David Kane <davidekane@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "David Richerby" <davidr@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> I'd also say that the BAP system is extremely unfair. In parti-
>> cular, 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. 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 and GM Joel Benjamin don't
>> think BAP is a good idea, especially in tournaments with a wide
>> spread of player strength.
>
> The normal scoring system is biased toward White.
No. The *game* is biased toward White, at least as currently played.
> In any Swiss tournament, the bottom player will almost never play
> the top players.
Yes but he still has to play somebody in every round. (Or every round
but one if there's an odd number of players.)
> The 1900 player I believe was Clyde Ballard (the "B" in BAP),
> included to give the experimental tournament an even number of
> players.
It was Andy May, as you could readily have established by looking at
the URL I gave:
http://chesslodge.blogspot.com/2006/10/gm-slugfest-tournament.html
> The "beliefs" held by random folks aren't im****tant; the strengths
> of their arguments are.
Mig Greengard and Joel Benjamin aren't `random folks' -- they're
experts in the field. I provided the URLs for their comments
precisely so that you could evaluate their arguments for yourself but,
rather than doing that, you just dismiss them. Here are the URLs
again.
http://www.chessninja.com/dailydirt/2005/11/slugfest_chess.htm
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.
>
> I never requested statistical evidence. But the fact that you
> haven't provided *any* evidence is telling.
Oh, for crying out loud. It's telling of the fact that this is an
untried idea. I cannot possibly produce any concrete evidence. Just
as you cannot produce any concrete evidence against the hypothesis
that the first words spoken from Mars will be `Damn, but I fancy a
bacon sandwich.'
> I suspect that you really are not so disconnected from reality as to
> believe your argument.
Really, you could try to make your insults a little more subtle.
>> 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 have not proposed changes to the laws of chess, but to scoring
> which is external to the game itself.
Very well. You have proposed a change to the way in which chess
tournaments are conducted which, incidentally, changes the default
situation of Article 11.1 of the FIDE Laws of Chess, which states,
``Unless announced otherwise in advance, a player who wins his game,
or wins by forfeit, scores one point (1), a player who loses his game,
or forfeits scores no points (0) and a player who draws his game
scores a half point (1/2).'' I have suggested specific flaws in this
change. You accuse me of irrationality, fear of change, being
``ludicrous'' and ``disconnected from reality'' rather than
substantively rebutting what I am saying.
>>> 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.
>
> I suppose it is not pure mathematics
It is not any kind of mathematics at all. You just wrote `mathema-
tically more sound' because it sounds better than `Well, I like it
better.'
> but empirically the half point draw has produced a situation where
> contestants routinely avoid playing real games.
No. Empirically, the half-point draw has coincided with a situation
where contestants occasionally avoid playing real games.
I have nothing further to say to you on this subject or any other.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Fluorescent Hungry Car (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a high-performance luxury
car
but it'll eat you and hurt your
eyes!
|
