There is a most bizarre contradiction in the way professional results
are discussed in the chess community. Almost everyone prefers
decisive games to draws, and, of course, draws are rarely included in
the highlights of an event.

However, whenever there is a tie for first (like at Corus), the
undefeated player is singled out for particular media praise -- more
than those with the same score who did suffer defeats.

This is extremely contradictory because, if there's a tie for first,
then the "only undefeated player" is, by definition, the player with
the most draws!

Paul Epstein

wrote in message
ups.com...
There is a most bizarre contradiction in the way professional results
are discussed in the chess community. Almost everyone prefers
decisive games to draws, and, of course, draws are rarely included in
the highlights of an event.

However, whenever there is a tie for first (like at Corus), the
undefeated player is singled out for particular media praise -- more
than those with the same score who did suffer defeats.

This is extremely contradictory because, if there's a tie for first,
then the "only undefeated player" is, by definition, the player with
the most draws!

Paul Epstein


Pay any attention to chess and you will find a vocal
cadre of chessplayers who worship draws and see them
as evidence of "perfect" chess. (On closer inspection
many of these draws are not quite so perfect, but
why spoil a good myth?)

Chessbase has the following quote concerning Corus:
"The draw statistics were normal in Group A (61%)
but positively low in the B and especially the C group,
where people were at each others throats."

I sense some relief in the author that Corus A
players weren't guilty of the unbecoming
conduct of actually trying to defeat each other.

But I can't fault the players - they were only
doing what the tournament organizers were
paying them to do. Playing in a fashion that
produces 60+% draws is "best by test" in the
existing scoring structure.

Why not make a win one and half points so tournaments put a premium on
winning ..

On Feb 6, 10:59 pm, (SAT W-7) wrote:

Why not make a win one and half points so tournaments put a premium on
winning ..

There is a potential drawback he suppose there are two GMs who
outclass
the field a bit. Now, going into the final rounds they know they both
can lock up
some sure money by drawing one another, and winning OR drawing the
other
games. I can foresee a situation where it would be in their financial
interest to
arrange for one of them to conveniently win against the other, with
the increased
prize money to be divided between them afterward. Likewise, I can
foresee a
situation where any given player has nothing to gain by drawing or
losing, and
thus he is *forced* into playing for a win, in terms of going for the
prize money,
even where he may be outclassed. Many such scenarios can be
constructed
whereby the main issue becomes exploitation of the math in the scoring
system,
as opposed to playing your best chess. Likewise, even with the
current system,
there is much potential for similar abuse.

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. 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.
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.

-- help bot

On 6 Feb, 12:20, wrote:
There is a most bizarre contradiction in the way professional results
are discussed in the chess community. *Almost everyone prefers
decisive games to draws, and, of course, draws are rarely included in
the highlights of an event.

However, whenever there is a tie for first (like at Corus), the
undefeated player is singled out for particular media praise -- more
than those with the same score who did suffer defeats.

This is extremely contradictory because, if there's a tie for first,
then the "only undefeated player" is, by definition, the player with
the most draws!

Paul Epstein

At one time we had two world champions - but worlds apart in their
liking for draws.
Topalov whom I admire for his insistence on playing on (and of course
spurning the draw in the first game vs Kramnik) and gaining decisive
results. However, it is Kramnik who is unified world champ!

On Feb 7, 4:13 am, "keithbc" wrote:

On 6 Feb, 12:20, wrote:

There is a most bizarre contradiction in the way professional results
are discussed in the chess community. ?Almost everyone prefers
decisive games to draws, and, of course, draws are rarely included in
the highlights of an event.

However, whenever there is a tie for first (like at Corus), the
undefeated player is singled out for particular media praise -- more
than those with the same score who did suffer defeats.

This is extremely contradictory because, if there's a tie for first,
then the "only undefeated player" is, by definition, the player with
the most draws!

Paul Epstein

At one time we had two world champions - but worlds apart in their
liking for draws.

If you mean the split during which both GMs Kasparov and Karpov
held titles, it should be noted that one was significantly stronger
than
the other, and this has a considerable impact on the ratio of draws in
that, for example, a 2800+ would likely turn up his nose at losing a
half-dozen rating points, where a mere 2725 might consider it to be
almost irrelevant to draw, say, a 2690.


Topalov whom I admire for his insistence on playing on (and of course
spurning the draw in the first game vs Kramnik) and gaining decisive
results. However, it is Kramnik who is unified world champ!

Although not particularly familiar with these players named above, I
think
it is evident that one of GM Kramnik's talents lies in his tendency to
fiddle
a bit, even when having the advantage. I detected this -- and
significantly,
the effect on his opponents -- in his recent match games. A more
energetic
player might well go for broke, attempting to win in the most direct
manner
possible, but this entails grave risk of miscalculation or mis-
evaluation,
whereupon the plan backfires. By fiddling around just a bit, GM
Kramnik
gives the opponent more rope with which to hang himself, so to speak.

Another way to put it is that I detected a decided tendency on GM
Kramnik's
part to frequently change plans, to begin plan A, but then go for plan
B, which
keeps the opponent ever off-balance. Of course, this could also be
described
as simply being a "flexible" player, but I doubt that is quite the
same thing as
what I noticed in his recent games. The downside is that many such
games
do not appear as strikingly beautiful as a smoother, more direct
approach
would allow. IMO, the match against GM Topalov showed him to be
almost
reckless in his desire to win at any cost, while GM Kramnik was all
*too*
anxious to draw. The more recent tournament, again, had GM Kramnik
playing conservatively, and with success; yet an examination of some
games
reveals that the credit for this success is not entirely his own.

-- help bot

"help bot" wrote in message
oups.com...


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. 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.

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.

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. In fact
tournament organizers reward players who achieve draws.
It is pure delusion to believe that behavior and incentives are
unrelated.

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.

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

"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.

On Feb 8, 2:38 am, "David Kane" wrote:

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!

Nonsense. This illogic would have it "optimal" to allow mate
on the move, simply because, well, GM Kramnik does it, and
he's the world champion!

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.

Indeed they are. So then, you cannot answer?

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.

Indeed, this is evidence all right; it is evidence which supports
my comments, not yours. The fact that GM strength computers
can and do play top level chess without violating the rules, and
apparently without having to settle for quick, uncontested draws,
is precisely in line with my earlier comments. Of course, it also
shows that the programmers -- who are human -- did not instruct
them to do so, and because of this it weakens the aforementioned
support.

As for the lower draw rates in tournaments with a different
scoring system, that makes perfect sense both in accordance
with your idea of things, and with mine.

Of course the exact quantitative amount that the 1867-rules
inflate the draw rate compared to other scoring systems *is*
a legitimate question.

Oh, Gawd: I hope you aren't going to start arguing with another
of your famous strawmen here.

But it seems ridiculous to argue that
the incentives would have zero bearing on the outcome - your
"unmotivated GM" theory.

I knew it. I could just *feel* it coming, like a giant turd.

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.

Once again, the empty, unsupported assertion. Do you feel
that making such an assertion, in and of itself, lends support?

It may come as quite a surprise, but generally speaking, the act
of making an assertion is considered to lend nothing in the way
of support, apart from its evidence that you support your
assertion with your own personal opinion (and this is where the
lack of substance come in).

But looking one level deeper and
asking *why* draw-producing play is optimal is both
rational and suggestive of a solution.

Well, it could be, if first you somehow manage to substantiate
your assertion that achieving draws is optimal.

One scenario of which I can conceive where draws *could* be
considered optimal, is where, in a championship match, one
player has a substantive lead and wishes to avoid unnecessary
risk while at the same time inching closer to the intended goal.
Yet even here, the idea is a tad flawed in that a win would get
him closer by double, although a loss would allow the lead to
shrink -- which may be the deciding factor. In fact, here the
strategy of playing for a draw seems wise, in that it is the
opponent who must take great risks in order to offset his
inferior score. But all this relates to a match between only two
players. In a tournament, the tendency toward draws has the
effect of dragging both players toward the middle of the field.
Is there some advantage in this, in ending at or near to the
middle of the list of entrants? I would expect that the lion's
share of the prize money is funneled up to the top finishers.
Perhaps what you intend is events where there is a large
appearance fee, where all a player needs to do is finish
his games, in order to win substantial money.

-- help bot