"David Damerell" <damerell@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:aYh*cu69r@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Quoting <davidekane@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>:
>>On Mar 14, 6:11=A0am, David Damerell <damer...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>>Which is why the trustworthy cheaters (er) will prosper, and find it
easy
>>>to make such arrangements in future.
>>You mean like what has happened in soccer (football) leagues that have
>>W=3, D=1?
>
> Perhaps you missed the article where I observed that getting 22+ people
> some of whom aren't very bright to collude is much harder than 2 chess
> players; that there is no point at which a football match is definitely
> drawn; and that collusion has in fact happened in football?
Read and refuted. You yourself came up with an example of how
soccer players participated in throwing a game, showing that their
number and intelligence are not a significant obstacle. The fact
that football is never "definitely drawn" was shown to be
a red herring. (Neither is chess) The key is that at some point
the return of tossing the coin is higher than the return of playing on
fairly,
yet it *doesn't* produce that change of behavior.
The simple fact is that there are already cheating possibilities
in football, chess, and just about everything else, yet people
still engage in those activities. Changing the scoring in chess
would not significantly increase the cheating possibilities, so
raising that as a reason not to make the scoring change is
an invalid argument.
Like it or not.
|
