On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 21:44:05 -0800, "David Kane"
wrote:


The point isn't that there are "legitimate" draws
and "bogus" draws. The point is that incentives external
to the game are bad for the game. Bogus drawing is merely
a symptom of the problem - which is that some moron
set up the tournament rules so that it was smart to agree to
a bogus draw.

Not all the bogus draws are necessarily "smart", in the sense of being
to the player's immediate financial or tournament advantage. They may
just reflect a failure of nerve.

"Mike Murray" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 21:44:05 -0800, "David Kane"
wrote:


The point isn't that there are "legitimate" draws
and "bogus" draws. The point is that incentives external
to the game are bad for the game. Bogus drawing is merely
a symptom of the problem - which is that some moron
set up the tournament rules so that it was smart to agree to
a bogus draw.

Not all the bogus draws are necessarily "smart", in the sense of being
to the player's immediate financial or tournament advantage. They may
just reflect a failure of nerve.

Granted, but it doesn't change the basic idea which is that when the
return of playing for a win is low, we end up with lots of draws.
To a certain degree, drawing is habit forming and people do not
readjust their strategies game by game or even move by move .
Players see the benefits of drawing, they revamp their opening
repertoires to be drawish, etc. I think one of the reasons that
computers have achieved some excellent results in human events
is that the humans are put off guard psychologically by the
computers' "play the best move" strategy. It's foreign to them.
Their not used to their fellow human GMs testing them move
after move.

David Kane wrote:

Guy Macon http://www.guymacon.com/ wrote...

You have supplied no rational reason why your
preference that chess not be a small oddball activity
should have more weight than the preferences of those
who disagree with you.

People who want chess small are not the ones
I'm writing for.

And people who want chess large but cannot explain why
are not the ones I'm writing for.

By the way, not all personal preferences are equally
meaningful. For example, people who take the
position "NO CHANGES, NO MATTER WHAT!"
are expressing a preference that fundamentally
has nothing to do with chess whatsoever.

Good thing that nobody like that has posted to this thread,
then. Or are you attempting to take my actual position
(that I have given your suggested changes careful thought
and concluded that [a] they seek a goal that there is no
good reason to seek and [b] they are unlikely to achieve
that goal) and replace it with a straw man?

People who don't, or can't, understand why things
got the way they are or speculate intelligently on
how things could change, aren't going to
say anything worth listening to. In that case,
all that I can really do is refute the ridiculous
blind monkey arguments that they resort to when
faced with evidence that it is not comfortable
to them.

The above contains zero actual evidence.
It is an invalid ad hominen argument.


--
Guy Macon
http://www.guymacon.com/

"Guy Macon" http://www.guymacon.com/ wrote in message
...



David Kane wrote:

Guy Macon http://www.guymacon.com/ wrote...

You have supplied no rational reason why your
preference that chess not be a small oddball activity
should have more weight than the preferences of those
who disagree with you.

People who want chess small are not the ones
I'm writing for.

And people who want chess large but cannot explain why
are not the ones I'm writing for.

It has been explained, explicitly, very recently.



By the way, not all personal preferences are equally
meaningful. For example, people who take the
position "NO CHANGES, NO MATTER WHAT!"
are expressing a preference that fundamentally
has nothing to do with chess whatsoever.

Good thing that nobody like that has posted to this thread,
then. Or are you attempting to take my actual position
(that I have given your suggested changes careful thought
and concluded that [a] they seek a goal that there is no
good reason to seek and [b] they are unlikely to achieve
that goal) and replace it with a straw man?

I have seen little to no evidence that you've given
anything careful thought. If you can't understand
my argument, your lack of agreement isn't particularly
meaningful. People have "opinions" about
all sorts of things they don't understand - quantum
mechanics, the Najdorf Sicilian, you name it.


People who don't, or can't, understand why things
got the way they are or speculate intelligently on
how things could change, aren't going to
say anything worth listening to. In that case,
all that I can really do is refute the ridiculous
blind monkey arguments that they resort to when
faced with evidence that it is not comfortable
to them.

The above contains zero actual evidence.
It is an invalid ad hominen argument.


It was a response to the non-substantive
arguments you've been making throughout.
(tic-tac-toe, NFL rules etc.) This is typical
behavior of people faced with evidence that
is not comfortable to them.

The simple fact is that you've provided no
insight into the high draw rate of GMs, the
impact of that on the game, etc. Your
"just because" defense conveys very little
beyond your stated satisfaction with something
you haven't thought much about.

I'm sure there were people in ice skating
who behaved identically but it didn't stop
the sport from evolving into something
better and more successful.

On Dec 18, 12:44 am, "David Kane" wrote:

My main points in these draw-problem threads are
simply that legitimate draws aren't much of a problem
at all; if bogus drawing between grandmasters is the
heart of this issue, don't be afraid to tackle it head-on.

The point isn't that there are "legitimate" draws
and "bogus" draws. The point is that incentives external
to the game are bad for the game. Bogus drawing is merely
a symptom of the problem - which is that some moron
set up the tournament rules so that it was smart to agree to
a bogus draw.

In Swiss tourneys, the most frequent example of a bogus
draw is when the clear winner "gives" away a draw to his
last round opponent, either to lock up clear first or else to
go home early. I don't see how this is particularly "smart",
unless he is also trying to keep his rating down to net
easier pairings in future events.

I don't agree that incentives are necessarily bad for the
game; for example, if there were an event where each
additional half point netted a player $1,000, this would
probably make them work harder than usual, play better
than normal. I am talking about "normal" players here,
not the cheaters; the cheaters would tend to focus more
on buying those half points, distracting their opponents,
and so forth; they would tend to work harder at cheating
than normal (for them).


At any rate, I find it interesting that you are working so
hard to *transfer the blame* from the cheaters to the
organizers. The assumption is that somehow, like magic
the problem can be cured-- which I seriously doubt. It
reminds me of the Bobby Fischer fiasco in the way the
"problem" (i.e. him not winning every game) is projected
onto organizers, TV cameras, little green men, etc.


-- help bot

"help bot" wrote in message
...
On Dec 18, 12:44 am, "David Kane" wrote:




At any rate, I find it interesting that you are working so
hard to *transfer the blame* from the cheaters to the
organizers. The assumption is that somehow, like magic
the problem can be cured-- which I seriously doubt.

It is equally bizarre that you transfer the problem
to the players. Do people denigrate figure skaters
who won gold medals in their day, succeeding
according to the rules of the time, just because their
skills were far below more recent skaters, responding
to different incentives? Of course not.

It is nearly 100% the fault of the organizers that it pays
to draw. I suppose if we wanted to we could fault the
players for not standing up to the idiotic rules that compel
them to destroy the game they are so good at.

It is all about incentives. Cheating has nothing to
do with it.

David Kane wrote:

Guy Macon http://www.guymacon.com/ wrote...

David Kane wrote:

Guy Macon http://www.guymacon.com/ wrote...

You have supplied no rational reason why your
preference that chess not be a small oddball activity
should have more weight than the preferences of those
who disagree with you.

People who want chess small are not the ones
I'm writing for.

And people who want chess large but cannot explain why
are not the ones I'm writing for.

It has been explained, explicitly, very recently.

You have, indeed, explained why, but the explanation boils
down to "I expect the following things to happen", and you
have not offered a logical argument as to why anyone else
might find those things to be desirable (exception: the bit
about higher pay for top players; it's obvious why the top
players would desire that, unclear why you desire it).

By the way, not all personal preferences are equally
meaningful. For example, people who take the
position "NO CHANGES, NO MATTER WHAT!"
are expressing a preference that fundamentally
has nothing to do with chess whatsoever.

Good thing that nobody like that has posted to this thread,
then. Or are you attempting to take my actual position
(that I have given your suggested changes careful thought
and concluded that [a] they seek a goal that there is no
good reason to seek and [b] they are unlikely to achieve
that goal) and replace it with a straw man?

I have seen little to no evidence that you've given
anything careful thought.

Another ad hominem? Feel free to take a survey and see
how many here think that I have given your suggested
changes careful thought. Many people disagree with
me on many things, but very few of them think that I
don't give my positions careful thought.

If you can't understand my argument, your lack of
agreement isn't particularly meaningful.

*Another* ad hominem. Feel free to include in your
survey whether I understand your argument.

People have "opinions" about all sorts of things they
don't understand - quantum mechanics, the Najdorf
Sicilian, you name it.

And yet another ad hominem!

The above contains zero actual evidence.
It is an invalid ad hominem argument.

It was a response to the non-substantive
arguments you've been making throughout.

Glad to see that you admit to posting invalid
arguments. Your justification rests on the premise
that my arguments are non-substantive (something
which I deny, but again feel free to take a survey;
if they are most folks will agree with you.) Upon
that shaky premise you apply the ad hominem tu quoque
fallacy, claiming that two wrongs make a right and
that it's OK for you to present invalid arguments
just because (you claim) I did.

(tic-tac-toe, NFL rules etc.) This is typical
behavior of people faced with evidence that
is not comfortable to them.

No. Those were valid examples refuting your assertions.
For example, you asserted that more popularity equals
more respect. WWE Wrestling is far more popular that
Olympic wrestling. WWE Wrestling is *not* more respected
than Olympic wrestling. Thus your assertion is refuted
by a valid counterexample. Perhaps you should consider
the possibility that it is *you* who cannot understand
*my* argument. Have you ever taken a class or read a book
on critical thinking? Do you understand what a logical
fallacy is and why logical fallacies are invalid arguments?

The simple fact is that you've provided no
insight into the high draw rate of GMs, the
impact of that on the game, etc.

Feel free to take that survey.

Your "just because" defense

Straw man fallacy. I never made such an argument.

conveys very little beyond your stated satisfaction
with something you haven't thought much about.

Ad hominem fallacy. You are engaging in personal attacks
because you have no actual evidence or valid arguments.

I'm sure there were people in ice skating
who behaved identically but it didn't stop
the sport from evolving into something
better and more successful.

Red herring fallacy. Ice skating never made a rules
change to reduce the number of draws.

Also, you have your facts wrong, and badly so. See
[ http://www.skatetoday.com/articles0506/040506_1.htm ].

Ice skating has experienced a marked decline in popularity
in recent years, so much so that the United States Figure
Skating Association lost its long-standing television
contract with ABC because of poor ratings. Then, over at
NBC, the prime-time telecast of the U.S. championships
dropped from double digits into the 4.0 range, and the
USFSA, which was getting $12 million a year from NBC,
had to settle for a profit-sharing agreement with no
rights fee in its new contract.

Meanwhile, International Skating Union President Ottavio
Cinquanta says that he will give away television rights
if necessary to guarantee that U.S. viewers can watch
the 2009 Los Angeles World Figure Skating Championships.
Compare that with the $22 million a year he got from ABC
for the five-year deal that ended in 2004 and the $5
million a year he got from ESPN for the five-year deal
that ends in 2009.

During the mid-1990s, the Champions tour played more
than 70 major cities a year, plus a winter tour in smaller
cities. In 2006 it was 56 cities. In 2007, 23. And now
the 2008 tour has been canceled because of declining
attendance.

A far cry from the days when Sonja Henie was one of
the highest paid movie stars in Hollywood, starring
and skating in fifteen hit films.

The good news is that there is a new skating film out
that stars Scott Hamilton, Nancy Kerrigan, Dorothy Hamill,
Peggy Fleming, Brian Boitano and Sasha Cohen, and it's a
big hit. The bad news is that the movie is _Blades of
Glory_ starring Will Ferrell and Jon Heder.

I am looking forward to your next personal attack, which
I predict will be especially nasty because you were wrong
about the popularity of ice skating. Having been on USENET
for many years, I find such antics to be interesting, and
the escalation that follows when I reveal that my reaction
to flamers is detached bemusement to be reasonably amusing.


--
Guy Macon
http://www.guymacon.com/

On Dec 18, 7:42 pm, "David Kane" wrote:

At any rate, I find it interesting that you are working so
hard to *transfer the blame* from the cheaters to the
organizers. The assumption is that somehow, like magic
the problem can be cured-- which I seriously doubt.

It is equally bizarre that you transfer the problem
to the players.

As I understand it, the problem was presented here
by *others*, who phrased it to refer to the tendency
of (mainly grandmaster) players to agree to many
uncontested draws; obviously then, it wasn't me
who *transfered the blame*, but you.

I have tried to point out that at lower levels, the
problem is far less severe, and it mainly relates to
the arrangement of prize winnings, along with some
players who refuse to battle their buddies. It is
primarily the "grandmasters" whose drawing issues
have draw serious criticism, and their apologists
have yet to face head-on the issue of cheating; in
other words, the fact that the USCF forbids any
players from agreeing to what have aptly come to
be known as "grandmaster draws".


Do people denigrate figure skaters
who won gold medals in their day, succeeding
according to the rules of the time, just because their
skills were far below more recent skaters, responding
to different incentives?

Do men of straw easily get knocked over by their
creators?


It is nearly 100% the fault of the organizers that it pays
to draw.

An easy charge to make; what's tougher is to
come up with a *solution* in which such draws are
effectively discouraged, without mucking up the
game.


I suppose if we wanted to we could fault the
players for not standing up to the idiotic rules that compel
them to destroy the game they are so good at.

More jibberish.


It is all about incentives. Cheating has nothing to
do with it.

Ignoring the fact that these draws are against USCF
rules is like burying your head in the sand. Only if they
were *not* against current rules would it make sense
to focus solely upon "incentives".


-- help bot

"Guy Macon" http://www.guymacon.com/ wrote in message
...
I am looking forward to your next personal attack, which
I predict will be especially nasty because you were wrong
about the popularity of ice skating. Having been on USENET
for many years, I find such antics to be interesting, and
the escalation that follows when I reveal that my reaction
to flamers is detached bemusement to be reasonably amusing.



You really need to look up the meaning of ad hominem, red herring etc.
Attacking your arguments is not attacking you. If you don't
want your faulty arguments exposed, then don't make them.

Your ice skating information is not relevant. The changes in
question took place well before the period you are discussing.
I doubt anyone would dispute that the changes to the sport were tied
to scoring at least in part, and the increase in money at that time is
also fact. Of course, there could be other factors.

The key point is that the sport responded
to the reality it was facing, made changes to its rules, which
produced changes to the sport.

It is not surprising that those stuck in an alternate reality (chess
having achieved some super-optimized Utopian condition) are
not interested in change. But others may be curious as to why
Utopia can barely support nickel and dime stuff like credible national
championships etc. They would do well to try to understand
the reasons behind chess' lack of status.

"help bot" wrote in message
...
On Dec 18, 7:42 pm, "David Kane" wrote:


Ignoring the fact that these draws are against USCF
rules is like burying your head in the sand. Only if they
were *not* against current rules would it make sense
to focus solely upon "incentives".


Pretending that the rules against drawing are
real rules is just stupidity. They are almost never enforced
for a number of reasons, including being internally
inconsistent with the rest of chess' rules, and its practices
for over 100 years.

You don't like something? Declare it illegal! Don't
bother to figure out where it comes from and
what caused it.

Was it your state that passed a law declaring that
Pi is 3? How is that enforcement effort going?