"Christopher Dearlove" <chris@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:lfnykETArr4HFwyO@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> In message <jYadnQRCIq3fKH_anZ2dnUVZ_oytnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, David Kane
> <davidekane@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes
>>Losing on purpose is a far bigger moral step. There are very few
>>documented cases of thrown games.
>
> Except I quoted one study which shows it happens in sumo. You
> don't need to identify which are the thrown games, just show that
> statistically quite a few clearly are.
>
>>Changing the
>>scoring is one way to address that defect.
>
> You just don't get it. Changing the scoring system (which addresses a
> problem the people who actually matter don't seem to mind, but no
> matter) would makes cheating profitable. Mathematical fact.
It is a "mathematical fact" that cheating is already profitable in chess.
Your
theory has to address this, but doesn't.
>Where
> cheating is profitable, people will find a way to cheat. Pretty much the
> definition of the human condition, with mountains of sup****ting
> evidence.
>
Except that there aren't mountains of evidence that cheating occurs
in chess, unless you count the morally/legally ambiguous issue of agreed
draws (a problem which would clearly be lessened by scoring
changes - using the same kind of logic you are using)
You can't pick and chose the data you want to look at.
I'll grant that I don't know about sumo. Can you summarize?
I suspect that there are many differences making the analogy
very weak, but I'm open to being convinced.
> But arguing with you is a waste of time, I'll take someone else's
> earlier advice to give it up.
In tournaments that have used alternate scoring, there have
been no accusations of cheating. There were, however, a
higher than normal percentage of highly contested games.
Inconvenient facts, I know.
|
