"help bot" wrote in message
...
On Dec 21, 11:50 am, "Chess One" wrote:

The emphasis is not really about proofs, or even draws - the
emphasis
is about wins.

Why?

Because it encourages them by awarding them a higher score than
currently
in relation to other scores - hence, it is motivational to win! More
reward
for it than tacitly playing for 2 draws.

Not everyone plays for draws; why do you want to
penalize those who play in accordance with the rules

Giving more points for a win penalizes people who are playing for a win?

Some people aren't very bright... .

Penalizing *everyone* by switching to a funky
scoring system is not the answer to the problem.

I think David Kane just wrote an anecdote that it did solve something -
admittedly, in a small survey.

If you have a problem with certain players agreeing
to what you have called "tacit draws", then you
need to target *them* (i.e. the "tacit draw-mongers)
specifically.

But this /is/ to target them, by not rewarding that activity. It pointedly
maintains the same differential between lose and draw, but optimises any
win.

It's like locusts: you don't go and kill

snip, let's face it Greg, its not like locusts! not even at Christmas,
though I grant you greater knowledge of them in your fields that I have, the
Vermont locust being tolerably scarce )

----------

You are concerned about cheating, and suspect much! If indeed people do
cheat currently, I suppose they will attempt a cheat of a new system.

As I said, some people aren't very bright.

That has been one of the points I've been making
here for a long, long time. Around here, there were
(I can't say what the status is now) clock-flippers,
deliberate illegal moves in time scrambles, and God
only knows what else. It was a problem for the few
who were in contention for a prize; so much so that
some folks would not enter a tournament if certain
known cheaters showed up.

While I appreciate the issue you describe as being a real one, I think to
confound it with draw/win differentials is not perspective to resolve
either.

I am not so concerned about cheating, but awarding winning. While you may
continue to entail your point, please note that you really argue out loud
with yourself.

Nobody is "arguing" here; but I find it amusing
that you would think everything must somehow
be perceived as such; it reveals a good deal
about *you*. :D

As above. There are at least two issues - that of cheating, and that of
drawing, and 'the argument' seems to be to address cheating as if that were
a synonym for draws. I do not say all draws are results of cheating, or a
conspiracy among players - though some might be.

Seems like one useful way to have discussions on usenet is to first say if
you understand your correspondent's issue to their own satisfaction; so to
you I say I think you are, by virtue of your previous writing, addressing
cheating. I think a few others are as well - BUT - there are still others
who are talking about draw-death and prospective systems to alleviate that
condition in top chess. Fair?

For future reference, I would like to point out the
fact that I see many of the folks posting here as
complete imbeciles, so I would never try to "argue"
with them, as if that were going to accomplish
anything. I try to keep emotion out of it, and
instead focus on those "lurkers" who might run
across this stuff without knowing what's what;
this is why, for instance, I have continued to reply
to David "Red Herring" Kane, among others. It's
not just for his benefit (he's very likely too dumb to
profit by it); it's for the benefit of others, who may
not realize what herrings are or where they
school.

Well, I think everyone has a point - for me, the winner is often the one
whose point is and stays on topic - and maybe we all confound each other
because there are several aspects bearing on this topic, and some aspects
which are merely similar, but which really do not seem to influence it.

Just so you know, I have nothing against changing
the current scoring system, and in fact I believe the
current ratings system is a mess.

And there is another point! I also considered if changing the scoring system
would effect the general rating system, or has specific inference for only
top players. I don't know the answer.


But we need to
see some sort of /rational/ approach to such issues,
not merely huffing and puffing and breast-beating.
I'm not holding my breath.

Laugh - true, its a good point. I certainly don't want to draw this
conversation out for 5,000 more posts, when, then, and only then, everyone
realises they are writing entirely to their own subject ))

I mean, as chess players we might all be daft, but we ain't stupid, no?

Merry Christmas everybody!~

Phil Innes



-- help bot