"David Damerell" <damerell@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:K6v*LCL9r@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Quoting David Kane <davidekane@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>:
>>"David Damerell" <damerell@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>Who's tossing this coin and communicating the decision to all the
players
>>>in considerably less than a minute, none of whom will blab or decline
to
>>>participate in the fiddle?
>>I think it would be in principle no more difficult for a soccer team to
pull
>>this off without suspicion than it would be for chess players.
>
> Obviously it is just as easy for 22 players (plus the actual
coinflippers)
> some of whom are of limited intelligence to keep a secret as it is for
> two.
You simply haven't considered the difficulties in implementing the
cheating scheme that Mr. Richerby proposes in chess.
Imagine that I have an agreement with Mr. Richerby (both of us
being dishonorable people) so that whenever we reach a
drawn position, we agree to flip a coin and the loser throws
the game.
We reach such a position, implement our plan, and I lose the toss.
Both of us are near the top of the tournament, so it is going to cost
me prize money today when I lose on purpose. Sure, he will gain
a lot more than I lose, but that does me no good today. I don't
know the next time I will play him. It could be years from now.
I don't know that the next time I play him whether there will be
any money on the line. I don't know that the next time I play
him that I will win the toss. I don't know that the next time I play
him and win the toss with money on the line, that he will keep
his side of the deal and throw the game to me. No honor
among thieves, right? And of course, I will have to make
some really bad moves to lose. I'll lose rating points. If my bad
moves are too obvious, I might get caught.
Still sound like a reasonable cheating scheme?
What would more likely happen is a collusion of a different sort. I will
play aggressively with White to get an advantage. Suppose that he
sees a way to simplify into a drawish position where I have a slight
advantage but he can probably hold the draw. That "draw at best"
line doesn't look so good if draws don't count as much. So he uses
his chess skill to come up with a different plan, based on counterplay
elsewhere on the board, etc.
In short, we collude to play chess.
>
>>The point is that the current scoring system produces collusion
>>in chess that nobody disputes. It *is* part of chess' tradition to
>>have unplayed draws. While I might grant that people should be on the
>>look out for these far-fetched theoretical possibilities that Mr.
>>Richerby raises, they should not be considered as serious
>>objections absent *any* sup****ting evidence.
>
> As far as I can make out, this says "because chess players collude today
> when the scoring system means it is to their mutual advantage, it is
> ridiculous to suggest they would do so when a different scoring system
had
> such a consequence".
It's saying that if you want to reduce dishonest collusion in chess, you
should reduce the value of draws. Of course, the main advantage to
reducing the value of draws is that the game will become more interesting
to play and watch!
rk.greenend.org.uk> Distortion Field!
> Today is First Gloucesterday, March.
|
