David Kane <davidekane@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "David Richerby" <davidr@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> 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)
OK, that's a start. From what I can see, there were two of these
tournaments, one in 2005 and one in 2006. According to [1], the 2006
tournament was held over three days and had a field of fourteen
players whose strength ranged from 2670 down to 1952 (USCF), with the
following spread:
2600+ 5 players
2500-2599 2
2400-2499 2
2300-2399 1
2200-2299 3
2100-2199
2000-2099
1900-1999 1
I've not found a full crosstable anywhere so I don't actually know
what percentage of the games in the tournaments were draws. However,
the very wide spread of abilities among the players would tend to
reduce the frequency of draws under any scoring system, as would the
pressures of a short Swiss tournament, where the only way to win the
tournament is to win almost all your games. The wide range of
abilities in that tournament seems very significant to me.
I'd also say that the BAP system is extremely unfair. In particular,
in the given tournament, we can probably assume that the 1952-rated
player lost all his games, since he was the weakest player by nearly
300 points[2]. Half of the people who played against him were given
the white pieces so their `free wins' were worth only two points; the
other players were given three points for their wins against him. Mig
Greengard[3] and GM Joel Benjamin[4] don't think BAP is a good idea,
especially in tournaments with a wide spread of player strength.
[1] http://chesslodge.blogspot.com/2006/10/gm-slugfest-tournament.html
[2] That is, every other player in the field would expect to win at
least 85% of their games against him and the 2600+ players would
be expected to win over 99% of the time.
[3] http://www.chessninja.com/dailydirt/2005/11/slugfest_chess.htm
[4] http://main.uschess.org/content/view/6741/341
> BTW, how does dreaming up ludicrous cheating scenarios help create a
> statistically significant number of games?
It is, as I have pointed out before, unreasonably of you to suggest
that I am in some way deficient for failing to provide statistical
evidence of the effect of something that has never been tried.
> 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?
Please stop trying to side-track and personalize the discussion by
casting aspersions as to my motives. Stop for a moment and see if
your arguments are in any way specific to the matter at hand and you
will see that they are not. That is a sure sign that something is
going wrong.
You have proposed a change to the laws of chess. I have suggested
that this change has flaws. You accuse me of irrationality and fear
of change rather than substantively rebutting what I am saying.
> I'm the first to admit that whatever experiments are tried are
> bound to have glitches and might not bring the intended
> consequences.
On the one hand, you claim to accept that your idea might not work.
On the other hand, anybody who gives an actual reason why your idea
might not work (it makes cheating more profitable than the current
rules) is presenting `irrational and false arguments'.
> I would rather see [...] chess played under a mathematically sounder
> alternate scoring system.
Please justify your assertion that awarding less than half a point for
a draw is mathematically more sound.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Radioactive Edible Vomit (TM):
it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a pile of puke but you can
eat it
and it'll make you glow in the
dark!
|
