"Christopher Dearlove" <chris@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:8$608fS2kr4HFwTR@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> In message <XJednT7wUeeDLH_anZ2dnUVZ_v-hnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, David Kane
> <davidekane@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes
>>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.
>
> To the organisers, no. Among the players there would be a grapevine.
> Two grandmasters chatting in a bar, discussing this and that. Rumours
> of who is untrustworthy (in these terms agreeing a draw is trustworthy,
> even if illegal, wel****ng is untrustworthy) with a mixture of first hand
and
> second hand information. And anonymous postings on the Internet. And
> then there's simple statistical evidence as to who's not drawing and
> who is.
You seem to be confusing yourself. To be "trustworthy" in the
hypothetical example requires you to *lose* intentionally at the
right time - i.e. when the coin flip goes the wrong way.
So when I break my promise, and the obviously drawn game
actually ends in a draw, my opponent is going to have to
start complaining that I didn't uphold my agreement
to lose on purpose.
> And as I quoted, there's evidence it happens in sumo. By your
> reasoning it's impossible - but it happens anyway.
>
This is simply false. Where have I said that cheating is
impossible? I've pointed out frequently that cheating
is possible even with the existing scoring and rules.
It's the false argument that changed scoring inherently
creates greatly enhanced cheating possibilities which
will lead to increased cheating which I've refuted.
> --
> Christopher Dearlove
|
