"help bot" wrote in message
ups.com...
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?

No. I'm saying that playing in a way that produces a high
percentage of draws is optimal. The evidence? That's how
the best players play!

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.

High GM draw rates, quick last round draws etc. are common
knowledge.

There is other evidence as well. Games played between GM
level computers, games played between GMs in tournaments
not using the 1867 rules have lower draw rates.

Of course the exact quantitative amount that the 1867-rules
inflate the draw rate compared to other scoring systems *is*
a legitimate question. But it seems ridiculous to argue that
the incentives would have zero bearing on the outcome - your
"unmotivated GM" theory.


In fact tournament organizers reward players who achieve draws.

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

1/2 point, which goes into a total score used to determine
standings, which are used to determine prize money etc.
It is irrational to expect the GMs to act contrary to their
own interest. Playing in a way that produces lots of
draws is optimal. But looking one level deeper and
asking *why* draw-producing play is optimal is both
rational and suggestive of a solution.