chess online
| From | Message | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
garos 05-Feb-09, 19:05 |
 Drawn gamesTo quote the professor, "Why is this so?" Is it because: a) Being much better players, there are fewer (or no) mistakes made which would give an opponent an advantage, thus increasing the chances of a draw. b) They can 'read' the game much better and know when it is headed into 'drawish' lines. c) They agree to a draw to preserve ratings. (Okay, this one might be contentious, but looking through played games it is easy to find ones which have been drawn while all the rooks and both queens are still in play, and little or no difference in material. Maybe it goes back to b) above.) d) Are they much more adept at playing for a draw? Whereas lesser players might capitulate when down in material, perhaps they can force the game into lines which ultimately produce a draw? e) Does the ability to draw more games make them better players or do they draw more games because they are better players? f) Are ratings (however loosely) connected to percentages of draws? The higher your rating, the more likely it is you will have more drawn games, and conversely, the lower it is, less drawn games? g) Is it all just beyond chess mutts like me to understand? It would be interesting to read what others think. |
||
|
I'm not too sure, I think that a) is valid, because when I was rated 900-1000 here, we would constantly blunder off our pieces, so it was a matter of who blundered less. We'd hardly expect GM's to make blunders that are apparent, although I once occasioned upon an Internet site full of funny games - including Kramnik's missed seeing a mate in 1 against himself, and the famously faked game involving 5 queens! b) I'd agree on that one. The thing is, at different levels of competition, what is perceived as a draw is taken differently. I don't only mean the ability to see many moves ahead, it's also about the likelihood of the opponent making a mistake. For example, consider two GM's in a drawn line. One knows it is drawn, the other doesn't. However, I think the first GM has enough respect for the other GM's abilities to trust that they will find the correct moves in order to force a draw. d) Again, that takes us to endgame skill. In my opinion, in most games that are 'saved' by a losing player, the losing player must have at least some compensation, or not be losing by very much at all, because I think that GM's are skilled at converting small advantages, while in lower-rated games, small advantages might swing either way, with minor mistakes, such as tempi, square control or not addressing threats accurately. e) In general, the ability to draw more is not necessarily always good or bad. In my opinion, it's good, if it means you are blundering less, or that you are drawing against higher rated players. However, it's not good if you were not able to convert a winning advantage, or if it means you constantly play for draws. However, I do think that the second half of the statement is true. f) Yes, I think they are connected, for many of the above reasons. g) Well, I'm just a bug in the chess world, so I can't really say. There's lots of things we don't understand. Sometimes, I don't understand chess games at all, but I always tell myself that someday I can, and that when it does I'll improve And so, that is what I think. Really sounds like an interesting topic to discuss. |
||
|
In all honesty, the statistics showing that better players draw more suggests that chess is a drawn game if played perfectly by both. |
Log in 
