"David Richerby" <davidr@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:jbw*3lq+r@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> David Kane <davidekane@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Please cite a high-level chess tournament that has used scoring other
> than a draw being worth half as much as a win, to each player. (I am
> not aware of any having been played.) For bonus marks, please cite
> enough of them that we have a statistically significant number of
> games to consider.
>
The GM Slugfest is the most famous that I'm aware of. It used
BAP scoring. (Black win =3, White win =2, Black draw =1)
BTW, how does dreaming up ludicrous cheating scenarios help
create a statistically significant number of games? You sound
like someone who is desperate for these experiments not to
go forth, lest they prove you wrong. Seriously, why is that?
Why are you so attached to the status quo that you are
willing to make irrational and false arguments to preserve it?
I'm the first to admit that whatever experiments are tried are
bound to have glitches and might not bring the intended
consequences. But I like chess, want it to thrive, and understand
that s****ts and games have to evolve to remain healthy.
I would rather see chess played under the 1867 rules (draw=1/2)
give way to chess played under a mathematically
sounder alternate scoring system, than to see it die
altogether.
|
