Tweet
Re: Poor draw percentage levels for spectating
Shared brilliancy prizes have happened in the past, if memory serves.
Once Karpov beat someone (Yusupov!?) and they jointly received a briallancy prize.
I may be wrong, but I think there have been events (at least long ago) where there's been more than one brilliancy prize. Maybe even prize(s) for defensive gems (after all, it's usually harder to defend than attack, at least if material sacs by the attacker aren't involved).
One thing that should not happen is players in an event lobbying the judges for picking their game as a brilliancy prize winner, other than providing analysis possibly. Someone once told me a story about Kasparov doing such lobbying for a briallancy prize he eventually got, in favour over a more truly deserving game played by others. Another thing that can happen is fans/spectators doing some lobbying, which I overheard someone once doing for a game I had played. The more knowledgable judge rightly waved off the idea in favour of a deeper game played by a GM at the same event.
Kotov had a pet peeve with the existence of ratings, possibly for reasons similar to what you've described (I can't quite recall). Tom O'Donnell felt the same way, likely for different reasons, years ago, and probably still does.
If the rating system is still to be kept, a possible price, for the conservative play it encourages, might be fewer invitations for some players to private elite events, if organizers want to encourage fewer draws.
Keeping track of people who play an excessive number of short draws, as I 've suggested, might be a better way to try to improve things, without changing them too much - though if the fix is in for a game, the players might simply contrive to produce a longer, effortless draw. The trick is, perhaps, for organizers of private elite events to keep how they issue invitations a bit secretive.
Originally posted by Mathieu Cloutier
View Post
Once Karpov beat someone (Yusupov!?) and they jointly received a briallancy prize.
I may be wrong, but I think there have been events (at least long ago) where there's been more than one brilliancy prize. Maybe even prize(s) for defensive gems (after all, it's usually harder to defend than attack, at least if material sacs by the attacker aren't involved).
One thing that should not happen is players in an event lobbying the judges for picking their game as a brilliancy prize winner, other than providing analysis possibly. Someone once told me a story about Kasparov doing such lobbying for a briallancy prize he eventually got, in favour over a more truly deserving game played by others. Another thing that can happen is fans/spectators doing some lobbying, which I overheard someone once doing for a game I had played. The more knowledgable judge rightly waved off the idea in favour of a deeper game played by a GM at the same event.
Kotov had a pet peeve with the existence of ratings, possibly for reasons similar to what you've described (I can't quite recall). Tom O'Donnell felt the same way, likely for different reasons, years ago, and probably still does.
If the rating system is still to be kept, a possible price, for the conservative play it encourages, might be fewer invitations for some players to private elite events, if organizers want to encourage fewer draws.
Keeping track of people who play an excessive number of short draws, as I 've suggested, might be a better way to try to improve things, without changing them too much - though if the fix is in for a game, the players might simply contrive to produce a longer, effortless draw. The trick is, perhaps, for organizers of private elite events to keep how they issue invitations a bit secretive.
Comment