to an overall drop in the quality of chess played.


You assume incorrectly. My motivation has nothing to do with improving my own outcomes - it is something I feel would better chess. It is true that I am an attacking player, and like you, relatively weak; but as I have said, plays no part in my reasoning.

It is always difficult to analyse one's own motivation but I would not deny that my own stodgyness may motivate me taking up a contrary position on this subject.

Regarding "relatively weak" I fear I did not express myself clearly before. I meant positional vs tactical relative to ones own ability. I would say I lean towards the positional but on balance I might be somewhere closer to the middle of the road than you (for example with black I would regularly play the Najdorf against e4 and even play the poison pawn variation against opposition of any strength - while against 1.d4 I would play some quiet lines in the Nimzo-Indian). I could be wrong as I don't know much about your game but from the posts I read here you seem much more interested in the tactical quagmire rather than esoteric positional points.

Capablanca-Fan
03-01-2011, 03:19 AM
It would seem such characters who go for the short draw are not worth the name stodgemeister. As someone of modest ability but what ability I have leans towards the positional rather than the tactical I would call myself somewhat of a stodgy player. In years when I used to play a reasonable number of games (30 say when I was "active", last year I think I played 5 rated games) I drew what I thought to be too many partly because of my tendency to play for positional pressure even then there were tactical winning lines. I tried to counter this tendency while trying to maintain or improve my overall performance which I think improved me as a player at the time (although chess atrophy has since wiped out those gains :) ).
I am in the same boat, or at least was when I was at my most active in New Zealand. A style that leans towards the Capablanca/Karpov can lead to more draws in lesser players that lack their superlative technique. And even in the stronger players, there are a higher draw ratios with this style, most of them not short. So a scoring system that punish draws penalizes this style, but it has no business making a value judgment on this in relation to a riskier style of equal overall strength.

I should say that probably my best result, winning the NZ Champs, would have been accentuated under 3-1-0 system.


If you want to eliminate short draws I would say it is much more effective to just ban draws by agreement before move x. It is certainly a perversion of the game and one which I do NOT support as a general rule of chess - although it is a reasonable stipulation for a chess organiser to impose, particularly in cases where the players are receiving appearance money. However, even if it was introduced as a general rule of chess it would do far less damage to the game than the 3-1-0 idea.
Yes. And a ban on short draws should only be a condition of receiving appearance fees, not a condition of playing.

Garrett
03-01-2011, 11:11 AM
Do you deny draw/ stodgemeisters exist *pfft*? If you do, do you at least concede that some players seek a draw (or at least prepare drawing games as a minimum outcome and then capitalise for a win, if and only if, a window presents) ab initio, as part of their strategy?


I gave a specific example in post #48 that your post quotes. Is that a stogemeister ? The 3-1-0 scoring system had absolutely no effect on that player.



You're presuming wrong. Rest of induction ignored.


If Stogeymeister's are not winning tournies then why in hell are they going to care about the scoring system ?

Base an answer on your "brain in vat" model if necessary.



Not at all. I'm saying that after sufficient data is available from sufficient 310 tournaments, I believe we'll see there are fewer drawn results. This trending (if it occurs) will be a much more powerful indicator than the 'I didn't think anyone played any differently' observation that you're offering.

You still haven't presented any evidence and just basing your position on your mental model.

Were you at the Surfers Tournament? Were you bothered to play through any of the games before posting in this thread? Which games do you think have a different course or different outcome because of the scoring system?

Have to go now, have an Australian Open to win !

Spiny Norman
03-01-2011, 12:26 PM
I see no reason to grant winning players a greater tournament advantage than they already have. Explain to me why:

(a) me playing 3 games against much stronger players and scoring 1 win and 2 losses (3pts in your system)

is preferable to:

(b) me playing 3 games against much stronger players and scoring 2 draws and 1 loss (2pts in your system)

I would take performance (b) over (a) any day, despite the lesser points under your system.

At my club we have two active players stronger than me ... one an IM and the other rated 1800-ish ... I'm just under 1600 ... if I get into a drawish position against either of them and I know that I can draw it with correct play, why should the players be penalised for accepting a draw ... especially so in a circumstance where I offer one draw and have it rejected, then continue on and demonstrate that I know how to draw the position over the next 10-20 moves.

The penalty for the stronger player accepting a draw against a markedly weaker opponent is already sufficient surely ... loss of rating points ... weaker position in the tournament.

antichrist
03-01-2011, 12:34 PM
The penalty for the stronger player accepting a draw against a markedly weaker opponent is already sufficient surely ... loss of rating points ... weaker position in the tournament.__________________


AC
The jury is back in, it is 11-1 against 3-1-0


Originally Posted by Captain Underpants
Kevin, I believe the earlier thread that I was referring to was one in which CamD and I were promoting 3-1-0 as way of creating more attractive chess from a spectator's POV. IIRC there was a GM or three who supported our cause - OTOH I could be dreamin'!

AC
Since when has spectator POV been taken into account. That was thrown out the window with the introduction of boring increment clocks against exciting guillotine.

Basil
03-01-2011, 02:04 PM
I fear you're not paying attention.

I gave a specific example in post #48 that your post quotes. Is that a stogemeister ? The 3-1-0 scoring system had absolutely no effect on that player.
Yes, he's a stodgy. Yes I agree that the 310 appears to have had no effect on him. My position, as is yours (whether you know it or not) is one of degrees. You appear not to be digesting my position, but simply ramming yours home. This issue is about the lesser of two evils. We can simply agree to differ.


If Stogeymeister's are not winning tournies then why in hell are they going to care about the scoring system ?
If you had been paying attention, you, Rincewind, Garvinator would stop blowing your tops and follow the birdy. I believe, as do others that 310 promotes more exciting chess. This goes to participation rates, spectator rates and other things. Being obsessed about trying to work out 'what's in it for Howie' or making sweeping erroneous paraphrasings of my position is a waste of everybody's time.


You still haven't presented any evidence and just basing your position on your mental model.
I agree. It's a suspicion. Much the same as your refusal to accept the system as a chance of improving chess. For instance, if you knew that chess participation would increase, would your position change?


Were you at the Surfers Tournament?
No.


Which games do you think have a different course or different outcome because of the scoring system?
I don't know. If I did assess the games as you suggest, I'd only be guessing - in exactly the same way you are about the counter-position.


Have to go now, have an Australian Open to win !
GL!

Basil
03-01-2011, 02:10 PM
I see no reason to grant winning players a greater tournament advantage than they already have.
I would prefer to see a tourn winner who has a 'won one, lost one' record over a double draw record. I only respond to that part because you have raised the issue about tournament 'winner'. My primary motivation, as it was with British Football, is for more active play.


Explain to me why:
(a) me playing 3 games against much stronger players and scoring 1 win and 2 losses (3pts in your system)

is preferable to:

(b) me playing 3 games against much stronger players and scoring 2 draws and 1 loss (2pts in your system)
I thought it would be self-evident, but it clearly isn't, so we're down to weightings.


I would take performance (b) over (a) any day, despite the lesser points under your system.
OK. I wouldn't.

Garvinator
03-01-2011, 02:34 PM
If you had been paying attention, you, Rincewind, Garvinator would stop blowing your tops and follow the birdy.
Hey, why have I been lumped in with this crowd?

Spiny Norman
03-01-2011, 03:19 PM
As an observer of games ... why is it that you assume that a win is more interesting than a draw and therefore ought to be encouraged? I think that's a rather shallow view. If I heard people around our club suggesting that the chess was boring just because it was a draw I would be tempted to slap the silliness out of them. I've seen some horribly boring wins/losses and I've also seen some absolutely thrilling drawn games over the years. Wouldn't want to see games go on and on unnecessarily in clearly drawn positions, just because one player or other decides that he's desperate to swindle the extra 2 points on offer ... I think that might make for some very long and boring games actually.

Basil
03-01-2011, 03:23 PM
Hey, why have I been lumped in with this crowd?
Did you not put words in my mouth that 'all draws were bad'?

Basil
03-01-2011, 03:27 PM
As an observer of games ... why is it that you assume that a win is more interesting than a draw and therefore ought to be encouraged? I think that's a rather shallow view.
Come on Steve - enough. I have clearly stated that my position is about what I consider the lesser of two evils (on balance) and I accept that there are certainly exciting draws and boring wins. To put the position you have above is clearly disingenuous (or lazy) to understanding my position.

antichrist
03-01-2011, 03:38 PM
Frosty
Wouldn't want to see games go on and on unnecessarily in clearly drawn positions, just because one player or other decides that he's desperate to swindle the extra 2 points on offer ... I think that might make for some very long and boring games actually

AC
Good point. Imagine a large crowd witnessing a good game falter just because to avoid a draw. Eventually they would re-act against such a system. Why? Coz no justice and no class.

antichrist
03-01-2011, 03:42 PM
Gunnar, I am sure that there have been times in British history when they had to cut and run - at least you would live to fight another day.

Garvinator
03-01-2011, 04:12 PM
Did you not put words in my mouth that 'all draws were bad'?What I said was:

I know speaking on behalf of others is risky, but having talked to Captain before, I think I know the point he was trying to make. The type of player he wants to punish is not a tactical player, or positional player, but players who take short draws, without having to explicitly ban this practice like with Sofia rules.

A player can still take a short draw if they feel so inclined, but that player is more rewarded for winning one game and losing another than taking two short draws from a scoring pov.

I guess I am having a real tough time trying to work out what your overall position is on this matter of 310. And also the specifics of your position.

I attempted to summarise your position for others because there seemed to be a lot of mis-communication going on and you were/are not being clear about your position. Or that is at least how it seems others are reading it.

If you have an issue with my quoted summary, then take that up with me and clarify the record, but please do not put me in the same sentence as the others and make it look like I am in agreement with them.

I may agree with them, I may not, but I take umbrage with being put in the same category when I have stated no opinion either way on this particular issue. I have stated many times my overall position, but I am trying to find out more about how 310 will affect things.

Rincewind
03-01-2011, 04:14 PM
Yes. And a ban on short draws should only be a condition of receiving appearance fees, not a condition of playing.

I'd be a little more lenient than that. Chess organisers often contribute a lot of money and other resources to organising a tournament which doesn't all go into appearance fees. If the organiser job is made easier by banning draws by agreement before move 30 (say) then I would be in favour of it for all participants, not just those receiving appearance money.

Also if such a clause applied to some players and not others one would have to stipulated what happened when a player who does receive appearance money plays someone who does not. Meaning self-funded players are going to be impacted in some way in any case.

Garvinator
03-01-2011, 04:18 PM
I'd be a little more lenient than that. Chess organisers often contribute a lot of money and other resources to organising a tournament which doesn't all go into appearance fees. If the organiser job is made easier by banning draws by agreement before move 30 (say) then I would be in favour of it for all participants, not just those receiving appearance money.

Also if such a clause applied to some players and not others one would have to stipulated what happened when a player who does receive appearance money plays someone who does not. Meaning self-funded players are going to be impacted in some way in any case.Rules like this have to be applied to all for a tournament. There is no other way.

Rincewind
03-01-2011, 04:24 PM
I have stated many times my overall position, but I am trying to find out more about how 310 will affect things.

That's easy imagine a system when you get zero points for a loss and one point for a draw and two points for a win. That is basically what the sensible system we have now. Now just keep adding points to the win column. Say zero points for a loss, one point for a draw and ten points for a win. That would be silly. the 3-1-0 system is one step away from sensible towards the patently silly.

Rincewind
03-01-2011, 04:30 PM
Rules like this have to be applied to all for a tournament. There is no other way.

It's certainly the easiest and most consistent way to proceed but I would not say the only way. For example, lets say you have two groups of players, group A cannot offer draws before move 30, group B can. When A plays A there is no draw by mutual agreement before move 30, if B plays B then there may be draws by agreement at any time. When A plays B you have at least 3 reasonable ways to proceed. You could either not allow draws, or allow draws or only allow the player from group B to instigate the offer. I can't see that any of these methods would cause the earth to fall of its axis and plunge into the sun.

Kevin Bonham
03-01-2011, 04:43 PM
I've added a poll to the thread and made it a public poll.

Vlad
03-01-2011, 06:10 PM
Let me qualify my vote. I think the 3-1-0 system is reasonable to use with round-robins but extremely bad idea to use with swisses. A good example is the recent tournamnet in gold coast where Molton had fantastic event but because of the system came only second. There is enough randomness in swisses even with 2-1-0. No need to increse it by introducing 3-1-0 system.

Capablanca-Fan
04-01-2011, 01:35 AM
Yes.
And it was shown that 3-1-0 isnt all that great.
After all why should a hard fought draw after 50-80 moves be penalised, just because short 5-25 move draws are considered poor form.
Succinct and to the point.

Capablanca-Fan
04-01-2011, 01:37 AM
Rules like this have to be applied to all for a tournament. There is no other way.
Not sure about that. Appearance money is clearly not equal, because this is a private arrangement between organizers and players. Part of this agreement could be a stipulation against wimpy short draws.

Basil
04-01-2011, 03:26 AM
Succinct and to the point.
and a genuine reason for the 'against' side of the debate, but to hold it up as manna is selective in the extreme.

Repeat the above often as you like, and continue to ignore the deficiences that clearly exist with the ability of players to strangle a game; but apart from preaching vociferously to each other, you're not advancing the game's deficiencies one jot - especially in 2011.

Basil
04-01-2011, 03:59 AM
What I said was ...
Wrong bit. You also said in post #50 : "So are you still saying all draws are bad ..." I have never said all draws are bad. You got lumped-in, as I said in my original, for not following the birdy.


I guess I am having a real tough time trying to work out what your overall position is on this matter of 310. And also the specifics of your position.
It's pretty straight forward. My position is that I know that there are some very exciting and worthy draws, but they are draws nonetheless. I also know that some players play for draws, and I believe a high level of draws is bad for chess (or any other sport). I believe that on balance, 310 is better for chess than 210.


I have stated many times my overall position, but I am trying to find out more about how 310 will affect things.
I'd like to know too. If sufficient data proves that there's no change in the volume of draws with 310 then I would withdraw my support of it. However, if sufficient data proves that it does reduce draws, then I will continue to champion it.

Capablanca-Fan
04-01-2011, 04:29 AM
and a genuine reason for the 'against' side of the debate, but to hold it up as manna is selective in the extreme.

Repeat the above often as you like, and continue to ignore the deficiences that clearly exist with the ability of players to strangle a game; but apart from preaching vociferously to each other, you're not advancing the game's deficiencies one jot - especially in 2011.
Like anything else, there are no solutions, only trade-offs. In this case, solving the "problem" of a minority of short draws by punishing all draws is too big a cost for the benefit.

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
04-01-2011, 05:17 AM
this conversation seems mostly analogous to every "agnostic/atheist vs religioun" thread. a considerable amout of polarising views seeking only to validate each others personal styles without even slightly conceding the opposition might have valid input.

in the current state where points are apportioned 2-1-0 whether it suddenly became more favourable to players with drawing tendencys by changing to 5-3-0 or changed to the aforementioned 3-1-0 to encourage more decisive results it really shouldnt matter what change is made or if any is made at all.

i simply cant see any logic in penalising either style. im as much at home enjoying a strategical rearguard act from boris spassky as i am going through some attacking gems from shirov. every style should be appreciated equally. and positive results are not only winning results but sometimes drawn results too. i can honestly say that id much rather be watching a 55 move drawn match courtesy of a surprisingly masterful stalemate than the 20 move win due to a player leaving a piece en prise and blundering it away then resigning.

but then again it isnt the quality of the game that matters. all thats matters are the results players obtain no matter how they were achieved !! the players shouldnt care what i think about their game nor anybody else they should only care about what the final score is.
chess isnt art its a competition. i think some people expect more from their observation than others.

therefore i vote "it doesnt make any real difference" . everybody plays in the context of the rules so if the rules change (like they do in many of lifes other pursuits) then we all adapt. simple.

whether the current rules are incongruent or pleasant in regards to some peoples chess ideologies the onus is on every individual to play within the context of the scoring mechanism that is presented before them.

an inclusive and flexible style should be rewarded mostly, not polar opposites representing single ideologies.

at the end of the day if the poster boy of draws vladi kramnik has this noted tendency, and wins tournament, then his strategy has been very successful. his ability to memorise opening lines of theory leading to drawn positions more sucessfully than most of his contemporarys gives him a solid weapon to work with and an advantage that works extremely well. the responsibility is on those who do not subscribe towards drawing tendencys to challenge the openings that he utilises and to create positive results against him. obviously vladis style is very pragmatic and that is an excellent quality to have with obviously few challenging his methods successfully.

Basil
04-01-2011, 08:27 AM
Like anything else, there are no solutions, only trade-offs.
Welcome. The first from 'your side of the fence' to acknowledge it.


In this case, solving the "problem" of a minority of short draws by punishing all draws is too big a cost for the benefit.
Oh - short draws are not the only problem.

- Last round coasting 'I only need a draw'.
- I'm a strangler. I don't want to lose. Here's a known line that I've learned. Let me strangle this game. Yay - isn't chess fun.
- I'm newbie/ spectator. Look at all these draws. Meh.

Basil
04-01-2011, 08:30 AM
this conversation seems mostly analogous to every "agnostic/atheist vs religioun" thread. a considerable amout of polarising views seeking only to validate each others personal styles without even slightly conceding the opposition might have valid input.
Except that I think the 210 system is a good one and if if the data doesn't bear our my suspicion, then we should stick with it :wall:

I liked the rest of your post.

Rincewind
04-01-2011, 08:44 AM
Oh - short draws are not the only problem.

But I assume you accept that banning draws by mutual agreement before move x is a better way to deal with this problem.


- Last round coasting 'I only need a draw'.

Many people would play for a win anyway and many other people are playing for a win in order to get a prize or be assured of a prize. Someone in the happy position of being one point ahead of their field should not take risks and forcing them to is exactly the sort of perversion of the game (perhaps on a more exaggerated scale) that is at the root of the 3-1-0 system.


- I'm a strangler. I don't want to lose. Here's a known line that I've learned. Let me strangle this game. Yay - isn't chess fun.

This seems to be a part of your psychosis concerning positional chess.


- I'm newbie/ spectator. Look at all these draws. Meh.

Chess is not a spectator sport that can be appreciated by someone without a reasonably deep knowledge of the game. I don't understand basketball very well but I can enjoy watching a game (in person, basketball on tv is pretty tedious IMO). However chess isn't like that. Thus I don't think we are losing too many players from people looking at a crosstable, analysing the win/draw ratio and deciding that chess is not for them. If that is the basis of their decision then they could have decided that chess was not for them without looking at the cross-table.

Rincewind
04-01-2011, 08:51 AM
Let me qualify my vote. I think the 3-1-0 system is reasonable to use with round-robins but extremely bad idea to use with swisses. A good example is the recent tournamnet in gold coast where Molton had fantastic event but because of the system came only second. There is enough randomness in swisses even with 2-1-0. No need to increse it by introducing 3-1-0 system.

You don't think it would promote risky chess to the point of an overall lowering of the quality of the games in general?

Basil
04-01-2011, 08:55 AM
OK folks, offline for a couple of days. GL and have fun in all your endeavours. Carry on!

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
04-01-2011, 09:34 AM
Except that I think the 210 system is a good one and if if the data doesn't bear our my suspicion, then we should stick with it :wall:

I liked the rest of your post.

yes, but your interest has been a little more than simply "a suspicion" gunner. ;)

if you truly believed that the 210 system is a good one you wouldnt have brought up your key point in regards to what you see as its defects, vis-a-vis the ability of players to draws matches un-necessarily, and keep pursuing it so vigorously. :wall:

anyway what did your "post 91" mention ..................... wasnt it something about you preferring 310 over 210. thats seems somewhat of a contradiciton in my book. you seem to have continually softened your stance or as you love to say "obfuscate" the gallery................

antichrist
04-01-2011, 09:54 AM
Howie

Oh - short draws are not the only problem.

- Last round coasting 'I only need a draw'.
- I'm a strangler. I don't want to lose. Here's a known line that I've learned. Let me strangle this game. Yay - isn't chess fun.
- I'm newbie/ spectator. Look at all these draws. Meh.

AC
If a player is in the position of last round coasting, due to being a point ahead, then they have only earnt that by extra-ordinary effort in earlier rounds. So they may be very well in the mood for a well-earnt coaster. We don't have to kill ourselves by playing unnecessarily peak chess constantly - that is what brings on stress. George Xie would often concede a draw when well ahead of the field - no one begrudged him for it. Strictly speaking it could effect minor prizes but no one complained it. That is life.

You are being like a commo nanny - be a bit libertarian for a change. Are you going to put up signs everywhere in the playing room - do this, don't do that - can't you read the sings.

Kevin Bonham
04-01-2011, 10:54 AM
- I'm a strangler. I don't want to lose. Here's a known line that I've learned. Let me strangle this game. Yay - isn't chess fun.


Problem with 3-1-0 and stranglers is that the strangled opponent is harshly punished just for having the sheer bad luck to be paired with someone determined to make the game a draw. Especially a problem if you have black, since if you play aggressively to unbalance the game you're far more likely at high levels to only get a perpetual. One would think that 3-1-0 would reduce the motivation for stranglers playing that way but Garrett's anecdote from one of his games shows that for whatever reason this aint necessarily so. Perhaps in the midfield some people are more motivated by ratings points than their pointscore unless it qualifies them for a prize or something.

Rowson's Chess For Zebras relays Ivan Sokolov (who has at stages been one of the world's leading players) saying that if the player with white is 2450+ and wants a draw from the outset there's really not much he can do about it, the game will be a draw. Rowson does drop the hint that maybe Sokolov's classical repertoire (...e5 and ...d5 replies) has a lot to do with it and does suggest Sokolov is being a bit modest, but it's still an interesting comment.

antichrist
04-01-2011, 11:28 AM
I aint not top player but I have read books and learned principles and experienced a lot - and more often than not when I played to avoid a draw I lost. Outside of competition I have made exciting non-fully thought out attacks that have been rewarded (with money also) but they don't come off during competition. One can only play solid and hope for slightest weakness from opposition.

Vlad
04-01-2011, 03:46 PM
You don't think it would promote risky chess to the point of an overall lowering of the quality of the games in general?

Quality of chess is a relative term. For the majourity of players Bronstein's games are of high quality. For Botvinnik they were not.

My point was that in a round-robin everybody is in symmetrical situation. If organizers want to push players a little bit and get them to play sharper I have nothing against it. However in a swiss it is a very different story. If somebody gets an easy opponent in the last round he/she benefits twice: 1) wins easily and 2) gets 3 points rather than 2.

Spiny Norman
04-01-2011, 03:47 PM
Thought I'd get some real world statistics to throw into this discussion.

Firstly, the following stats are from the ACF-classic-rated games played at Croydon over the past 6 years (2005-2010 inclusive) and were extracted from our PGN files on the club's website ... the actual ACF figures may be slightly different as there could be some games where the result was submitted but where I didn't receive a scoresheet from the players):

1,177 total games played
560 games where White won (47.6%) ... White scores at 51.9%
515 games where Black won (43.8%) ... Black scores at 48.1%
102 games drawn (8.6%)

So more than 90% of all games played produced a result and less than 10% of all games played produced a draw. So in Croydon's case, I would argue that a 3-1-0 system is trying to solve a problem which simply doesn't exist.

Secondly, the following stats are from all games played by yours truly over the same period:

69 total games played
32 games where White won (46.4%) ... White scores at 52.9%
28 games where Black won (40.6%) ... Black scores at 47.1%
9 games drawn (13.0%)

Now I'm known as someone partial to an honourable draw, so I checked the results of my draws to see whether they were against higher-rated or lower-rated opponents and what the time control was:

game #1 -- opponent rating HIGHER by 807 pts (simul)
game #2 -- opponent rating HIGHER by 221 pts (60+30)
game #3 -- opponent rating HIGHER by 260 pts (60+30)
game #4 -- opponent rating HIGHER by 116 pts (60+30)
game #5 -- opponent unrated (60+30)
game #6 -- opponent unrated (60+30)
game #7 -- opponent rating HIGHER by 602 pts (60+30)
game #8 -- opponent rating HIGHER by 211 pts (60+30)
game #9 -- opponent rating HIGHER by 151 pts (60+30)

Apart from the two (2) unrated opponents (one of whom was roughly my strength at the time, the other markedly weaker), my draws have otherwise all been against opponents who are rated higher, and sometimes significantly higher, than myself.

If I were to be (in effect) penalised for these results under the proposed 3-1-0 system I would be very, very disappointed indeed. :hand:

Garvinator
04-01-2011, 11:16 PM
I think there are two positives that can come out of 310.

1) Some tournaments use 4 rounds of 60/10 and it is not uncommon to take a half point bye in round 4. Under 310, this becomes a bigger decision because it is only worth 1/3 of the total points available, instead of 1/2.

This could mean that more players decide to play round 4, leading to more equal conditions for all, rather than having some players making a tactical decision to not play round 4.

Of course what could result is that some players decide to not play at all.

2) In regards to round 4, when the two leaders are paired together, it is not uncommon for them to agree a draw early. Using 310 might help to have them play a full game, rather than taking a short draw to save energy. I think this is a good thing for the tournament.

antichrist
05-01-2011, 12:18 AM
Well in my limited experience I have never heard of a 4 round comp?? But you know a lot more than myself.

Kevin Bonham
05-01-2011, 12:20 AM
Well in my limited experience I have never heard of a 4 round comp?? But you know a lot more than myself.

I think he means 4 rounds/day on one of the days.

antichrist
05-01-2011, 12:34 AM
"Under 310, this becomes a bigger decision because it is only worth 1/3 of the total points available, instead of 1/2."

AC
KB I interpret this as a 4 round only comp

"Using 310 might help to have them play a full game, rather than taking a short draw to save energy"

AC
KB I intrerpret this as there being extra rounds

Kevin Bonham
05-01-2011, 12:44 AM
This could mean that more players decide to play round 4, leading to more equal conditions for all, rather than having some players making a tactical decision to not play round 4.

True - but if you really want to crack that nut then don't allow half-point byes at all. Of course, some players may whinge (or stay away) who would not whinge about a third-point bye option as in 3-1-0. So I can see the possible appeal there.


2) In regards to round 4, when the two leaders are paired together, it is not uncommon for them to agree a draw early. Using 310 might help to have them play a full game, rather than taking a short draw to save energy. I think this is a good thing for the tournament.

Perhaps, but a quite likely result is one of them losing via a tired blunder not reflective of their normal skill level, increasing the randomness of the results compared to actual playing strengths.

antichrist
05-01-2011, 01:38 AM
2) In regards to round 4, when the two leaders are paired together, it is not uncommon for them to agree a draw early. Using 310 might help to have them play a full game, rather than taking a short draw to save energy. I think this is a good thing for the tournament


AC
If GG is referring to a two day tourney then I don't think they will need to save energy, as will rest overnight immediately after that round. But they may still want to.

If the leaders have had 3 solid games I dont mind them taking it easy round 4. Remember, my scheduling of SEC was skippy, day on then day off etc. I dont believe in making it unnecessarily inhumane. That takes the delight out of chess a bit, makes a hard slog.

Making a tired blunder is not necessarily good for the game nor the players - it can discourage individuals, like myself.

Capablanca-Fan
05-01-2011, 04:56 AM
Problem with 3-1-0 and stranglers is that the strangled opponent is harshly punished just for having the sheer bad luck to be paired with someone determined to make the game a draw. Especially a problem if you have black, since if you play aggressively to unbalance the game you're far more likely at high levels to only get a perpetual. One would think that 3-1-0 would reduce the motivation for stranglers playing that way but Garrett's anecdote from one of his games shows that for whatever reason this aint necessarily so. Perhaps in the midfield some people are more motivated by ratings points than their pointscore unless it qualifies them for a prize or something.

Rowson's Chess For Zebras relays Ivan Sokolov (who has at stages been one of the world's leading players) saying that if the player with white is 2450+ and wants a draw from the outset there's really not much he can do about it, the game will be a draw. Rowson does drop the hint that maybe Sokolov's classical repertoire (...e5 and ...d5 replies) has a lot to do with it and does suggest Sokolov is being a bit modest, but it's still an interesting comment.
Yes, probably a bit modest, but making a point that at higher levels, it's hard to win on cue with black against a not-too-much weaker player determined to draw. This is especially so for a classical player who tries to play objectively sound moves rather than "mixing it up".

Even on a much lower level, in my Kiwi days, quite a lot of players 100–200 points below me would play "drawing lines" against me with white, and since they were 2000+ players, it was hard to deal with without getting out of my classical comfort zone.

Capablanca-Fan
05-01-2011, 05:03 AM
If a player is in the position of last round coasting, due to being a point ahead, then they have only earnt that by extra-ordinary effort in earlier rounds. So they may be very well in the mood for a well-earnt coaster. We don't have to kill ourselves by playing unnecessarily peak chess constantly - that is what brings on stress. George Xie would often concede a draw when well ahead of the field - no one begrudged him for it. Strictly speaking it could effect minor prizes but no one complained it. That is life.
This is something overlooked by the draw-haters: no one gets a high prize without winning games; if they are in a position to take a draw, it is usually because they have won more games than their competitors.


If the leaders have had 3 solid games I dont mind them taking it easy round 4. Remember, my scheduling of SEC was skippy, day on then day off etc. I dont believe in making it unnecessarily inhumane. That takes the delight out of chess a bit, makes a hard slog.

Making a tired blunder is not necessarily good for the game nor the players - it can discourage individuals, like myself.
That's a good point. Even such a creative player as David Bronstein defended the need for some short draws in an arduous tourney to conserve energy. It was better for their own results, and I would argue for the tourney as a whole, if they played at the best for more games.

I also admire the late Sarapu's tournament tactics which involved energy-saving draws. They were proven when he still won the NZ Championship in his 60s against a strong field. If such people are strong enough to do this, then let them—much better than people half their age moralizing against it.

Capablanca-Fan
05-01-2011, 05:16 AM
Some light relief: a fitting memorial to the drawing master Tigran Petrosyan (1999) (http://www.ruschess.com/Archive/1999/PETR70/table.html): 42/45 games were drawn between these very strong veterans, over half under 20 moves.

Actually, he was a very great player who won plenty—including four Soviet championships, Gold Medals at Olympiads with huge winning percentages, and of course two world championship matches—and was immensely hard to beat at his best. Keene's new book Petrosian vs the Elite: 71 Victories by the Master of Manoeuvre 1946–1983 (http://www.amazon.com/Petrosian-Elite-Victories-Manoeuvre-1946-1983/dp/0713490497) has some fine games. See my very brief comments on this book (http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=201682&postcount=10).

Desmond
05-01-2011, 07:31 AM
I think there are two positives that can come out of 310.

1) Some tournaments use 4 rounds of 60/10 and it is not uncommon to take a half point bye in round 4. Under 310, this becomes a bigger decision because it is only worth 1/3 of the total points available, instead of 1/2.

This could mean that more players decide to play round 4, leading to more equal conditions for all, rather than having some players making a tactical decision to not play round 4.

Of course what could result is that some players decide to not play at all.

2) In regards to round 4, when the two leaders are paired together, it is not uncommon for them to agree a draw early. Using 310 might help to have them play a full game, rather than taking a short draw to save energy. I think this is a good thing for the tournament.Or just don't try to squeeze that extra round into the event in the first place.

Rincewind
05-01-2011, 09:11 AM
Quality of chess is a relative term. For the majourity of players Bronstein's games are of high quality. For Botvinnik they were not.

The fact that the term is relative is besides the point. If players are encouraged to play a risky style by penalising draws then the quality of chess of everyone would be negatively impacted. People at the club level will become more coffeehouse, players at the top level not quite so positionally correct. Petrosian may still have become world champion under a 310 system but his style may not have been so superlative.

About the only players who would not be affected would be the old men who play on the big boards at shopping malls.


My point was that in a round-robin everybody is in symmetrical situation. If organizers want to push players a little bit and get them to play sharper I have nothing against it. However in a swiss it is a very different story. If somebody gets an easy opponent in the last round he/she benefits twice: 1) wins easily and 2) gets 3 points rather than 2.

I understand your point that the system would be fair, but that is not the same as being a good idea. I think is early draws are a problem then specifically banning them is an option but penalising all draws seems like using a sledgehammer to crack a peanut - that isn't even there.

Rincewind
05-01-2011, 09:14 AM
1) Some tournaments use 4 rounds of 60/10 and it is not uncommon to take a half point bye in round 4. Under 310, this becomes a bigger decision because it is only worth 1/3 of the total points available, instead of 1/2.

This could mean that more players decide to play round 4, leading to more equal conditions for all, rather than having some players making a tactical decision to not play round 4.

Of course what could result is that some players decide to not play at all.

If there is a tactical advantage to taking a 1/2 point bye in round 4 why do organisers/arbiters allow it?


2) In regards to round 4, when the two leaders are paired together, it is not uncommon for them to agree a draw early. Using 310 might help to have them play a full game, rather than taking a short draw to save energy. I think this is a good thing for the tournament.

Not sure why you would think this is a good thing for the tournament but even if it were so surely a ban on short draws is a much better way to target this "problem".

Kevin Bonham
05-01-2011, 11:56 AM
AC
If GG is referring to a two day tourney then I don't think they will need to save energy, as will rest overnight immediately after that round.

You're correct. If they meet in round 3 they're likely to take a short draw to save energy. If they meet in round 4 they're likely to take a short draw because they don't have any energy left. Players who take advantage of a half-point bye option for round 4 adopt the same approach. Though I think a bigger tactical advantage might be gained in a small field by taking one in round one.

antichrist
05-01-2011, 02:47 PM
You're correct. If they meet in round 3 they're likely to take a short draw to save energy. If they meet in round 4 they're likely to take a short draw because they don't have any energy left. Players who take advantage of a half-point bye option for round 4 adopt the same approach. Though I think a bigger tactical advantage might be gained in a small field by taking one in round one.

Why would a top player take a short draw in round one when only playing a mid-fielder like myself - that was I, cannon-fodder, but I loved putting it up the top players. They would not concede a draw on a should-be easy round.

antichrist
05-01-2011, 02:48 PM
Or just don't try to squeeze that extra round into the event in the first place.

If guillotine finish 4 rounds are okay in one day, just a bit earlier start.

Rincewind
05-01-2011, 02:54 PM
Why would a top player take a short draw in round one when only playing a mid-fielder like myself - that was I, cannon-fodder, but I loved putting it up the top players. They would not concede a draw on a should-be easy round.

I believe Kevin was referring to a 1/2 point bye in round 1.

Basil
05-01-2011, 10:13 PM
if you truly believed that the 210 system is a good one you wouldnt have brought up your key point in regards to what you see as its defects, vis-a-vis the ability of players to draws matches un-necessarily, and keep pursuing it so vigorously. :wall:
Don't be silly. I believe the 210 system fits very neatly with my view of the legal system - it's the best we've got. In the examination of a possible better system, I draw on what I see are the deficiencies in the present one. It's as simple as that. My interest is in the betterment of chess. All this half-baked, amateur psycho-analysis is bewildering.


you seem to have continually softened your stance or as you love to say "obfuscate" the gallery................
Rubbish. Which first post(s) and subsequent post(s) suggest a softening? It's you characters you have jumped the gun in discerning my position.

Basil
05-01-2011, 10:15 PM
Problem with 3-1-0 and stranglers is that the strangled opponent is harshly punished just for having the sheer bad luck to be paired with someone determined to make the game a draw. Especially a problem if you have black, since if you play aggressively to unbalance the game you're far more likely at high levels to only get a perpetual.
Tis a good point and I have conceded it from the get-go.


One would think that 3-1-0 would reduce the motivation for stranglers playing that way but Garrett's anecdote from one of his games shows that for whatever reason this aint necessarily so.
And as I believe I have suggested, one anecdote from either side of the fence doesn't shore up the argument.

Basil
05-01-2011, 10:18 PM
Thought I'd get some real world statistics to throw into this discussion.
I like your stats. If these were borne out over greater sampling, I'd be happy to bury the idea. I'm not sure that 10'ish percent draws is the norm though - especially higher up the tree.

antichrist
05-01-2011, 10:27 PM
I like your stats. If these were borne out over greater sampling, I'd be happy to bury the idea. I'm not sure that 10'ish percent draws is the norm though - especially higher up the tree.

the higher up the tree one would expect more draws

Kevin Bonham
05-01-2011, 10:37 PM
I like your stats. If these were borne out over greater sampling, I'd be happy to bury the idea. I'm not sure that 10'ish percent draws is the norm though - especially higher up the tree.

There's a curve for draw proportion by rating that I've seen. It bottoms out with scarcely any draws at a rating something like 700 (but not at zero because for very low ratings there are more draws because of stalemates) and then increases with rating from there upwards. These days at the top level I think it's slightly over 50% draws on average.

The Gold Coast Chess Festival with 3-1-0 had about 12% draws. That does seem a bit lower than normal for the rating range for the event. MCC Cup Weekender had about 19%

antichrist
05-01-2011, 10:45 PM
one just has to remember Fisher/Spassky games and all the draws, also Karpov and Kasparov - Gunnar, where have you been? Under a rock

Basil
05-01-2011, 10:59 PM
one just has to remember Fisher/Spassky games and all the draws, also Karpov and Kasparov - Gunnar, where have you been? Under a rock
The last six months or the last 36 hours? The last six are unmentionable here!; the last 36 hours were a quick escape to the Tweed and Outrigger Twin Towns.

antichrist
05-01-2011, 11:07 PM
The last six months or the last 36 hours? The last six are unmentionable here!; the last 36 hours were a quick escape to the Tweed and Outrigger Twin Towns.

I like that outrigger swimp[ool, just long enuf, I went there when big chess comp a year or so ago.

I meant last 40 years how long I have followed chess, I can rememebr every fisher/spassky game, went fru each one every day

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
06-01-2011, 03:13 AM
Don't be silly. I believe the 210 system fits very neatly with my view of the legal system - it's the best we've got.

arent your the same person advocating changing from 2-1-0 to 3-1-0 ?
have you suddenly forgotten about those insidious stodgmeisters ? what about all the draws you rail against that you believe are so numerous with the current system ?
but now all of a sudden youve changed belief to one that states that the 2-1-0 system fits very neatly and its "the best weve got".

why exactly did you spend so many posts arguing against the current system, when in reality youve finally agreed no change is needed?

In the examination of a possible better system, I draw on what I see are the deficiencies in the present one. It's as simple as that.

yes, youve stated what you see as the prime deficiency of the current system but youve also stated that 3-1-0 is the preferred system. referring to your post 30..... " 3 points for a win all the way". thats really as simple and succinct as it gets.

My interest is in the betterment of chess. All this half-baked, amateur psycho-analysis is bewildering.

im sorry gunner, but i didnt attend the same community college weekend workshop in amateur psychology as your good self. i was too busy lambasting the mythical "stodgmeisters" for their gutlessness towards chess.

the only thing bewildering is your ability to change tack so impressively

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rubbish. Which first post(s) and subsequent post(s) suggest a softening?.

Gunner in post 30 - "3 points for a win all the way"

advocating 3-1-0 quite strongly !!!

Gunner in post 91 - "I believe that on balance, 310 is better for chess than 210."

now, a more objective view after further consideration with less emphasis placed on absolutes and without the "all the way" rhetoric .

Gunner in post 95 - "Except that I think the 210 system is a good one and if if the data doesn't bear our my suspicion, then we should stick with it"

now you actually praise the existing system adding a further concession to your initial claim.

that accounts for the softening of your stance........

It's you characters you have jumped the gun in discerning my position

obviously your correct.............. i mean, its so plausible to derive the wrong impression from the declaration, "3 points for a win all the way".
what was i thinking even trying. how can i possibly attempt to discern anything inciteful from such an abstruse piece of information !!! its like incomprehensible heiroglyphics, it truly cannot be deciphered !!!!

honestly, the only misdemeanour involving firearms is your ability to gunsling your way through this thread and completely miss the target consistently !!

ER
06-01-2011, 11:12 AM
I want a footy (AFL), scoring system... Not in the poll so I don't vote! :P

Oepty
06-01-2011, 05:16 PM
I want a footy (AFL), scoring system... Not in the poll so I don't vote! :P

What? The AFL scoring system is 4-2-0, so just 2-1-0 doubled. Or am I missing something?
Scott

ER
07-01-2011, 10:47 AM
What? The AFL scoring system is 4-2-0, so just 2-1-0 doubled. Or am I missing something?
Scott

LOL I know, but it would take patzers like me only three wins to reach double digit figures! :P

Rincewind
07-01-2011, 10:59 AM
LOL I know, but it would take patzers like me only three wins to reach double digit figures! :P

A quicker way would be to spot every player 10 points before round 1. :D

Oepty
07-01-2011, 12:54 PM
LOL I know, but it would take patzers like me only three wins to reach double digit figures! :P

Okay, yes, lets do it, the more points the merrier. I was actually hoping you were not advocating a 6-1-0 system to tie in with goal-behind-out on the full.
Scott

Patrick Byrom
08-01-2011, 03:08 AM
There's a curve for draw proportion by rating that I've seen. It bottoms out with scarcely any draws at a rating something like 700 (but not at zero because for very low ratings there are more draws because of stalemates) and then increases with rating from there upwards. These days at the top level I think it's slightly over 50% draws on average.

The Gold Coast Chess Festival with 3-1-0 had about 12% draws. That does seem a bit lower than normal for the rating range for the event. MCC Cup Weekender had about 19%
The average for Qld GP events (not including the GCCF) is about 11.5%. However, it does appear that events with longer time-controls and more higher-rated players have more draws: the Australia Day Weekender (20%) and the Open section of the GC Open (14%) were both above average, while the Mackay Open had 0%!

lost
08-01-2011, 03:10 AM
Everyone is having a say on the matter and I think it is good what people are saying in terms of looking at different scoring systems.

A system I like and this only reflects on what I am saying no one else here but how about a 3-2-1 system.

This will either spark interest or nothing at all. What is everyone's thoughts on this.

lost

Basil
08-01-2011, 04:22 AM
Everyone is having a say on the matter and I think it is good what people are saying in terms of looking at different scoring systems.

A system I like and this only reflects on what I am saying no one else here but how about a 3-2-1 system.

This will either spark interest or nothing at all. What is everyone's thoughts on this.

lost
Under this proposal, 2 points rewards draws, being greater than 50% ROI.

Desmond
08-01-2011, 07:39 AM
Under this proposal, 2 points rewards draws, being greater than 50% ROI.
Yes I agree, 3-2-1 doesn't make much sense to me.

The other system in the running would be 5-2-0 I guess. Rewarding the win more than 2 draws but by a relatively smaller margin than in the 3-1-0.

Another idea is using 1-.5-0 system but number of wins as the countback method. The potential flaw I see with this is that it would require shared prizes to be decided on countback instead.

pappubahry
08-01-2011, 10:47 AM
Isn't 3-2-1 just the regular 2-1-0 except everyone gets a free point each round?

mikesguns
08-01-2011, 11:36 AM
Isn't 3-2-1 just the regular 2-1-0 except everyone gets a free point each round?
Its quite different as draws are worth more

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
08-01-2011, 12:09 PM
Isn't 3-2-1 just the regular 2-1-0 except everyone gets a free point each round?

:D :D :D

what about 64-63-62 !!!!


5-3-0 or 7-4-0 is closer to the mark in favouring draws as opposed to the current system.

Kevin Bonham
08-01-2011, 12:18 PM
Its quite different as draws are worth more

No, it's mathematically the same in terms of the standings at the end of the tournament.

Suppose it's a 7 round tournament, deduct 7 from everyone's pointscore at the end and you will get exactly the same thing as if you had used 2-1-0 - which in turn is twice what you would get using 1-1/2-0.

It only looks like draws are worth more compared to wins because of the 3-2 ratio. But the 3-2 ratio isn't real because one point each round is guaranteed just for turning up, even if you lose. Excluding the free point the ratio is 2-1 which is the same as normal.

Under the normal system, 3 wins 4 draws is the same as 5 wins 2 losses (5/7). Under 3-2-1, 3 wins 4 draws is 3*3+4*2=17 while 5 wins 2 losses is 5*3+2*1=17. The same.

A system that would really favour draws unfairly would be 3-2-0.

A 3-2-1 system is absolutely useless unless you just want to make sure everyone gets "points".

CivicChessMan
10-01-2011, 08:02 AM
If there is a tactical advantage to taking a 1/2 point bye in round 4 why do organisers/arbiters allow it?

I don't think anyone should be rewarded for not playing in a round. Replace the half-point bye with the no-point bye.

This is the half-point bye for the Queenstown Classic 2012:

Half-point byes in the Queenstown Chess Classic: To give flexibility to chess enthusiasts combining the tournament with a holiday: Any player may elect to take up to two half point byes, to be taken no later than round seven. However, any New Zealand player who wishes to be eligible to win a New Zealand National Championship title (or an automatic Olympiad team spot) must play all nine rounds.

Surely, someone coming from abroad can tack on a few extra days for the tourist stuff. And with the start time set at 3pm there is a lot one can see and do before then.

Rincewind
10-01-2011, 09:16 AM
Half-point byes in the Queenstown Chess Classic: To give flexibility to chess enthusiasts combining the tournament with a holiday: Any player may elect to take up to two half point byes, to be taken no later than round seven. However, any New Zealand player who wishes to be eligible to win a New Zealand National Championship title (or an automatic Olympiad team spot) must play all nine rounds.

If you take any 1/2-point bye(s) off a players score and they STILL qualify for the NZ Champs or Olympic spot, isn't making them ineligible by simply taking the bye on offer a little harsh?

Kevin Bonham
10-01-2011, 12:04 PM
Surely, someone coming from abroad can tack on a few extra days for the tourist stuff.

Perhaps not if their constraint is not money but time.

Spiny Norman
10-01-2011, 03:19 PM
What happens if there are an odd number of entrants and you have 9 "forced byes" ... are those players ineligible? ... or are such byes deemed qualitatively different to "elective byes"?

CivicChessMan
11-01-2011, 01:25 AM
If you take any 1/2-point bye(s) off a players score and they STILL qualify for the NZ Champs or Olympic spot, isn't making them ineligible by simply taking the bye on offer a little harsh?
The rules are clear that to win the NZ Championship or an Olympic place, a NZ player must play all 9 rounds. Effectively, the half-point bye offer is not available.


What happens if there are an odd number of entrants and you have 9 "forced byes" ... are those players ineligible? ... or are such byes deemed qualitatively different to "elective byes"?
That would be my interpretation, forced byes count, elective byes do not.

Rincewind
11-01-2011, 09:03 AM
The rules are clear that to win the NZ Championship or an Olympic place, a NZ player must play all 9 rounds. Effectively, the half-point bye offer is not available.

I didn't think the rule was ambiguous, just possibly harsh.

ER
15-01-2011, 12:24 AM
Okay, yes, lets do it, the more points the merrier. I was actually hoping you were not advocating a 6-1-0 system to tie in with goal-behind-out on the full.
Scott

nah but i have in mind something else... I am starting a movement to award points for contested marks which actually is what footy is all about! Can you imagine to get marks for a pig-dive-in-the-mud like try in NRL and having nothing for the greatest ever athletic achievement like a contested mark? Ron Barassi reckons I am mad when I told him that down at the beach, Tommy Hafey just laughed (he never stood a chance to contest a mark anyway :P) and only Crackers Keenan at the old Truth offices in West Melbourne agreed to talk about it as long as they banned penalising bumping them over the head from behind rule!

ER
15-01-2011, 12:32 AM
A quicker way would be to spot every player 10 points before round 1. :D

yes i am all for that, so I can get my double digits in one go, and spend the rest of the time annoying people in the tournament hall by asking them to pose for me for pics like I did at the Open .... here 's some real chess action:

http://i1230.photobucket.com/albums/ee481/jak_jak1/100.jpg

antichrist
16-01-2011, 01:57 AM
yes i am all for that, so I can get my double digits in one go, and spend the rest of the time annoying people in the tournament hall by asking them to pose for me for pics like I did at the Open .... here 's some real chess action:

http://i1230.photobucket.com/albums/ee481/jak_jak1/100.jpg

is that George Xie on the background table in dark gear?

antichrist
17-01-2011, 11:14 AM
[17-01-2011 03:39 AM] antichrist: are there more draws coz players are more mobile these days compared to 50 years ago and so don't want to play too many difficult games?

chessview
21-01-2011, 10:44 PM
For me it's not good idea. In chess it must be that two draws are always the same as one win.

If we are going to favor winning than drawing, there is a way how to do it. In tournaments where some players have the number of points we should take into account number of wins and afterwords Semi-Bucholz and Bucholz. That will make the chess will be more resultative game.

Basil
22-01-2011, 03:06 AM
If we are going to favor winning than drawing, there is a way how to do it. In tournaments where some players have the number of points we should take into account number of wins and afterwords Semi-Bucholz and Bucholz. That will make the chess will be more resultative game.
This sounds like a plan.

Capablanca-Fan
22-01-2011, 07:34 AM
This sounds like a plan.
It's been done, e.g. in the Asian Junior Champs I played in as long ago as 1981.