"David Richerby" <davidr@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:vDd*HzF9r@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Robin King <mapletree@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> If White has a slight advantage, then Black could get slightly more
>> than half a point with a draw, and White could get slightly less. Or
>> how about awarding each side a quarter of a point instead of half a
>> point when a draw occurs?
>
> Any scheme that awards less than a half point for a draw just
> encourages players in drawn positions to toss a coin to decide who
> resigns. Players operating this strategy would score, on average,
> half a point from every drawn position they entered and would, on
> average, score more in tournaments than players who just agreed a
> draw.
This theoretical argument is, of course, ridiculous as a practical
objection. Not only do similar scoring systems in many other
s****ts (including soccer) without a hint of a problem, this situation
already exists in chess because monetary prizes are awarded by
place (not pro****tional to points).
> Even assuming the players don't collude, it seems more likely than
> anything else that, with perfect play, chess is a draw. It seems
> wrong to penalize players for achieving what may well be the natural
> result of a well-played game.
>
What is clearly wrong is characterizing a scoring system
as a "penalty". Obviously both players face the same
"penalty". Just about the only certain change we could
expect for certain would be a sharp reduction in the numbers
of uncontested or barely contested draws. Most people
would see that as a good thing, but perhaps not Mr. Richerby.
|
