In message <7tOdnan7yPuKA0PanZ2dnUVZ_h-vnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, David Kane
<davidekane@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes
>Changing the scoring in chess
>would not significantly increase the cheating possibilities
Factually inaccurate. It's been pointed out that changing the scoring
system as you suggest increases the advantage of cheating.
Now to throw something concrete into this. Freakonomics (Levitt and
Dubner) quote numerous examples of cheating (teachers to name one
less obvious example). But in particular they quote good statistical
evidence that sumo wrestlers throw matches. This is precisely what
you are arguing wouldn't happen in chess. Given we already have
evidence (agreed draws) that chess players aren't moral paragons
(and I think Bobby Fischer blew that one too) there's a near certainty
they'd be doing something similar. (Maybe the coin toss, or they
could auction the game throw between them in advance, with an
agreed signal when it's invoked by mutual agreement. That solves
most of the problems you raise, even though a simple coin toss is
mostly good enough.)
And to return to Fischer. When he was on top, most of his
opponents were Soviet grandmasters. It's well recorded that the
USSR authorities would instruct players what to do. With a net
gain from throwing games, they would have been laughing all the
way.
And finally, what's the problem with draws? Apart from that draws
can be instructive and interesting, let's just suppose they aren't,
and that 80% of games are draws (I think it's slightly less than
that). So only 20% of games are interesting. Who has time to
watch even that 20%? The only people who'd have to watch draws
are people watching a single game, live. And we can pretty much
assume those people are chess enthusiasts, and they clearly
don't mind draws.
--
Christopher Dearlove
|
