English Chess Forum

Chessbase have this story:
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=7387

The idea that chess and tennis are similar, apart from draws, is ridiculous in my opinion. I can't believe it is coincidence Kasimdzhanov works for the world's best rapid player.

Still I am curious why chess and tennis get compared. The ACP seems to consciously mimic the ATP for example. I wonder if it is just wishful thinking on the part of professional players.

Haven't read the Chessbase article, but I do think Tennis and Chess are comparable. John Mcenroe during his Wimbledon commentary spent 5 minutes discussing the similarities with Chess.
In both sports you have to out maneuvre your opponent in some respects. The serve in tennis is like having White in Chess - you have to vary it so that you don't become too predictable. A serve and volley can be equivalent to all out attack, which in both sports can be a good surprise weapon but is generally refuted. A back hand slice/drop shot is like a chess move that provokes your opponent into coming out. A rook move is like a back hand down the line and a forhand is like a Bishop/Queen move. In tennis you always have to alter your stratgy according to how the game is going, in master chess you are told to transfer your advantages throughout the game.

So I work like a dog to hold a stronger player to a draw, but it doesn't count for anything (not even rating?) because he'll probably beat me in the rapid/blitz anyway.

The idea might have some merit in tournaments where it's all players of similar strength, but it would be easier and more logical to change the stalemate rule imo

Probably the anti-draw idea holds merit in huge Swiss Opens as a form of tiebreaker, so that the public get something exciting to watch, but the draws themselves still play their part. Perhaps they could combine it with the Sofia Law so that really short draws end up being discarded, but proper ones don't. Though then that opens the can of worms, of what a proper draw is.

I think the best idea is simply to create a few high level tournaments with this system in place, pre-announced, and see how it rolls. If chess needed a Fischer to be globally popular (and thanks to him make England good by extension; and Nigel ), then we probably can only strive as far as darts or snooker, with varied formats.

The best analogy I can give to show the difference between chess and tennis would be to ask players for each game to try their hand at the other sport. I would love to hear the noise Maria Sharapova made whilst moving the chess pieces.......!

Scott Freeman wrote:The best analogy I can give to show the difference between chess and tennis would be to ask players for each game to try their hand at the other sport. I would love to hear the noise Maria Sharapova made whilst moving the chess pieces.......!

No doubt she'd still make a racket

Chess is like rugby because a promoted pawn is like a player that scores a try.

I thought chess was most often compared with snooker, the multi coloured chess game. Steve Davis used to play chess ya know, even wrote a book on the subject, How to Pot Pawns. Actually I think it was titled, Steve Davis plays chess, wearing a dodgy waistcoat.