Poor draw percentage levels for spectating

[Kevin Pacey]

This is a poll to see whether respondents would be disappointed, in general, if they spectated at a tournament where the percentage of drawn results were above a certain level.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Poor draw percentage levels for spectating

I voted for over 70% drawn games for a tournament being a disappointment to myself (were I a spectator, or playing the games through at home for that matter). That's because I believe 70+% would be high even for an elite event (or a strong playing program tournament, if one were held).

For matches I wouldn't find this level of draws quite as tedious. There is drama in the tension of a match normally right to the end, if the match is at all close, as someone must win the match outright eventually. A tournament can have first place shared, many ways possibly.

I'm a bit surprised all the other 4 respondents so far (as I write these words) indicated not caring about the percentage of draws (i.e. even all the games of a tournament they were watching being drawn presumably wouldn't bother them). Perhaps this is a reaction to the anti-draw thread on this message board that's been active with postings of late.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Poor draw percentage levels for spectating

Now a fifth person has voted for the option of not being bothered by the percentage of draws in a tournament (if spectating).

I was going to suggest introducing more knockout tournaments, if it looked necessary to try to make a lot of chesstalkers happier, but it looks like that won't be the case. Maybe knockout tournaments could be tried for chess on television, if it got there more often in North America.

[Brad Thomson]

Re: Poor draw percentage levels for spectating

Assuming that White is not winning, no chess game is decisive unless a mistake takes place. Therefore the best played games will always be draws. I do not understand the mentality of hoping for mistakes, I would rather see a game without mistakes. The best possible chess game must be a hard-fought draw, and this is what I would prefer to see. Of course, chess is so complex that there will always be mistakes and decisive games. But to be disappointed if in a given tournament there were not enough mistakes made, seems odd to me, so long as the draws are hard-fought and played out.

[Alan Baljeu]

Re: Poor draw percentage levels for spectating

Every game has mistakes. Match a GM against a computer and see all the opportunities to lose. The fact that most games are drawn does suggest that chess is very balanced and it extremely hard to find sufficiently good lines at the top level to beat opponents. Don't think they aren't trying, because the stakes at that level are huge.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Poor draw percentage levels for spectating

Assuming that White is not winning, no chess game is decisive unless a mistake takes place. Therefore the best played games will always be draws. I do not understand the mentality of hoping for mistakes, I would rather see a game without mistakes. The best possible chess game must be a hard-fought draw, and this is what I would prefer to see. Of course, chess is so complex that there will always be mistakes and decisive games. But to be disappointed if in a given tournament there were not enough mistakes made, seems odd to me, so long as the draws are hard-fought and played out.

At one point, according to the late Larry Evans (in an interview I read online), Fischer believed White should win from the starting position. Evans didn't say whether Fischer believed that at the end of his life, or for how long. However, there are also some optimistic average GMs (Adorjan, Rowson for example) who even believe Black might be winning. :)

Of course, Steinitz' view that error-free chess should result in a draw is the widely accepted one nowadays (odd that Steinitz was one of Fischer's heroes, though so may have been Weaver Adams, who thought White should win, but kept changing his mind about which opening to use).

That aside, as I indeed suspect Steinitz' view is correct, as you do, in sports you will always hear commentators, players, coaches and fans pointing out that a goal (touchdown, whatever) would not have happened without at least one error by the other side. Yet such letdowns are inevitable. Even in chess, at least as it is played by humans. Thus the fans can count on, and crave, decisive results, at least now and then.

[Mathieu Cloutier]

Re: Poor draw percentage levels for spectating

I also voted that the % of draws does not bother me. Although the poll is only for draws, and not short, uneventful draws...

Anyway, the games might be boring regardless (the last WC cycle, anyone? Linares 2004?).

The occasional short draw doesn't bother me at all, but when you have a feeling that the guys don't even want to be there playing chess...

For private, high level tournaments, organizers should stop worrying about the format and simply invite/reward the guys that play exciting chess.

1-Give 10-20% of the prize fund for brilliancy prizes
2-Invite Moro, Naka, Ivanchuk, Shirov...
3-??? (well, chess games!)
4-Profit! (I would actually be willing to pay for that)

Mathieu

[Brad Thomson]

Re: Poor draw percentage levels for spectating

Bryon Nickoloff also believed that White was winning, though only with 1.d4. Nick disagreed with Fischer who preferred 1.e4 as the best, and possibly only winning first move.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Poor draw percentage levels for spectating

Bryon Nickoloff also believed that White was winning, though only with 1.d4. Nick disagreed with Fischer who preferred 1.e4 as the best, and possibly only winning first move.

After reading a couple of books on the Najdorf, if I took them at face value I would have concluded that defence equalizes fairly comfortably against 1.e4.

K.S. once wrote that he preferred 1.e4 to 1.d4 - he felt the latter allowed Black to strongpoint the square e4, using the Nimzo/QID complex for example. Don't know if he feels that way still, but somehow I doubt he (or most modern GMs) would think White is winning after either move.

Myself, it pains me to see any first move, or opening, fall into disuse or disfavour, but it can't always be helped, at least temporarily.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Poor draw percentage levels for spectating

I also voted that the % of draws does not bother me. Although the poll is only for draws, and not short, uneventful draws...

Anyway, the games might be boring regardless (the last WC cycle, anyone? Linares 2004?).

The occasional short draw doesn't bother me at all, but when you have a feeling that the guys don't even want to be there playing chess...

For private, high level tournaments, organizers should stop worrying about the format and simply invite/reward the guys that play exciting chess.

1-Give 10-20% of the prize fund for brilliancy prizes
2-Invite Moro, Naka, Ivanchuk, Shirov...
3-??? (well, chess games!)
4-Profit! (I would actually be willing to pay for that)

Mathieu

A problem is making most high level tournaments private. If it could be that way, then organizers could try to impose such standards. Keeping track of players who have lots of short draws entered in recent years in databases, possibly, when deciding who to invite.

Brilliancy prizes can produce controversy depending on how they're judged. Possibly resulting in hard feelings (though what else is new in chess and sports ). I think that's why such prizes stopped being awarded so much, decades ago.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Poor draw percentage levels for spectating

A problem is making most high level tournaments private. If it could be that way, then organizers could try to impose such standards. Keeping track of players who have lots of short draws entered in recent years in databases, possibly, when deciding who to invite.

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I had assumed the Grand Slam Curcuit, and the World Cup, for example, had regulatory bodies that didn't leave it to the discretion of the organizers of their events as to who to [not] invite to a given event.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Poor draw percentage levels for spectating

This is a poll to see whether respondents would be disappointed, in general, if they spectated at a tournament where the percentage of drawn results were above a certain level.

Kevin, can you put up another poll that asks the same question, except instead of % of games drawn, use % of games drawn in a non-fighting manner (short draws, or just drawn games with no risky moves made).

Notice Brad Thomson's post on this thread, and especially the last sentence. He wants to see mistake-free chess, but ONLY if the draws are "hard-fought and played out".

But really, for either poll to hold any weight and really indicate someting, it has to be asked of people on the street who have never or seldom played or spectated chess. And one of the choices would need to be: "I would never spectate an organized chess game unless a friend or relative were playing." That would still get the vast majority of votes, because even eliminationg all draws wouldn't by itself bring in spectators to chess IMO.

[Bindi Cheng]

Re: Poor draw percentage levels for spectating

After reading a couple of books on the Najdorf, if I took them at face value I would have concluded that defence equalizes fairly comfortably against 1.e4.

Got some recommendations? I gotta brush up on that again.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Poor draw percentage levels for spectating

Assuming that White is not winning, no chess game is decisive unless a mistake takes place. Therefore the best played games will always be draws. I do not understand the mentality of hoping for mistakes, I would rather see a game without mistakes. The best possible chess game must be a hard-fought draw, and this is what I would prefer to see. Of course, chess is so complex that there will always be mistakes and decisive games. But to be disappointed if in a given tournament there were not enough mistakes made, seems odd to me, so long as the draws are hard-fought and played out.

Brad, I don't like to be critical because you are the one who, like me, is in favour of chess960, and kudos for that.

But I don't understand the mentality of wanting all games to be hard-fought draws. Do you really want to see every tournament result in equal first among all participants?

If you're a hockey fan, do you want to see every game a hard-fought tie, even playoff games, and thus 30 teams sharing the Stanley Cup?

[Bob Armstrong]

Re: Poor draw percentage levels for spectating

Hi Kevin:

Grand Slam Masters - organizer gets 2 invitees
World Cup - I believe the host country gets some extra invitees ( not sure on this though ).

Bob