taken from chessbase website..
Our proposed solution does not change the rules about draws by mutual agreement, which still can be offered and accepted at any stage of the game. Instead, we believe that draws should not be accepted as a final chess result. Automatically, whenever a game ends in a draw, the two players shall immediately draw colours for a blitz playoff.
Depending on the time control and other constraints of the tournament, one of several possible styles could be used. For instance asudden death game will be played where White has 6 minutes and Black, 5. In the case of a draw, Black will be declared the winner.
It will be up to FIDE to decide whether the rating system should still recognize draws or simply take the result of the playoff.
Even if these measures are implemented, there are still bound to be problems. For instance, in a tournament involving standard time controls, two players could agree to a short draw and then only fight it out in the blitz or sudden death games. This would enable them to save energy for later rounds. In knockout tournaments such as the World Championships, it is frequently reported that competitors engage in such practices, especially when they were even matches occur early in the tournament. Similar practices have also been alleged in other sports, especially those involving rackets. Whenever a match is played between two players of the same federation, suspicions that the two players have agreed prior to the game that the match will be decided in the first set often fly around. (In such cases, it is presumed that the players have agreed that the loser of the first set would throw all subsequent sets, again in order to save energy.)
An additional feature of our system would prevent this. We propose deducting a percentage of the prize money, say, 10%, after dividing the number of rounds. For instance, if the second prize of a 10-round tournament is $20,000, and a player had two draws (with a score of nine points), then he receives $16,000 ($2,000 x 8 wins) plus $3,600 for the two draws. A portion of the prize fund deducted may be used to give additional prizes which were unannounced (perhaps even unconventional ones like Best Fighting Spirit?). This may be slightly complicated but players are discouraged from taking short draws in the initial matches.
A legitimate concern about this is that players who have fought hard, but only to achieve peace on the chessboard, would be disadvantaged. However, it is important to note that the percentage of the prize fund here deducted would be small, although significant enough to cause those who wish to agree to quick draws to think twice. Moreover, in the long run, if we presume that the percentage of truly drawn games is the same among all players, then no player would be more heavily penalized than the other.
Some may question the assumption that the percentage of truly drawn games will not differ amongst players. Indeed, if our proposal is adopted, a specialist of the Sicilian Defence will find that his prize money is often higher than one who uses the drawish Berlin Defence. However, the point is, exciting play ought to be rewarded by organisers – spectators simply do not want to see a repeat of Kasparov-Kramnik, 2001. To draw a parallel with soccer, was it not a common rant in the press by sponsors and spectators that the Greek ultra-defensive style of play in Euro 2004 championship sucked the fun out of the game, legitimate as it may be? The point is that a protective method of playing chess will be allowed – it will just not be encouraged because it does not help chess.
To quote Mark Dvoretsky again, “many sports have, at some point in their history, reached a stage when people had to find ways to make those sports more popular and attractive for spectators.” Indeed, with increasing recognition as a sport at the international stage (Southeast Asian Games, Asian Games, and potentially others), and more and more National Federations becoming affiliated to their respective Olympic committees, and their measures to popularize chess in the developing world, the number of chess players has hardly ever been higher. However, these can only help so much – chess must become more sporting. No matter which teams are playing in a football match, the fans would rather see some goals than no goals at all. No matter how interesting a football match may have been played, a goalless match is uninteresting. Similarly for us, if we want to retain our chess fans, we have to make the game for exciting. After all, like it or not, chess will survive not because of just great chessplayers, but more importantly, how many followers of the game there are and henceforth, the media and the sponsorship.
We thus hope that the chess world will consider this proposal seriously.
being the former draw master.. i hope this won't be implemented.. =(
Our proposed solution does not change the rules about draws by mutual agreement, which still can be offered and accepted at any stage of the game. Instead, we believe that draws should not be accepted as a final chess result. Automatically, whenever a game ends in a draw, the two players shall immediately draw colours for a blitz playoff.
Depending on the time control and other constraints of the tournament, one of several possible styles could be used. For instance asudden death game will be played where White has 6 minutes and Black, 5. In the case of a draw, Black will be declared the winner.
It will be up to FIDE to decide whether the rating system should still recognize draws or simply take the result of the playoff.
Even if these measures are implemented, there are still bound to be problems. For instance, in a tournament involving standard time controls, two players could agree to a short draw and then only fight it out in the blitz or sudden death games. This would enable them to save energy for later rounds. In knockout tournaments such as the World Championships, it is frequently reported that competitors engage in such practices, especially when they were even matches occur early in the tournament. Similar practices have also been alleged in other sports, especially those involving rackets. Whenever a match is played between two players of the same federation, suspicions that the two players have agreed prior to the game that the match will be decided in the first set often fly around. (In such cases, it is presumed that the players have agreed that the loser of the first set would throw all subsequent sets, again in order to save energy.)
An additional feature of our system would prevent this. We propose deducting a percentage of the prize money, say, 10%, after dividing the number of rounds. For instance, if the second prize of a 10-round tournament is $20,000, and a player had two draws (with a score of nine points), then he receives $16,000 ($2,000 x 8 wins) plus $3,600 for the two draws. A portion of the prize fund deducted may be used to give additional prizes which were unannounced (perhaps even unconventional ones like Best Fighting Spirit?). This may be slightly complicated but players are discouraged from taking short draws in the initial matches.
A legitimate concern about this is that players who have fought hard, but only to achieve peace on the chessboard, would be disadvantaged. However, it is important to note that the percentage of the prize fund here deducted would be small, although significant enough to cause those who wish to agree to quick draws to think twice. Moreover, in the long run, if we presume that the percentage of truly drawn games is the same among all players, then no player would be more heavily penalized than the other.
Some may question the assumption that the percentage of truly drawn games will not differ amongst players. Indeed, if our proposal is adopted, a specialist of the Sicilian Defence will find that his prize money is often higher than one who uses the drawish Berlin Defence. However, the point is, exciting play ought to be rewarded by organisers – spectators simply do not want to see a repeat of Kasparov-Kramnik, 2001. To draw a parallel with soccer, was it not a common rant in the press by sponsors and spectators that the Greek ultra-defensive style of play in Euro 2004 championship sucked the fun out of the game, legitimate as it may be? The point is that a protective method of playing chess will be allowed – it will just not be encouraged because it does not help chess.
To quote Mark Dvoretsky again, “many sports have, at some point in their history, reached a stage when people had to find ways to make those sports more popular and attractive for spectators.” Indeed, with increasing recognition as a sport at the international stage (Southeast Asian Games, Asian Games, and potentially others), and more and more National Federations becoming affiliated to their respective Olympic committees, and their measures to popularize chess in the developing world, the number of chess players has hardly ever been higher. However, these can only help so much – chess must become more sporting. No matter which teams are playing in a football match, the fans would rather see some goals than no goals at all. No matter how interesting a football match may have been played, a goalless match is uninteresting. Similarly for us, if we want to retain our chess fans, we have to make the game for exciting. After all, like it or not, chess will survive not because of just great chessplayers, but more importantly, how many followers of the game there are and henceforth, the media and the sponsorship.
We thus hope that the chess world will consider this proposal seriously.
being the former draw master.. i hope this won't be implemented.. =(

1 Comments:
She had shed many atears as she broke up with him. He heldthem tightly as he guided me up and down on his shaft.
incest free sex stories
free preteen girls real incest stories
adult top free stories on line
porn stories family
rape stories
She had shed many atears as she broke up with him. He heldthem tightly as he guided me up and down on his shaft.
By
hot sexy stories, At
4:34 PM
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home