"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.
This is just wrong. Playing with 1867-scoring, we'd prefer White.
Playing with BAP scoring, we'd prefer Black. No doubt there is a
scoring systems that would make the colors equally desirable.
The point is that the same theoretical objection you raised for BAP
is equally present for traditional scoring. Hence, it is not a valid
objection,
even though I have conceded that BAP is unfair.
>
>> 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
If they wish to enter the debate, they are welcome to. It hardly
makes sense for me to debate them when they aren't here.
>
>>>> 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.'
This is not correct. The basis of your objection is that
non zero-sum scoring will produce cheating, but the fact is that
chess is *already* that way when prizes are considered. So we
have tried the experiment, can examine the evidence, and draw conclusions.
You refuse to, for obvious reasons.
>
>> 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.
>
The point is that you haven't said anything meaningful yet.
You are stuck with your prejudices and can't bring yourself
to move beyond them.
|
