On Feb 7, 7:54 pm, "David Kane" wrote:
"help bot" wrote in message

IMO, the real problem is not that there is a lack of incentive to
play for a win;
the real problem is that many of the top players -- who also happen to
be the most
visible players to the chess world -- are themselves unmotivated.

There is no evidence for this.

On the contrary, my friend, the evidence you missed is right before
your very eyes! See the quote above where help bot professes his
opinion on the matter, thus demonstrating that it *is* his
opinion. ;D


It is far more plausible that the players
have determined that playing cautiously is the *optimal* strategy given
the scoring system used in chess. That has been determined
empirically over decades and decades.

Just say what you mean, man. Are you suggesting that attempting to
draw all one's games leads to tournament victories, an increase in
FIDE
ratings or titles, more invitations to prestigious events, or what?
Where
is the evidence for this, or even the rationale?

IMO, this would seem to lead to maintaining the status quo, and that
is all. Is merely maintaining one's current position advantageous in
some special way?

The blame rests with those who run tournaments with what
Clyde Ballard (designer of the anti-draw BAP scoring system) terms
the "1867-rules" in which draws count as half a win. That method
might have seemed sensible when first introduced to chess 140
years ago, but now we have mountains of empirical evidence that
it inflates the draw percentages and sucks a huge portion of dramatic
interest out of chess events.

Where is this mountain of evidence? I have yet to get even a
glimpse
of its mighty peak.


And
to make
matters worse, the tendency to agree to uncontested draws has been and
is
widely accepted by those whose very function it is supposed to be to
enforce
the rules of the game -- which of course, explicitly prohibit this
sort of behavior.

It is not against the rules to play for a draw.

Nice-looking strawman, you. But why fight against a phantom of your
own
creation, when there are numerous more interesting opponents
available?

On this diversion, I must say that I myself have often been in a
position to
desire to salvage a draw, when faced with superior players or the
multitude
of inferiors who nevertheless got lucky and had me in a bad way. Even
so,
there never was a time when I agreed to the infamous "grandmaster
draw",
without any real contest having even begun. This was not merely the
result
of the rule which forbids this behavior explicitly, but also an effect
of my
disposition, my utter disdain for the fake, the deception which this
entails.

In fact tournament organizers reward players who achieve draws.

How about an example of what you mean by this reward?

It is pure delusion to believe that behavior and incentives are
unrelated.

The delusion, thus far, seems to be on your side, my man. For you
have not cited anything other than empty claims of your own
assertions.
The thing is, to put forward something more *substantive* -- something
which, if dropped o one's foot, would actually hurt. ;D


In sum, the arbiters and directors have failed in their assigned task,
and these
draw-mongers -- many of them high-profile GMs -- are simply
corrupted. They
do whatever they believe they can get away with, just as we have seen.

No. It's the system that makes draws a favorable outcome.

So you say; and yet you have thus far given no substance in support
of
this assertion. Perhaps you were too busy fighting with your straw
creations, or perhaps you yourself are among the draw-mongers, and
have taken personal offense at my pointing out the rules of the game,
with which you obviously are unfamiliar.

-- help bot