The drawn game is killing spectator interest in high level chess

[Larry Bevand]

That has been my opinion for decades (and chess has survived anyway lol). Suggestions to the problem...or am I seeing a problem where there is none?

Larry

[Paul Bonham]

That has been my opinion for decades (and chess has survived anyway lol). Suggestions to the problem...or am I seeing a problem where there is none?

Larry

You're using a word -- "killing" -- where a different word is accurate: "restraining". Chess has survived because there is a significant vested interest in its survival, including the many thousands of people worldwide who appreciate the game enough to play tournament events.

Larry, you should know why chess is surviving. You are deeply involved in the biggest market for chess: KIDS.

Kids are why chess is surviving. They for the most part don't know or even care about the "draw problem" at highest levels of chess. All they know is that they see a chess set in front of them, and the universe is their oyster. That is going to go on for as long as there are kids and chess sets.

The present and future of chess tournaments and events is also kids. The CFC is onto this, and you are too Larry. There's nothing wrong with that, you are seizing the opportunity where it is greatest, and good for you. I do like your approach better than the CFC's, which is apparent in the names: "Chess 'N Math" versus "Chess Federation".

It is a painful process for so many, however, to go from chess kid to chess adult. I feel for a lot of those kids and wonder where a lot of them end up in adulthood. The talented ones end up doing well, either in chess or in scholastics and careers. It's the lesser talented ones who really love chess that I wonder. For them, the bubble bursts because there is no room in adult chess for them except as what I think of as chess addicts -- unable to give it up, even though they can go nowhere in the game they love. Many of them are ok with that, but there are likely others that don't do so well and never hear about.

Larry, if you want to know something, the reason I work at chess variants and one in particular is to give in the near future those not-so-talented kids a chance to still land on their feet. That is, to give them a chance to actually win something once in a while using their love of chess.

I would urge you, Larry, to keep stressing to kids (as I hope you have been already) that chess is a competition, yes, but it is also an art form and subject to many interpretations and it is an AVENUE TO CREATIVITY. Thus things like chess variants are just as interesting as chess tournament results.

Vlad Drkulec would disagree, and I know you are buddy-buddy with him, but I urge you to think about where he is "leading" you with his sole interest in chess as a competition. I think this might also be the central reason why Neil Frarey is so set against Drkulec, but Frarey doesn't even realize it. Neil contributes to the prize funds of certain specific tournaments, which only stresses the competitive aspect of chess, but he does also associate chess with the graphic arts which is creative in nature.

There's nothing wrong with competition. In fact, competition gets us back to the title of this thread, because drawn games tend to be thought of as non-competitive. And indeed many of them are, while a minority can be very competitive.

The higher levels of chess will be ok. They will go on, because hundreds of thousands of people constitutes a viable if very static market. What needs to happen for dynamism is an EXPANSION of the very definition of chess.

[Toy Chack Kwan]

It is a painful process for so many, however, to go from chess kid to chess adult. I feel for a lot of those kids and wonder where a lot of them end up in adulthood. The talented ones end up doing well, either in chess or in scholastics and careers. It's the lesser talented ones who really love chess that I wonder. For them, the bubble bursts because there is no room in adult chess for them except as what I think of as chess addicts -- unable to give it up, even though they can go nowhere in the game they love. Many of them are ok with that, but there are likely others that don't do so well and never hear about.

I am only tangentially familiar with the chess scene in the GTA area, but from what I see at local tournaments and my chess club (SCC), it seems that 90% of juniors are Asian, and 90% of these are of Chinese ethnicity,

...for most kids of these many Tiger moms/dads (who patiently wait 2-3 hrs for the games to finish, week in, week out), chess is just another supplemental activity, like piano/violin lessons, swimming classes, soccer, in which they dutifully partake in...and from which they cease with relief upon entering university;

I suspect the few who really enjoy playing will join their respective university chess clubs and/or just play online;

[Erik Malmsten]

...and from which they cease with relief upon entering university;

I suspect the few who really enjoy playing will join their respective university chess clubs and/or just play online;

When I played in the 1970s there was an active high school league. But for the past few decades there has been a big drop off in numbers as young players entered high school. Perhaps too much homework, plus more time spent on the Internet playing games and social networking? Perhaps give up when didn't become a master? And found themselves master of another activity. Lots of choices and some activities are dropped.

[Toy Chack Kwan]

When I played in the 1970s there was an active high school league. But for the past few decades there has been a big drop off in numbers as young players entered high school. Perhaps too much homework, plus more time spent on the Internet playing games and social networking? Perhaps give up when didn't become a master? And found themselves master of another activity. Lots of choices and some activities are dropped.

that would probably be Toronto,

I attended Harbord Collegiate 66-71,
and recall that Northern Secondary (and maybe Malvern) was quite strong, our school's best result was a 2nd place in the 70-71 school yr,

there were never any individual high school tournaments that I can recall (I don't think that any of the supervising teachers knew much about chess, never mind Swiss pairings and arbitrating and such!)

[Ian Findlay]

I would argue that all of the games were fighting chess and very interesting games. In the old days, there were some very short draws, especially between Karpov and Kasparov. To me it is similar to watching a 0-0 tie in the World Series of baseball. Not much scoring but a lot of tension, given that any mistake could end the match.

[Grey Guo]

You're using a word -- "killing" -- where a different word is accurate: "restraining". Chess has survived because there is a significant vested interest in its survival, including the many thousands of people worldwide who appreciate the game enough to play tournament events.

Larry, you should know why chess is surviving. You are deeply involved in the biggest market for chess: KIDS.

Kids are why chess is surviving. They for the most part don't know or even care about the "draw problem" at highest levels of chess. All they know is that they see a chess set in front of them, and the universe is their oyster. That is going to go on for as long as there are kids and chess sets.

Well said, Paul, there is no magic to grow the chess population, kids are the future and I do observe the same thing, they really do not care about the draw problem. This week, my daughter started to prepare some school presentation, and checked with me on the potential topics, I asked her what's the reason for the topics she proposed, and why not pick something you familiar with and you can show something different to other kids? And then she picked to introduce the World Chess Championship 2018 to her class, including the regulation, people, and the games. I can see the 12 draw games does not have any issue for her, and she was so excited watching the first rapid yesterday,

[Grey Guo]

I am only tangentially familiar with the chess scene in the GTA area, but from what I see at local tournaments and my chess club (SCC), it seems that 90% of juniors are Asian, and 90% of these are of Chinese ethnicity,

...for most kids of these many Tiger moms/dads (who patiently wait 2-3 hrs for the games to finish, week in, week out), chess is just another supplemental activity, like piano/violin lessons, swimming classes, soccer, in which they dutifully partake in...and from which they cease with relief upon entering university;

I suspect the few who really enjoy playing will join their respective university chess clubs and/or just play online;

Maybe you did not mean that, but as a Chinese, I would argue this is just another variation of sterotype. Every kid is different, it's hard for the kid to know which one s/he likes, most of the Asian/Chinese parents will try to provide the opportunity to access different areas. Most of the time, kids found something they really love and then start focusing on certain area from grade 7 or high school, for my example, my kid quit dance, basketball and MATH!!!, started focusing on music since high school. This could be the main reason you may notice that the number of kids is declining since U14.

I would not say this is a problem, the key is putting a seed of the culture of chess in the kids, sometime later, when they become a parent, chess will be one of the options for their kids. We cannot expect if you started with chess, you must love it.

[Tom O'Donnell]

There are still quite a few players I knew back 35+ years ago, when we were juniors, who are still active today: Dave Southam, Rob Gardner, David Filipovich, Doug Bailey, Steve Bolduc to name a few. In contrast, I am amazed at how many of my, and others', really strong students just decide to quit and many, at least thus far, never came back. Maybe chess will experience an increase in senior participation in about 40 years when these wunderkinder have retired and decide to complete the circle.

[Ferdinand Supsup]

Every viewer expected a decisive result in every game. However, when there is none, we can conclude that both players played well.
One of the most famous quotes of the former World Champion Vasily Smyslov mentioned "I will play 40 good moves. If you can play 40 good moves, we will draw."
Hence,
I would propose a new format that will yield a decisive result for every game.
How about a format for rewarding points on different time control.
3 points for a win in the classical time control, if the game is drawn, they will go to rapid games.
A win claims the match of the day after the classical game.
2 points for a win in the rapid time control, if the games are drawn, they will go to blitz games. A win claims the match for the day.
1 point for a win in the blitz time control, if the games are drawn, they will go to one Armageddon Game.
1 point is also awarded for the Armageddon Game.
Now, we have a decisive result in every game/match.
One advantage of this format is that both players have to prepare for their games in different time controls.
Alternatively, if the classical game ends in draw, why not let them play for the tiebreak games to decide who wins the game of the day. We might even get a winner before 12 match games. We want results? Something has to be done about the format.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Whatever was the reason the match news got on the BBC top; even the local York region radio station broadcasted the BBC report.

[Toy Chack Kwan]

CBC 'The National' did a clip on it:
https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/1383338051979

[Toy Chack Kwan]

Maybe you did not mean that, but as a Chinese, I would argue this is just another variation of sterotype. Every kid is different, it's hard for the kid to know which one s/he likes, most of the Asian/Chinese parents will try to provide the opportunity to access different areas. Most of the time, kids found something they really love and then start focusing on certain area from grade 7 or high school, for my example, my kid quit dance, basketball and MATH!!!, started focusing on music since high school. This could be the main reason you may notice that the number of kids is declining since U14.

I would not say this is a problem, the key is putting a seed of the culture of chess in the kids, sometime later, when they become a parent, chess will be one of the options for their kids. We cannot expect if you started with chess, you must love it.

LOL!

I suppose I was actually stereotyping myself then, because my wife and I did the exact same type of thing for our daughter not that many years ago that these parents are doing now,

...chaperoning her to her swimming lessons ('NO, you can't quit until you get your life guard certification!'), her Chinese lessons ('your teacher says your Chinese is really improving...maybe Santa'll bring you a PS3 for Christmas'), math classes, piano lessons.... my wife was the real tiger in the family!!

TC

[Alex Ferreira]

Hi,


I don't think draws are ruining spectator chess at top level necessarily. At least not for me. Not sure if what provoked this thread was the World Championship finishing in 6-6 with 12 draws. But lets take this example. Were there mistakes? Sure. But overall minor ones. Everyone is an armchair critic and a 3200-rated GrandMaster with some engine running in the background. You watch any live broadcast where patzers can voice their opinions in some platform and there's always a flood of stupid comments "BLUNDER!" - "OMG Caruana is so weak, he didn't see Ng5" - "DRAW DRAW DRAW" - "Carlsen just made a gross blunder" etc... The funny part is... viewership keeps rising over the years. Number of platforms to watch these in keep rising over the years.
This World Chess Championship was the only one with all draws in classical time control, but I think the quality of chess was actually pretty high. Two amazing players fought it out, and there was little if anything to truly separate them in the classical games. The majority of the games were hard-fought draws, and some could have been played out further. Still way better than the Carlsen-Karjakin match in my view. And that one had two decisive games.

Not that long ago, +2 or +3 would be plentiful to win a super tournament. Short draws were a plague.

Then, about 10-12 years ago:
-- enter Sofia Rules --
Veselin Topalov was briefly at the top of the world, armed with ridiculous computer novelties and fighting spirit, Many of these novelties were not completely sound, but impossible to refute over the board. The Topalov-Danailov camp announced Sofia Rules for their tournament in Sofia which ran some 4-5 years before Topalov crashed from the top rankings. This rule states that, no draws shall be offered at all during any game. A perpetual must occur or game being played out to bare kings. A minor improvement towards discouraging short draws. Variations of Sofia no-draw-offer rules are still around.
-- enter Bilbao scoring system --
3 points for a win, 1 for a draw, 0 for a loss, like football (soccer) scoring. This was tried for a few years, first in Bilbao, adopted by some other tournaments occasionally. But the interest has since died, so maybe the idea wasn't as successful as it was intended.
-- enter Magnus Carlsen --
The chess world changed. Just when we thought humans are doomed because we cannot compete with computers anymore, here comes this hungry beast. Now... +2 gets you 2nd or 3rd place at best. No longer can players aim to just win with white, hold with black. You want to compete with Magnus, you need +5 and play dynamic chess with both colours. Opening preparation took a weird step sideways. The best player in the world was now one whose opening preparation was very unimpressive compared to his peers, yet he found positions where creativity, fighting options and unclear paths were plentiful. More top level players in top level tournaments have to play out their games in full. The Petroff and Berlin have not been eradicated, but they are only some of the openings at the top level. Sicilian is back, after not being seen at the top level for a few years.
-- enter technology, and expert online live broadcasting --
The first time I watched professional online commentary was during the first London Classic if I am not mistaken. Nigel Short and Lawrence Trent. This was sort of revolutionary. Now, every elite tournament has a live-broadcasting team, some of these being paid products. Soon after you get Peter Svidler doing it, someone from the world's top 10! Or at least top 20 now. Now during the World Championship in 2018, you had 5 or 6 or more platforms providing different commentary live, with different people. In different languages! Online analyzes broadcasts have also evolved a ton. You can watch chessbomb, chess24 (this year they had Svidler, Grischuk, Giri!), you can watch the official stream with Judit Polgar, you can watch the Saint Louis broadcasting team with Seirawan, Ashley and Shahade, you can watch the Canadian Chess Brahs, Eric Hansen and Aman Hambleton. And each broadcasting group has their own audience, their own fan-base. Each chess-playing server has their own GM or IM providing analyzes too, if you wish to confine yourself to your own playing platform.

Is the drawn game killing spectators of top level chess? Ridiculous. Based on what? People who just want blood and war all the time, with high-scoring systems, are probably more blood-and-war fans than they are chess fans. I could be wrong but I personally feel top world chess is going through a Golden Age, and I am afraid to miss this a decade or two from now.


Alex F.

[Larry Bevand]

Excellent post Alex.

I believe sports are trying to get rid of the draw result (I don"t follow sports so probably you know better than I).

I have always preferred the system you mentioned:

-- enter Bilbao scoring system --
3 points for a win, 1 for a draw, 0 for a loss, like football (soccer) scoring. This was tried for a few years, first in Bilbao, adopted by some other tournaments occasionally. But the interest has since died, so maybe the idea wasn't as successful as it was intended.

Can you help me understand the folly of my thinking :)

Thanks!

Larry