On Mar 22, 8:51=A0pm, David Richerby <dav...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
> > The GM Slugfest is the most famous that I'm aware of. It used BAP
> > scoring. (Black win =3D3, White win =3D2, Black draw =3D1)
>
> OK, that's a start. =A0From what I can see, there were two of these
> tournaments, one in 2005 and one in 2006. =A0According 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:
>
> =A0 =A0 2600+ =A0 =A0 =A05 players
> =A0 =A0 2500-2599 =A02
> =A0 =A0 2400-2499 =A02
> =A0 =A0 2300-2399 =A01
> =A0 =A0 2200-2299 =A03
> =A0 =A0 2100-2199 =A0
> =A0 =A0 2000-2099 =A0
> =A0 =A0 1900-1999 =A01
>
> I've not found a full crosstable anywhere so I don't actually know
> what percentage of the games in the tournaments were draws. =A0However,
> 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. =A0The wide range of
> abilities in that tournament seems very significant to me.
I think you're onto something Dave. The NCAA basketball tournament
gets bigger every year, there's discrepancies in talent, but the need
to win is foremost. Even though a GM would beat on weaker competition,
it would make winning more important, and make people appreciate the
draws as being better matched play.
|
