"David Richerby" <davidr@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:13u*XYz+r@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> David Kane <davidekane@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> Decisiveness can increase interest even with no understanding of the
>> underlying games. Don't newspapers in the UK have s****ts sections?
>> Here they do. Even in the absence of real time suspense, or stunning
>> visuals, people like to follow results. None of the s****ts covered
>> in our newspapers have the characteristics that 60% of encounters
>> end in ties, with a significant number of those occurring without
>> even playing, though.
>
> Yes and none of them have the property that they can only be fully
> understood by people who have studied the s****t since childhood to the
> near exclusion of all else. Perhaps *that*, and not the high
> pro****tion of draws, is the reason why the game doesn't command huge
> re****ts in the newspapers?
>
> David Kane <davidekane@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> "Andy Walker" <anw@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>> David Kane <davidekane@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>> It's especially offensive that this [uncontested draws] occurs in
>>>> the last round of every major tournament -exactly when, in
>>>> ordinary non-chess competitions, the drama is at its highest.
>>>
>>> Many s****ts organise their major competitions as KO events, which
>>> puts a different complexion on things. In leagues, it is very
>>> common in the s****ts I know anything about for end-of-season
>>> matches to be meaningless -- almost all issues of promotion or
>>> relegation are decided, and most teams just go through the motions.
>>> Why would you expect chess tournaments to be different? If you've
>>> just had 10 days of gruelling mental activity, it's not surprising
>>> if on the 11th, with nothing at stake, you don't want to take it
>>> too seriously. Even if there is still something at stake, you may
>>> be in no mood to put yet another six+ hours of thought into it.
>>> Been there, done that.
>>
>> Come on, now, you've got to be kidding.
>
> No, he isn't. There is often nothing to play for in the last round or
> two of a round-robin tournament (or `league' as they're called in most
> s****ts). The team that always wins has an unassailable position at
> the top of the table; the crap team that always loses has an
> irretrievable position at the bottom of the table. All that's to play
> for is the occasional minor distinction in the middle of the table.
Chess tournaments almost never end this way. There are usually people
grouped near the top.
>> In chess, it is the *leaders who have everything to play for* who
>> play the 15 move draws.
>
> Players who have a chance of winning the tournament generally attempt
> to do so in the last round.
>
No. They usually make no attempt to win. They take short draws to
lock-in a guaranteed prize.
Here is an example. After the penultimate round of the 2007 World Open,
a Swiss, there was one player with 5 points and 4 tied at 4.5. The prize
fund for place finish was (approximately) 6000, 3000, 1667, 750, 450 and
around
2200 for the next 10 places. The last round pairings had the player with 5
paired with a player with 4.5, two players with 4.5 paired together, and
the
remaining player with 4.5 points paired with somebody in the 4.0
group.
Consider the last round game between the two well-known GMs
with 4.5. It went:
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 b6 4. g3 Bb7 5. Bg2 Bb4+ 6. Bd2 a5
7. O-O O-O 8. Nc3 Ne4 Draw agreed. Exciting chess, Mr. Richerby?
It's interesting to address the financial incentives the players faced
before the game. Both players ended up fini****ng in a 6-way tie for 2nd
through
7th place and won aout $1100. What would their prizes have been if their
game
had been
decisive? The winner would have finished in a two way tie for 1st and 2nd,
worth
$4500. The loser would have won $200+
Of course, there were other possible scenarios, yielding different
monetary
returns,
but the most likely scenario occurred. (The 4.5 player beat the 5.0
player,
outrating him by over
200 points, and the other 4.5 player drew.) The least beneficial outcome
that a
winner of the game between the 4.5s would have faced was a two-way tie
for 2nd and 3rd, or $2333. In most scenarios they would fiinish in a two
or
three way tie for the top prizes.
The first thing worth noting is that he players did *NOT* reach their
"drawn"
position and then flip a coin to decide who should lose on purpose. Nor
did they
prearrange for one to lose and split the prize fund. Even though those
actions
would have doubled their collective prize! Simple reality is that chess
as played with the current scoring is not zero sum, and cheating
op****tunities
abound.
The mystery, of course, is why the players colluded not to play,
even when it was against their collective self-interest. Why was working
for
a shot at $4000 a worse choice than getting $900 with no work or risk.
Is it because chess has a draw culture that is so pervasive? Perhaps
the notion of contesting a last round game was simply out of their
experience, something that they were unable to deal with psychologically.
|
