what is up with all of the really high rated players taking draws when they are only half of the way done with the game? Honestly i think that it is ridiculous! and i think that to be a true champion u need to take risks and play the game out to see what will really happen...i read in an article once that the purpose of chess was to mate your opponent...he thought that there should be no point advantage for a draw in tournaments and that it should be counted as a loss because u haven't mated your opponent...even i have made one or two early draws that probably would've played out to make someone win and the other lose...if u look at my record it is something like 11/6/4...i think that it is a little odd that my draws are catching up to my losses...does anyone else have an opinion on draws?🙄😲😏😛
I don't have too many draws,as I only offer one when my position is worse and my oppo's usually decline,and I only accept them when my position is worse but then I don't get many offers LOL
For high rated players it is a lil different.When they know the game is drawn and they know their opponent has sufficient technique,they don't want to waste time and energy on playing it out.Also,in OTB tournaments,the fear of slipping up and losing a drawn game might have something to do with it.
Sir Lot.
Originally posted by SirLoseALotI agree about the OTB tournaments. Many people who are really into chess complain that Kramnik plays for draws too much, which he's admitted to doing time to time. He won the Linares with like ten draws and two wins! I honestly see no problem with early draws though. Some games (positions) are just not worth the effort.
I don't have too many draws,as I only offer one when my position is worse and my oppo's usually decline,and I only accept them when my position is worse but then I don't get many offers LOL
For high rated players it is a lil different.When they know the game is drawn and they know their opponent has sufficient technique,they don't want to waste ti ...[text shortened]... ,the fear of slipping up and losing a drawn game might have something to do with it.
Sir Lot.
-Kev
Originally posted by SirLoseALothey Sir LAL,
More fair!!??
Two sides playing by different rules makes it more fair!!??
You must have lost it completely LOL
the ability to move next is a significant advantage,
it is not fair if one player can and the other cannot.
if one player has one sort of advantage it is only fair that the other player has another sort.
and yes i have lost it completely.
and i draw a lot,
MrDrawALot.
Originally posted by flexmoreWhite has the right to move first,that's it,nothing more,nothing less.It's not that big of an advantage,if it was chess would be dead 'cause black would stand little to no chance at high level.
hey Sir LAL,
the ability to move next is a significant advantage,
it is not fair if one player can and the other cannot.
if one player has one sort of advantage it is only fair that the other player has another sort.
and yes i have lost it completely.
and i draw a lot,
MrDrawALot.
The handicap of losing kingside castling rights is a way bigger deal than the first move advantage.
Originally posted by SirLoseALotI still disagree with the first part of your statement...and the second part (the part about OTB) seems to exactly what i was trying to say in the first place...if draws weren't worth any points then everyone (including these "high rated players"😉 would play much harder for a win...they wouldn't just look at a game and decide that they "could" lose or it "might" end up in a draw at the end of the game, because the draw would be just as bad as a loss, then the players would struggle much more for the WIN and not the DRAW. (Heck, who knows they might even try something new and a little risky!
For high rated players it is a lil different.When they know the game is drawn and they know their opponent has sufficient technique,they don't want to waste time and energy on playing it out.Also,in OTB tournaments,the fear of slipping ...[text shortened]... osing a drawn game might have something to do with it.
Sir Lot.
😲
--knapster--
Originally posted by knapsterI wasn't saying that I agree with the way they play,I only said that I think that's why so many draws happen.You asked what is up with all those draws and I explained my view.I happen to agree with you that draws should not count.It wouldn't change all that much in tournament play though.People would still try to avoid losing 'cause when a draw is 0 points,a loss is not only 0 points,it also means a point gained for your opponent.
I still disagree with the first part of your statement...and the second part (the part about OTB) seems to exactly what i was trying to say in the first place...if draws weren't worth any points then everyone (including these "high rated players"😉 would play much harder for a win...they wouldn't just look at a game and decide that they "could" lose or ...[text shortened]... W. (Heck, who knows they might even try something new and a little risky!
😲
--knapster--
It would sure make things more intresting if every game was played 'till the end.
Sir Lot.
Originally posted by SirLoseALotAMEN! 🙂 I totally agree with u!
I wasn't saying that I agree with the way they play,I only said that I think that's why so many draws happen.You asked what is up with all those draws and I explained my view.I happen to agree with you that draws should not count.It wouldn't change all that much in tournament play though.People would still try to avoid losing 'cause when a draw is 0 ...[text shortened]...
It would sure make things more intresting if every game was played 'till the end.
Sir Lot.
The 3-1-0 points system is enough incentive to avoid draws. But sometimes thay are unavoidable. The idea is to have fun, not bust a gut in hopelessly tied up games. Here's an example:
Game 402364
The draw was a mercy to both players.
Much better to agree the draw and conserve energy for games that are still playable.