On Mar 13, 1:46=A0pm, "David Kane" <davidek...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > If by `supporting evidence', you mean an occasion on which the method
> > of cheating that I described has been used, of course I can't provide
> > any supporting evidence! =A0We are discussing a hypothetical change to
> > the rules of chess that, to the best of my knowledge, has never been
> > used in a high-level tournament.
>
> You are permitted to argue by analogy. Really I think if you think about
i=
t,
> you will conclude that changing the scoring does not create cheating
> possibilities
> that aren't already present. So the absence of widespread cheating
evidenc=
e
> is meaningful.
Wasn't there a college football game where the headline was Harvard
beats Yale 22-22? I think that if there was a rating system on draws,
where whoever is in the worse position would be credited with an
advantage, would lead to interesting strategies. In a draw, the person
must maintain their disadvantage, although that could lead to losing
the game, while the stronger player can go for the win, or try to have
a worse position. To prevent chess from turning to crap, this would
be evaluated from the strength of the opponent's position.
|
