online chess

Online Chess

Participate and you will uncover!
Quirky name, real interests
[ Sign up | Log in | Guest ] (beta)
leping11 46 ( +1 | -1 )
Grandmasters make too many draws Don't you think that chess games at the top level end in a draw too often. Some games are drawn only after 15 or 20 moves. I think that one reason for that is the points scoring system used on the tournaments. But if the system is changes in a way that 3 points will be awarded for a win, 1 point for a draw and 0 points for a loss, then I think the grandmasters have to change their tactics. They have to take more risks and play for the victory
sleepei2 19 ( +1 | -1 )
I dont think that a new scoring system will bring more wins against GMs.By giving such an advantage for a win players will risk less during a game
mate_you_in_fifty 15 ( +1 | -1 )
I don't know what would work But I agree with you-many GM games end in draws today. The fire and excitement of the games of the previous century simply doesn't exist today.
anaxagoras 49 ( +1 | -1 )
Not too many draws... Just too many experts. All of these GM's who draw games are nearly tactically equal, and superlative strategists don't come around very often. So it makes sense that so many games should end up drawn; it's not so much cowardice as tacitical acuity. Most of my games here are lost and won by mistakes, and the same goes for 19th century Chess (as well as a lot of 20th).

On the other hand, just think what a *yearly* chess world championship would do for competition...!
coyotefan 39 ( +1 | -1 )
anaxagoras Well stated.

As a former TD I did find a way to reduce draws. Most draws in tourneys happen in the last few rounds. What i did is create a scoring system that in a 5 round tourney started in the first round 10points for a win 5 points for a draw, second round 10 win 4 draw, round 3 10 win 3 draw and so on. You would be suprised how much harder fought those last few rounds were!
brobishkin 36 ( +1 | -1 )
Draws... Chess is not won by good moves... It is lost by bad moves... At the professional (grandmaster) level of play you will see a much lower amount of weak moves an even lower number of blunders... That is why the draw rate is so high at the Grandmaster tournaments...

Chess is (in a round about way) like tic tac toe... If one side doesn't make a mistake, it becomes a cats game...

peppe_l 181 ( +1 | -1 )
The percentage of draws Is not an issue. Chess fans simply have to understand hard fought draw is as good game as hard fought win. The quality of chess game is not measured by result. Why do chess publications choose low quality decisive games over exciting and well played draws? Because chess audience demands decisive games, and as a result lots of brilliant games will be forgotten. You have 1) a game where two top players have brilliant plans, brilliant tactical complications, deep endgame...and finally draw. Then you have 2) a game where GM N.N 2600 had a bad day and missed two-move fork in move 25. And of course game 2 is the one they will analyze for us :-( The real key to "draw dilemma" is not trying to find artificial means to have more decisive games. It is to teach chess audience that draw does not equal boring.

I do agree "GM draws" are not good for chess though. Of course if 13-move draw guarantees 1st place in big tournament and nice pile of cash, I can understand why top players choose to shake hands :-)

If chess audience wants to see players who choose Blackmar-Diemer Gambit, go for crazy attacks all the time, never exchange queens and rather lose than draw, why watch GMs in the first place? There are many amateur tournaments where lots of such games are played. It is funny amateurs want to play like GMs but want GMs to play like amateurs :>

If I may end my post to an excellent quote from top player...

"I would rather watch a soccer game between France and Italy that ends 0:0 than a second division game that ends 7:6. It's all about the quality of play ..." - Vladimir Kramnik

I have to critisize Great Kram for talking about "soccer" though, it is FOOTBALL :-)
coyotefan 20 ( +1 | -1 )
Football? Nobody plays football in their underwear. Football is a contact sport. Sock-Her is an activity done in ones underwear. :)

That joke stated, your points aere 100% correct!
hanoi_episode 19 ( +1 | -1 )
Peppe_l wrote:
"I have to critisize Great Kram for talking about "soccer" though, it is FOOTBALL :-)"

Just another reason to be in love with Kramnik!

Sarah Tran
divine_sun_cat 43 ( +1 | -1 )
stick to what he knows Kramnik should clearly stick to chess. Calling football "soccer" demonstrates he cares little about it. If he understood football he would appreciate that what makes a great game is the excitement and passion, and a 7-6 game in the local park would beat the 0-0 between Italy and Brazil 1994 world cup final for example. Of course some 'bore draws' are cracking games, but thats not the point.
anaxagoras 16 ( +1 | -1 )
"Calling football "soccer" demonstrates he cares little about it." What anglo nonsense. Keep your linguistic elitism to yourself please!
divine_sun_cat 36 ( +1 | -1 )
anglo nonsense :)

i think you mean the whole world except North America. last time i looked Kramnik was Russian. Maybe i could forgive this oversight as a consequence of translation, but the sentiment he expressed was not that of a true football lover. More that of an occasional viewer. Anyway what do you know about football?
thumper 1 ( +1 | -1 )
Hehe, football? The Superbowl is Feb 1st...........
peppe_l 75 ( +1 | -1 )
Interesting It was the little humorous (OT) note in my post that got most responses...

Correct me if I am wrong but as far as I know American football is a game developed in US about 125 years ago, originally based on RUGBY - a game originally based on football.

To put it simply we talk about football because 1) it was there first (American football was born from rugby and rugby was born from football...) 2) it is more popular than American football, in terms of geographics, amount of players, spectators... 3) because it is more FOOTball than rugby or American football :-)

But if I ever have a chance to visit USA, I can call it soccer if it makes someone happy :-)

If someone of you come to my country you can call it whatever you want...

Any opinions about draws, folks?

premium_steve 61 ( +1 | -1 )
well.... i always like to play for as long as i can if i think my position is better, equal, or even sometimes a little worse. this is because i need so much endgame practice. sometimes though, i think i am being rude to decline the draw when it is a very very close game. my decision usually comes down to judging my opponent - do i think i can beat this guy with my position? is it best to settle on a draw or risk losing everything?
i agree with whoever says quick draws are boring.... but i don't mind much if other people wanna do that. it's ok by me.
brobishkin 13 ( +1 | -1 )
Hmmm... Last time I got off the subject of a thread like this, I was suspended for a month... It's funny how things change with time...
honololou 3 ( +1 | -1 )
brobishkin… we hold you to a higher standard.
divine_sun_cat 4 ( +1 | -1 )
brobishkin no you were banned for whining too much
achillesheel 14 ( +1 | -1 )
I'll Second That 'Bro you forgot the part about how everyone but you is cheating by using chess engines. Maybe that would have been off-topic ;-)
thumper 44 ( +1 | -1 )
Artistically drawn? I think there's a conspiracy at the top of the chess food chain. They're a bunch of emotional cowards. When the battle is tight and victory uncertain, let's draw. Coward! They swap draws back and forth with a wink, protect their rating, and walk around feeling superior. What % of the avg GMs games end in a draw?

In over two years here at GK and 165 games played, I have 5 draws. That's roughly 3% of my games.
sly_lonewolf 7 ( +1 | -1 )
The X-files.... Sounds like they've out-foxed agent Mulder and Scully...!

ccmcacollister 245 ( +1 | -1 )
A CALL TO ARMS... GK-Players:We must UNITE AND DEMAND TO KNOW ! ;Who Were THE 5 COWARDLY GRANDMASTERS, That Conspired To Ruin Thumper's Perfect-record ?!!!_____{&0
Re alt.scoring to decrease draws. The 3/1/0 pts for W/D/L idea is interesting, but I worry that it would effectively penalize a player who gets more BLack than WT pieces, more than the status quo. Wonder how it might work to try different scoring of BL than WT pieces? Does it just shift "penalty" of color to WT?! But I'd like to try the following: For W/D/L white scores 1.1 / .5/ 0 but black would get W/D/L pts of 1.0 / .6/ .1 ? Or simpler to use 3/1.25/0 vs 3.25/1.5/.25 ? Then if Player A won as WT & Draw as BL= 4.5 pts. Same as if Player B won as BL & Draw as WT= 4.5 ----However, if both lose Rnd #3, the BL Player goes ahead by 4.75 to 4.5 points. So maybe wins over Player A, the event, just for his extra Black game. Is that justified? Or give BL & WT BOTH Zero on any better? Or just all unworkable? I'd like to see how this might work out for the first 3 or 4 players of a U.S. Open or other big tmt's crosstable, recalculated.
..Also be interested to play in Coyotefans system too. Especially a Swiss event since each Rnd further along tends to (ideally) pair-up opponents getting closer in strength (pt.groups, then ratings) than the prior Rnd. did. So seems logical raising the WIN values in later rounds as an incentive; that being where normally more draws to be expected, due to paired opp's being closer together in strength than in earlier rounds.
......I've seen similar idea used for multi-tier Postal Chess events, of 2 or 3 tiers. In them only a few advance from each prelim section, to next Rnd. The pt values go up in each successive Rnd. A 2-tier event scores prelims normally: W/D/L= 1/.5/0 , but the Finals score as either 1.5/ .75/ 0 or as 2.0/ .75/ 0. The Latter-way makes a Win Incentive for Finals.
.......The Former-way does not. But it does value Finals games (where again, players strengths are closer now than for prelims opponents) as more important than prelim games.
.....Another idea used locally totals a player's Win points, then among those with the most , a Special or Door Prize goes to whoever faced the greatest Rating differential in aggregate. Or simpler, an "Upset-Prize" to whoever Wins the game of most under-rated difference. Obviously that one usually goes to a player in the bottom-half. which is good, since they have, realistically less Prize chances, if not in a Class-Event. Not as useful for big tmts though.
buddy2 65 ( +1 | -1 )
Michael Adams As a fan of Michael Adams I was intensely disappointed in him when he offered a draw recently to Anand in the 2004 Corus Tournament. I was up for a cracking good game and when I saw him go into the Sicilian I was ready for action. Then...out of nowhere...the draw...still in the opening... plenty of chances to fight it out. I suspect it was arranged beforehand, but who could ever prove it. My estimation of Adams went down several notches. Much I despise Fischer's cracked political ideas, one thing I admired him for: He was always ready to make a fight of it. I think that was one reason the chess establishment hated him. He wouldn't play their "games." And i'm not talking about chess.
ccmcacollister 167 ( +1 | -1 )
GM Draws like Adams... Fischer was a Maximist and had the ability to support it. Maybe Adams is saving his physical strength. Gm's get tired too. (or don't they?Seems like it) BUt there is such a thing as strategy Off-the-board. If you have a limited # of improvements at your disposal, better use em wisely; vs opps they will score on and at critical times.
Anand is a "pretty good" player, huh (would you refuse a draw offer?) Maybe Adams ws conseving strength & fighting spirit. Maybe didn't have anything he thought might lead to a win in that var. vs that opponent. MAYBE DOES have something in that same var, but has now shown publicly, "heh guys I just don't have nuthin in that var. Play it later if you're gropin for a draw with me," ' so's I can make a killin'....Won't that be interesting?
Fischer maximized. Fischer was great. And still Fischer burnt out. Albeit in 2 decades, and considering I thnk he was probably the best
(One winning WC match with Karpov, the ONLY other 2700 player then, would have put him over 2800 FIDE.He Was over 2800 USCF ELO It took Kasparov awhile even with Karpovs rating too feed on. Course AK fed on HIM for awhil, huh?)
and think....we probably never saw how good he could have become.
Hope you won't give up your favorite GM, for making a draw. Bet you are over it already. Sly, You could adopt that var vs someone & show how to do it/I say that in the friendliest way. I'll have to check out some of your games now. In case you're really saying you have, and he missed the boat. Doesn't anyone else ever think that way? Seems like we should have fun with this GAME. (unless it pays the bills maybe.)
thecatcool120 30 ( +1 | -1 )
This subject I find fascinating - GM drawing a lot. I once played a real tough nut who is older than me and I drawed a supposedly lost position where he had a pawn and rook against my rook.
To me, if you are in a losing position and there is no way to win, drawing is another option. So why don't you stop complaining about drawing?