I have had several online games that was drawish on this site. But they wouldn't accept or offer draw. They prefered to fight.
Remove the draw offer !
Sort:
Ron-Weasley wrote:
sisu wrote:
Ron-Weasley wrote:
Chess isn't a sport.
OK then, in Gelfand's case, it is a competition with big prizes.
Yes, like a poker tournament, its a game but not anything like a sport.
I would play in a tournament of 4 for $200 win or lose.
Scottrf wrote:
That man speaks the truth. You can't popularise something people don't understand.
+1 People can't watch something they doesn't understand. You can enjoy football, even you have all your limbs cut off and never played, but if you want to watch chess on TV not knowing more than the basics...
Krestez wrote:
Scottrf wrote:
That man speaks the truth. You can't popularise something people don't understand.
+1 People can't watch something they doesn't understand. You can enjoy football, even you have all your limbs cut off and never played, but if you want to watch chess on TV not knowing more than the basics...
You also can't popularize it if there's no financial incentive to promote it. When you watch a football game they have advertizers lining up, beer commercials, truck commercials, snack food, etc. What kind of advertizers could they get to promote chess? I can't think of a single item to advertize to chess viewers except maybe eye drops for when eye strain sets in. Chess will never be popular or a sport. It's time for people who think it is to wake up to reality.
They could advertise anything if there were enough people watching. Chess players drink beer, eat snacks and drive cars.
This should be marketing department task.
The other thing is chess takes too long. So, in a way it is good for advertiser, but not so good for audience.
I want to see feasibility survey on chess as a product.
Ron-Weasley wrote:
Krestez wrote:
Scottrf wrote:
That man speaks the truth. You can't popularise something people don't understand.
+1 People can't watch something they doesn't understand. You can enjoy football, even you have all your limbs cut off and never played, but if you want to watch chess on TV not knowing more than the basics...
You also can't popularize it if there's no financial incentive to promote it. When you watch a football game they have advertizers lining up, beer commercials, truck commercials, snack food, etc. What kind of advertizers could they get to promote chess? I can't think of a single item to advertize to chess viewers except maybe eye drops for when eye strain sets in. Chess will never be popular or a sport. It's time for people who think it is to wake up to reality.
It has nothing to do with advertising. Football is just much popular because it's easier to follow and much spectacular for the average Joe.
Certainly some sports are easy to follow. But that doesn't mean other sports cannot be advertised.
I can hardly follow cricket, but it's very popular in England and Commonwealth.
Scottrf wrote:
They could advertise anything if there were enough people watching. Chess players drink beer, eat snacks and drive cars.
I really wish they wouldn't. Too many auto accidents happen while chess players are driving. At least seal a move rather than have blitz finishes on the motorways.
Savage wrote:
Another change I'd propose is to change the scoring system so that W=3 D=1 L=0. This wouldn't stop the scenario where two players tied for the lead in the last round agree to a quick draw, but it would reduce the number of draws dramatically.
How about Win=3, Draw-as-black=2, Draw-as-White=1, Loss=0, this way every game results in 3 points.
unquietmind wrote:
Savage wrote:
Another change I'd propose is to change the scoring system so that W=3 D=1 L=0. This wouldn't stop the scenario where two players tied for the lead in the last round agree to a quick draw, but it would reduce the number of draws dramatically.
How about Win=3, Draw-as-black=2, Draw-as-White=1, Loss=0, this way every game results in 3 points.
Your point system implies there is no other way white must win. And it gives black huge advantage. I disagree.
macer75 wrote:
Chess (and any sport for that matter) isn't about the spectators. It's about obtaining the best result, whether that is a win or draw.
If that were true, why not just hold the next world championship in Anand's basement, and just post the result in two weeks time as a text file on the internet when all the games are finished?
A chess competition is all about providing a chess spectacle for the public. For players (and their fans) who enjoy "GM draws" so much, they are entitled to play as many 10 move draws as they want in the privacy of their own homes.
In case of a draw:
1. Play Armageddon and sudden death.
2. Best of 3.
bean_Fischer wrote:
In case of a draw:
1. Play Armageddon and sudden death.
2. Best of 3.
I like the idea, even though I don't even know what sudden death or armageddon is.
ihateparadox wrote:
bean_Fischer wrote:
In case of a draw:
1. Play Armageddon and sudden death.
2. Best of 3.
I like the idea, even though I don't even know what sudden death or armageddon is.
Armageddon is Black gets the draw odd, and white gets the time odd. Sudden death is whoever wins the 1st game of a series gets the win.
bean_Fischer wrote:
ihateparadox wrote:
bean_Fischer wrote:
In case of a draw:
1. Play Armageddon and sudden death.
2. Best of 3.
I like the idea, even though I don't even know what sudden death or armageddon is.
Armageddon is Black gets the draw odd, and white gets the time odd. Sudden death is whoever wins the 1st game of a series gets the win.
Fischer, old bean, I like a lot of what you post but man that picture is annoying. I know, I know, I have a totally unimaginative horse I coloured in...I really should get something new but....please change it :)
Incidentally I have been a Rowan Atkinson fan for about 30 years.
bean_Fischer wrote:
ihateparadox wrote:
bean_Fischer wrote:
In case of a draw:
1. Play Armageddon and sudden death.
2. Best of 3.
I like the idea, even though I don't even know what sudden death or armageddon is.
Armageddon is Black gets the draw odd, and white gets the time odd. Sudden death is whoever wins the 1st game of a series gets the win.
I read about that armageddon being used for the US championship. It is a disgrace to chess to decide a champion based on a blitz game. It makes the whole thing illigitimate, its something Saddam Hussein thought up to ruin American chess.
bean_Fischer wrote:
unquietmind wrote:
Savage wrote:
Another change I'd propose is to change the scoring system so that W=3 D=1 L=0. This wouldn't stop the scenario where two players tied for the lead in the last round agree to a quick draw, but it would reduce the number of draws dramatically.
How about Win=3, Draw-as-black=2, Draw-as-White=1, Loss=0, this way every game results in 3 points.
Your point system implies there is no other way white must win. And it gives black huge advantage. I disagree.
footbal scoring system is not effective as an anti-draw system. London classic or Bilbao grand slam have the same draw rate as Tata Steel or the Tal Memorial.
Ron-Weasley wrote:
bean_Fischer wrote:
ihateparadox wrote:
bean_Fischer wrote:
In case of a draw:
1. Play Armageddon and sudden death.
2. Best of 3.
I like the idea, even though I don't even know what sudden death or armageddon is.
Armageddon is Black gets the draw odd, and white gets the time odd. Sudden death is whoever wins the 1st game of a series gets the win.
I read about that armageddon being used for the US championship. It is a disgrace to chess to decide a champion based on a blitz game. It makes the whole thing illigitimate, its something Saddam Hussein thought up to ruin American chess.
Read the rules for the World Championship.
Chess isn't a sport.
OK then, in Gelfand's case, it is a competition with big prizes.
Yes, like a poker tournament, its a game but not anything like a sport.