"Christopher Dearlove" <chris@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:wI0HRYDO5Y4HFwBN@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> In message <5c6dnVHDyZRC-kTanZ2dnUVZ_oSunZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, David Kane
> <davidekane@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes
>>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.
>
> If you welsh on an agreement, no matter how unethical, the word
> will go round, and no one will make such a deal with you ever again.
How would word get around? Only the welshed on cheater would
know, and he would be in no position to advertise his own illegal
behavior.
> (Well, they will, but you'll have to agree to lose one or more tosses
> without actually making the toss to get back to making even deals.)
> Meanwhile the other players are making the deals to their advantage,
> and as you are frozen out, your disadvantage.
>
> And chess players are quite capable of working all that out. Even the
> ones who haven't read Axelrod.
>
> --
> Christopher Dearlove
|
