"David Richerby" <davidr@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:iji*skB+r@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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!
|
