"Larry Tapper" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Mar 16, 1:07 pm, "David Kane" wrote:
"Larry Tapper" wrote in message

ups.com...





David Kane asks:

A simple question. List as many of the possible reasons
for draws between GMs you can think of *and* the
empirical evidence necessary to confirm *each* one.

Seems to me that the main reason for decisive games between GMs is the
fact that a win is better than a draw. Likewise the main reason for
draws between GMs is the fact that a draw is better than a loss.

I should expect empirical research to confirm this bold conjecture.
For example, given a choice between a drawing line and a losing line,
I'd wager that a GM would consistently pick the former. If he sees it,
which he often will.

LT

In my opinion, these conjectures are not useful. For example, many
games/sports have draws, but they don't occur as often as they
do in chess. In some games, e.g. Tic-Tac-Toe, they occur more
often.

David,

Actually my earlier post, to which you are responding here, was meant
to be a bit of gentle needling. But irony doesn't register very well
in newsgroups without the liberal use of those awful emoticons. ;-!

I did detect the irony.

Still, your outline of the issues below strikes me as reasonable.
Sometimes, though, I think your rhetoric flies too high. Those who are
satisfied with the status quo are not necessarily "lovers" or
"worshippers" of the bloodless draw. Speaking for myself, I don't
especially love draws, but I do think that it's logical and
appropriate for the number of points scored in a chess game to add up
to a constant, presently 1. So I don't like the BAP system at all.
This is not to discourage tournament organizers from experimenting
with BAP --- my guess is that if this were a commonly used format, its
defects would soon become apparent.

I actually do *not* consider it *logical* to count draws as 0.5. It's
traditional, and it would be a reasonable default assumption if we
knew nothing about chess. But it also leads to some horrible
situations in practice.

And I don't dispute that BAP or its equivalent could well have
problems that we don't expect, as well as the ones that we know
that it does have. The question in my mind is, on the whole, which
makes chess better. The only way that I can think of to find out
is to try.

Consider Anand's winning performance at Morelia/ Linares. He played
very well --- his wins included an especially fine game against
Carlsen. Having built up a solid lead, he then coasted to first place,
taking fewer risks in the Linares leg of the tournament.

I have no complaints about that --- do you? To me it's just a part of
chess that high-level players are canny utility maximizers and don't
necessarily turn every game into a violent slugfest.

My complaint is that it isn't very interesting. Why wouldn't the same
high level players also be canny utility maximizers if the scoring
encouraged more chess per game? Wouldn't it be more interesting
if something were actually on the line when the titans face each other?
You seem to suggest that there is something natural about employing
a strategy consisting of "coasting to victory by a string of draws"
to win tournaments. What I'd like to get you to consider is that
there is nothing "natural" about it - it's the organizers' (dubious
from a marketing perspective) *decision* to make that a
viable strategy.


The data to be explained is the following. GM play has a high draw
rate. Why? If you think about it, it's *not* an easy question to
resolve. I would be interested in your opinions on the matter.

To my mind, there can be a number of explanations, and they
must be resolved by evidence.

1. The "Tic-Tac-Toe theory". Players contest their games, but
perfect chess is a draw, and GMs play perfectly.
2. Players contest their games, play imperfectly, but play equally. Their
blunders
balance out and the difference in play is not large enough to overcome
chess' inherent winning threshold.
3. Players don't contest their games. They agree to draws without trying to
win,
collaboratively steer the game into drawish lines etc.

In case 3, there is an additional question of *why* they don't fully contest
their games. There could be a number of explanations as to why they
don't.

Of course, we can be pretty sure that all of these explanations account
for some GM draws. The goal is to figure out the exact proportions.

In practice, of course, the issue of whether game is truly contested
is not an easy yes or no. Suppose I play all out to win but find myself
in a position a pawn up in a complicated position but low on time.
I know that I'm terrible in time pressure and don't see a clear way to win.
My opponent doesn't know my weakness in time pressure, and
moreover, sees that I have a winning line. From each side's perspective
it may be rational to draw, even though perfect play is a win for me.
This drawn game is certainly not fully contested, but nor could it be
considered uncontested. It's somewhere in between.

Whether the decision to draw is rational depends on the
scoring system. If in the above example, I have the
Black pieces and am playing in a tournament
with BAP scoring, White would have no incentive to
draw and the game would be played out, i.e. more chess.
Alternative scoring proposals can be thought of as a way
to increase the amount of chess per game. It not only eliminates
the chessless "GM draw", which nobody but Mr. Houlsby likes,
but generally increases the amount of chess per game.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -