Draws in professional chess -- strange contradictory attitude
paulde...@att.net
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
David Kane
<paulde...@att.net> wrote in message
news:1170764428....@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
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.
SAT W-7
winning ..
help bot
> Why not make a win one and half points so tournaments put a premium on
> winning ..
There is a potential drawback here: 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
keithbc
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!
help bot
> On 6 Feb, 12:20, pauldepst...@att.net 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
David Kane
"help bot" <nomor...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1170834136.9...@a34g2000cwb.googlegroups.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.
help bot
> "help bot" <nomorech...@hotmail.com> 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
David Kane
> On Feb 7, 7:54 pm, "David Kane" <davidek...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> "help bot" <nomorech...@hotmail.com> 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.
help bot
> > 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
Chess One
"David Kane" <david...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:372dne7sz7Aw6VfY...@comcast.com...
>
> "help bot" <nomor...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1170834136.9...@a34g2000cwb.googlegroups.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's it. the chessville mail bag votes for changes too, and like the idea
of increasing Black's score for a win to 1.5 points - other scoring stays
the same.
> 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.
Yes. If Black could score 1.5 that is a definite incentive for more active
play, and is the smallest change in scoring possible. It will be interesting
to see how BAP's results compare with national median results.
Phil Innes
David Kane
> On Feb 8, 2:38 am, "David Kane" <davidek...@comcast.net> 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!
It is simple fact that GMs produce lots of draws when
playing each other (>50%). One player's rare blunder
doesn't invalidate the basic fact which makes my point.
>
>> > 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.
>
>>
>> > 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.
Achieving draws is not optimal. Playing in a way that
produces high draw rates is optimal. If you can't
understand that difference, you will not be capable of
making a meaningful contribution to the discussion.
Your "theory" that
"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."
explains absolutely nothing at all. Where does this "unmotivation"
come from? In fact, it comes, contrary to your assertion, from the
"lack of incentive to play for a win". GMs have concluded that
playing for more wins would hurt their prize winnings, ratings
etc. So they don't do it. The output (lots of draws) is a direct
result of the input (1867-scoring).
help bot
> that's it. the chessville mail bag votes for changes too, and like the idea
> of increasing Black's score for a win to 1.5 points - other scoring stays
> the same.
That seems a bit off-balance, to me. Suppose I adopt the strategy
of playing to draw with White, and to win as Black? Is this really
what
you desire? I think not! Yet it makes sense, if you make the change
suggested above, for a win as Black counts more, and why take risks
as White, when the win would gain you less? This introduces a new
flaw in the scoring system, which in and of itself could easily
outweigh
the *perceived* flaw in the currently popular system. Of course, it
is
obvious that the real problem is with the players themselves.
> > 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.
>
> Yes. If Black could score 1.5 that is a definite incentive for more active
> play, and is the smallest change in scoring possible.
How so? Why cannot wins count 1.25 with either color, draws only
.5, and a loss 0? In a typical 5-round Swiss, this would have more
than a little effect in encouraging more decisive games, and fewer of
the notorious grandmaster draws, by allowing winners to (just) leave
behind their hyper-drawing rivals. I don't see any advantage in
skewing
the scoring of wins in favor of either color, White or Black, and your
selection reflects poorly upon your own racist bias. ;>D
-- help bot
help bot
> >> 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!
>
> It is simple fact that GMs produce lots of draws when
> playing each other (>50%). One player's rare blunder
> doesn't invalidate the basic fact which makes my point.
I'm all for you "making your point", so when do you plan to start?
> >> > 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.
In what way? You have not yet shown any advantage to moving
toward the middle of the pack, either in tournaments, or in round-
robins.
> >> 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.
>
> Achieving draws is not optimal. Playing in a way that
> produces high draw rates is optimal.
Another unbacked assertion. How long have you suffered from
this annoying affliction?
> If you can't understand that difference, you will not be capable of
> making a meaningful contribution to the discussion.
Indeed, the only "discussion" I have seen so far from you is the
repetition of unsupported assertions, backed only by your own
opinions. If this is what you choose to term a "discussion", then
I want no further part in it. I leave you to your silly game.
> "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."
>
> explains absolutely nothing at all. Where does this "unmotivation"
> come from?
Well, let's first admit that it is not a problem suffered only by
the
famous GMs. Where I come from, there is an identical problem
among players of all classes. For the life of me, I cannot see why
so many entrants choose to fake a game, agreeing to draw one another
quickly and without a fight, except insofar as they are cowards, more
afraid of the pain of losing than ambitious to win; or else they are
calculating automatons, whose sole purpose in life is to somehow
lock up a small Class prize, and no more. To me, this lack of desire
of moving up seems to relate to a knowledge that the higher you go,
the
tougher the climbing gets. Many players seem to feel it safer, and
more
comfortable to simply remain where they are; I call it complacency,
even
mediocrity.
> In fact, it comes, contrary to your assertion, from the
> "lack of incentive to play for a win". GMs have concluded that
> playing for more wins would hurt their prize winnings, ratings
> etc. So they don't do it.
No. *Some* GMs may have concluded thus, but hardly all.
In fact, it is those who reach the pinnacle whose example should
be followed, not those who lag behind. These laggers are the ones
who follow, not lead the way.
> The output (lots of draws) is a direct result of the input (1867-scoring).
An interesting supposition, that. Yet it is refuted by the fact
that
there are many of us who somehow have managed to escape your
postulated dilemma; who always play for real; who never violate the
rule forbidding uncontested draws; who strive our utmost to win; who
are unafraid.
-- help bot
David Kane
>
>> The output (lots of draws) is a direct result of the input (1867-scoring).
>
> An interesting supposition, that. Yet it is refuted by the fact
> that
> there are many of us who somehow have managed to escape your
> postulated dilemma; who always play for real; who never violate the
> rule forbidding uncontested draws; who strive our utmost to win; who
> are unafraid.
Your refutation is based on nothing but an anecdotal claim. On the other
hand, high draw rates among GMs are established fact. We know from
looking at GM results that the return on playing for lots of wins
is low. By analogy, a straight flush is a winning poker hand,
but it is (extremely) suboptimal to draw for one except very,
very rarely. The math is not so extreme in chess,
but the principle is the same - at the highest level playing for draws
is often (not always) the smart thing to do given 1867-scoring.
help bot
> >> The output (lots of draws) is a direct result of the input (1867-scoring).
>
> > An interesting supposition, that. Yet it is refuted by the fact
> > that there are many of us who somehow have managed to escape your
> > postulated dilemma; who always play for real; who never violate the
> > rule forbidding uncontested draws; who strive our utmost to win; who
> > are unafraid.
>
> Your refutation is based on nothing but an anecdotal claim. On the other
> hand, high draw rates among GMs are established fact.
The point you seem to be missing is that no one has claimed
otherwise;
where you have fallen down, is in demonstrating any evidence whatever
that this problem, the all-too-frequent draws between GMs, is in any
way
the "direct result" of a scoring system. Here is where you make a
giant
leap of illogic, and wish to be believed based on nothing more than
your
own *assertion* of this as fact. I see no reason to believe it; even
if you
had a reputation as a reliable reporter, you could simply be mistaken.
> We know from
> looking at GM results that the return on playing for lots of wins
> is low.
Nonsense. GM Fischer played for lots of wins and this got him the
championship title. GM Tal played for lots of wins and this got him
the
title. Alekhine played for lots of wins, and this got him some very
nice
victories on top-level tournaments, although he may not have succeeded
in *getting* lots and lots of wins vs. GM Capablanca, due to the high
level of resistance.
The only situation I know of whereby lots and lots of draws seems
"optimal", is where in a match between just two players, one is
already
ahead by a large margin, and wishes to reduce the risk of failing.
Also,
in team play, where one game has already been decided, and it may be
optimal for the winning side's teammates to play cautiously, on
account
of the desperation of the opposing side, which *may* thus be
exploited.
But as for a general rule, I believe it pays better to take some
risks in
shooting for the top prizes, since that is where the big money lies.
Of
course, this does not mean one should play recklessly.
> By analogy, a straight flush is a winning poker hand,
> but it is (extremely) suboptimal to draw for one except very,
> very rarely.
I don't see that as a good analogy. In chess, the analogy here would
be that one should not often play for a mate-in-one, because this plan
generally is doomed to failure.
> The math is not so extreme in chess,
> but the principle is the same - at the highest level playing for draws
> is often (not always) the smart thing to do given 1867-scoring.
Perhaps you mean in top-level tournaments, where there is a hefty
appearance fee, and where maintaining one's top-ten status weighs
heavily on the issue of draws, because by not dropping below a certain
level, a player is assured of future invitations to prestigious (and
lucrative)
events. In this narrow sense, your assertion would make sense; and
yet
you never narrowed your assertion, nor have you given any substantive
evidence in support thereof. All we have seen thus far is mere
*repetition*
of the unsupported assertion. In sum, you have a strong opinion on
this
matter, but seem unable to articulate any reasons for having assumed
it.
-- help bot
David Kane
It is telling that your attempt at "refutation via anecdote" consists of
3 players who played 40, 50, and 80 years ago! I have already
conceded that 1867 scoring might have seemed sensible in
1867. But we should have learned something since then.
In fact, Tal's lifetime draw rate of 53% is way up there.
Fischer's was of course lower (31%) but he was a
top-GM playing much of his career in a US pool containing
no others in his class. Hardly representative of top-GMs playing
each other. I don't have Alekhine's stats handy,
but surely you can't be serious bringing him up in a discussion
of the current chess world. If you are going to be ridiculous,
why not use Greco? His surviving games show a 0% draw
rate and a 100% win rate! Things haven't changed much
since the 1620's, have they?
A slightly more recent and relevant anecdote:
The 3 top scorers at Corus (8.5/13) had a draw rate of 59%.
The section as a whole had a draw rate of 61%. Doesn't
seem like draw aversion was the winning ticket to me.
> The only situation I know of whereby lots and lots of draws seems
> "optimal", is where in a match between just two players, one is
> already
> ahead by a large margin, and wishes to reduce the risk of failing.
> Also,
> in team play, where one game has already been decided, and it may be
> optimal for the winning side's teammates to play cautiously, on
> account
> of the desperation of the opposing side, which *may* thus be
> exploited.
>
> But as for a general rule, I believe it pays better to take some
> risks in
> shooting for the top prizes, since that is where the big money lies.
> Of
> course, this does not mean one should play recklessly.
You are certainly entitled to your theories. However, my
argument is based on their actual behavior.
>
>> By analogy, a straight flush is a winning poker hand,
>> but it is (extremely) suboptimal to draw for one except very,
>> very rarely.
>
> I don't see that as a good analogy. In chess, the analogy here would
> be that one should not often play for a mate-in-one, because this plan
> generally is doomed to failure.
>
>
>> The math is not so extreme in chess,
>> but the principle is the same - at the highest level playing for draws
>> is often (not always) the smart thing to do given 1867-scoring.
>
> Perhaps you mean in top-level tournaments, where there is a hefty
> appearance fee, and where maintaining one's top-ten status weighs
> heavily on the issue of draws, because by not dropping below a certain
> level, a player is assured of future invitations to prestigious (and
> lucrative)
> events. In this narrow sense, your assertion would make sense; and
> yet
> you never narrowed your assertion, nor have you given any substantive
> evidence in support thereof.
The only reason to narrow it would be if a high incidence
of draws was found only to occur in those situations.
It doesn't. Some of the most blatant example of "GM
draws" do of course occur in special situations
(last round of a tournament to clinch a prize), but draw rates
are high *throughout* top-GM chess.
All have the same underlying explanation. The fiction
that there are "bad" uncontested draws and "good"
contested ones is simplistic and unhelpful. Why?
Because if two GMs are essentially happy with
a drawn outcome and play very cautiously, the
"contested" game is practically not much different
than the "uncontested" one. I.e., we don't really
know what a "contested" game looks until we
change the scoring so that both players play
to win.
Chess One
> A slightly more recent and relevant anecdote:
> The 3 top scorers at Corus (8.5/13) had a draw rate of 59%.
> The section as a whole had a draw rate of 61%. Doesn't
> seem like draw aversion was the winning ticket to me.
Here was my own analysis of Corus
White-wins Draws Black-wins analysis
Group A = W16 D46 B12 Ratio Decisive : Draw = 28:46
Group B = W30 D32 B14 Ratio Decisive : Draw = 44:32
The first tier players of Group A achieved a decisive to draw ratio of
28:46, or about 2:3; whereas Group B achieved 44:32, or about 7:5. In
percentages this resolves to first tier players scoring 50% more draws than
wins, and elsewhere the GM 'norm', being about 35% less draws than decisive
games
A slightly more telling statistic between Group A and Group B at Corus is
the win results with white, since black is almost the same in both groups:
Group A = W16 D46 B12, and Group B = W30 D32 B14.
An analysis of draws must also include wins with white and wins with black,
especially black. It is fascinating to note that in Group A the white/black
differential is much less, but in Group B it is better than 2 :: 1.
Historically I have much data on WDL stats - in W Ch games, the highest draw
rates are archieved by Smyslov at 57.9% draws with black and 50.3% draws
with white - who is exceeded by Petrosian with 61.5% draws with black and
49.0% draws with white.
The LOWEST draw rate appears to be Steinitz, with 21.7% draws with black and
17.9% draws with white.
Of popular players:
Alekhine: 30.5% draws black, 24.3% draws white
Fischer: 36.9% draws black, 24.8% draws white
Kasparov, 47.3% draws black, 30.8% draws white
It is fair to say that increasing the reward for black wins to 1.5 points is
an untested system, that is, there are no measurements of it in practice to
warrant an understanding if this factor would reduce the draw rate. It is
simply the idea of many strong players that it would encourage black more,
and this itself would reduce the draw rate, since black is attempting to get
ahead the black bits, and white to stop that gain - this making for a better
battle!
Phil Innes
//Corus data above is my own; stats on World Champions is from Adorjan's
Black is still OK!/Batsford
help bot
> It is telling that your attempt at "refutation via anecdote" consists of
One does not need to "refute" a mere assertion; it is sufficient to
point
out the lack of substantiating evidence, as I have already done.
> 3 players who played 40, 50, and 80 years ago! I have already
> conceded that 1867 scoring might have seemed sensible in
> 1867.
In what way is this any "concession" to reason? I see it rather
as just a stated opinion on your part.
> But we should have learned something since then.
Indeed. We have learned that what for centuries perhaps were
accepted (by many) as expert opinions, have now been flatly
refuted by the confounded computers! :>D
> In fact, Tal's lifetime draw rate of 53% is way up there.
Interesting. The point is, when he was world champion, and
during the time of his ascent to that post, he did not make much
headway by dragging himself down with draws. On the contrary,
it is the very ability to stand out among others which gains a
champion his unique status. And it is clear that the status of
world champion is far more lucrative than the status of being
one of many frequent-drawers, although in your favor is the fact
that there in but one champion, but *many* of mediocre results.
> Fischer's was of course lower
"Of course", simply by virtue of his having quit while at his peak,
thus avoiding the annoyance of facing his superiors later on in
life; such things, as we know, often lead to use of the status of
former world champion to leverage a draw in an inferior position,
or where the risk seem unduly high, or where two greats face one
another, neither wishing to become the victim of the other's noted
brilliancy.
> (31%) but he was a
> top-GM playing much of his career in a US pool containing
> no others in his class.
Rare is the American who is willing to admit this as fact!
The Russians were superior overall, just as we were superior in
baseball, but they, in ice skating and gymnastics.
> Hardly representative of top-GMs playing each other.
It depends on what you mean by "top" GMs. I selected a few
of the world champions, because they are the clearest examples
of counterpoint to your promotion of mediocrity.
> I don't have Alekhine's stats handy,
> but surely you can't be serious bringing him up in a discussion
> of the current chess world.
True, his record hardly can compare to mine at GetClub and
RedHotPawn, but still, he was not a "weak" player (unlike that
pretender, Taylor Kingston!).
> If you are going to be ridiculous,
> why not use Greco?
Clearly, you have overlooked the fact that Greco was never awarded
the title of grandmaster. Generally, we were discussing the
propensity
of GMs to draw (mainly with each other).
> His surviving games show a 0% draw
> rate
Hmmm. Fully equal to mine at GetClub.
> and a 100% win rate!
Dammit. A double-damn on him, for besting my own stellar record!
> Things haven't changed much
> since the 1620's, have they?
Well, we now know all about germs, and their causal relation to
disease. Oh -- and we now have global warming, while they had
almost the opposite, a sort of cooling off period. But you're right,
not much else has really changed, except for in the realms of
technology.
> A slightly more recent and relevant anecdote:
> The 3 top scorers at Corus (8.5/13) had a draw rate of 59%.
> The section as a whole had a draw rate of 61%. Doesn't
> seem like draw aversion was the winning ticket to me.
In a field of frequent-drawers, the tendency to draw frequently can
seem unimportant, almost hidden. Yet when there is one player
lacking this tendency, he can easily outdistance the field, in fact
with their own help! As you suggest, the flaw remains well-disguised
when a zebra stands among a herd of his own kind, and is not so
easily distinhuised as such.
> > Perhaps you mean in top-level tournaments, where there is a hefty
> > appearance fee, and where maintaining one's top-ten status weighs
> > heavily on the issue of draws, because by not dropping below a certain
> > level, a player is assured of future invitations to prestigious (and
> > lucrative)
> > events. In this narrow sense, your assertion would make sense; and
> > yet
> > you never narrowed your assertion, nor have you given any substantive
> > evidence in support thereof.
>
> The only reason to narrow it would be if a high incidence
> of draws was found only to occur in those situations.
> It doesn't. Some of the most blatant example of "GM
> draws" do of course occur in special situations
> (last round of a tournament to clinch a prize), but draw rates
> are high *throughout* top-GM chess.
This appears to point the finger at the top-GMs in chess,
unless these all too frequent draws are foisted upon them in
contradiction to their wills.
I have personally witnessed cases where a GM, having sprung his
pre-game prepared "surprise", was disappointed, and had no
further desire to test his opponent in a now "unfamiliar" middlegame.
In essence, the result is estimated to be a toss-up, after
considerable
work for both players, so they quite lazily decide to split the point.
This laziness and lack of any great ambition is particularly obvious
to me, for I suffer the same faults to a considerable degree -- but
not
in chess so much.
> All have the same underlying explanation. The fiction
> that there are "bad" uncontested draws and "good"
> contested ones is simplistic and unhelpful. Why?
> Because if two GMs are essentially happy with
> a drawn outcome and play very cautiously, the
> "contested" game is practically not much different
> than the "uncontested" one. I.e., we don't really
> know what a "contested" game looks until we
> change the scoring so that both players play
> to win.
I can't disagree with this comment, except to note that it
is rather missing one key point: the agreement to quick, and
uncontested draws is currently against the rules of the game.
Now, if you were to argue that these rules are in need of a
drastic change, it would make sense. But so long as the
rules prohibit any such agreement, you come off as arguing
in favor of cheating, and your justification appears to be that
all the top players do it. To me, this explains only your ready
acceptance of the mediocrity of draws, and little else. My
own opinion is that if a majority of players wish to change the
rules to allow draws "at will", I support their right to do so,
and have no objection whatever to an immediate change.
All the same, I may well continue playing to win, as it is a
long-established habit, not easily broken -- except by
repeated losses to my superiors (of which there can be but
few). ;>D
-- help bot
help bot
> An analysis of draws must also include wins with white and wins with black,
> especially black.
Once again, the clear racist bias! ;>D
> It is fair to say that increasing the reward for black wins to 1.5 points is
> an untested system, that is, there are no measurements of it in practice to
> warrant an understanding if this factor would reduce the draw rate. It is
> simply the idea of many strong players that it would encourage black more,
> and this itself would reduce the draw rate, since black is attempting to get
> ahead the black bits, and white to stop that gain - this making for a better
> battle!
I see two wins as Black counting exactly the same as three with
White,
which makes little sense. I see three wins with the Black pieces
*besting*
four wins as White. I see that success in drawing all one's games as
White
can still win, provided one demolishes the competition by essaying the
Sicilian and crushing any and all defenses by one's hapless
opponents. I
see new strategies for both tournament and round-robin play arising,
to
exploit the foibles of this heavily warped system of scoring, which
degrades
the win with the White pieces, in favor of unjust wins by Black,
having been
obtained through arrangement or via absurd risk-taking to harness the
undeniable power of this system's warp itself. I see this giant warp
as intruder;
as "cure", more detrimental than the disease it purports to remedy. I
see
desperation, recklessness, and a lack of balance.
-- oracle bot
David Kane
>
>
>> All have the same underlying explanation. The fiction
>> that there are "bad" uncontested draws and "good"
>> contested ones is simplistic and unhelpful. Why?
>> Because if two GMs are essentially happy with
>> a drawn outcome and play very cautiously, the
>> "contested" game is practically not much different
>> than the "uncontested" one. I.e., we don't really
>> know what a "contested" game looks until we
>> change the scoring so that both players play
>> to win.
>
> I can't disagree with this comment, except to note that it
> is rather missing one key point: the agreement to quick, and
> uncontested draws is currently against the rules of the game.
How is that the key point? Or even a remotely relevant
point? Do you argue that GM draws result from some
innate lawlessness in GMs?
The key point is not that these rules are flouted, but that
they are fundamentally incompatible with the very definition
of the tournament competition. The tournament organizers
use a scoring system that makes playing drawishly an
optimal strategy. The winners of high-level tournaments,
in general, not just Corus 2007, do so with lots of draws.
> Now, if you were to argue that these rules are in need of a
> drastic change, it would make sense. But so long as the
> rules prohibit any such agreement, you come off as arguing
> in favor of cheating, and your justification appears to be that
> all the top players do it. To me, this explains only your ready
> acceptance of the mediocrity of draws, and little else. My
> own opinion is that if a majority of players wish to change the
> rules to allow draws "at will", I support their right to do so,
> and have no objection whatever to an immediate change.
> All the same, I may well continue playing to win, as it is a
> long-established habit, not easily broken -- except by
> repeated losses to my superiors (of which there can be but
> few). ;>D
Of course I am arguing no such thing. I am saying that any
scoring system where there is an incentive to draw "at will"
is defective. It will produce excess draws (regardless of whether
they are "legal" or not) and make the competitions less
interesting. Your personal preference as an amateur to play
with a swashbuckling attitude is not germane - GM tournaments
are won by those who have learned to play the "drawing game"
the best. I do not even deny that this is in itself an achievement
dependent on skill. But it is boring, undramatic, and undermines
interest in high-level chess.
Matt Nemmers
www.iowachess.org/hesse.htm
Regards,
Matt
Taylor Kingston
> rates are archieved by Smyslov at 57.9% draws with black and 50.3% draws
> with white - who is exceeded by Petrosian with 61.5% draws with black and
> 49.0% draws with white.
Phil, I don't know where you're getting your stats, but they do not
look at all accurate. You are including _ONLY_ world championship
games? You did say "in W Ch games," right? In that case, my sources
show these data for the players you name:
Smyslov:
Hague-Moscow 1948: +6 -4 =10
Botvinnik match 1954: +7 -7 =10
Botvinnik match 1957: +6 -3 =13
Botvinnik match 1958: +5 -7 =11
--------------------------------------------------
totals: +24 -21 =44
draw percentage = 44/89 = 49.4%
It is impossible to draw "57.9% with black and 50.3% with white" and
yet come out with an overall drawing percentagle of 49.4%. Either the
white or black percentage could be higher than the overall percentage,
but not both.
Petrosian:
Botvinnik match 1963: +5 -2 =15
Spassky match 1966: +4 -3 =17
Spassky match 1969: +4 -6 =13
--------------------------------------------------
totals: +13 -11 =45
draw percentage 45/69 = 65.2%
This again contradicts your claim of "61.5% draws with black and
49.0% draws with white" for Petrosian. Either the white or black
percentage could be lower than the overall percentage, but not both.
> The LOWEST draw rate appears to be Steinitz, with 21.7% draws with black and
> 17.9% draws with white.
The stats again contradict you. In six title matches, Steinitz
scored +43 -33 =29, a draw rate of 27.6%. While this is still probably
the lowest draw rate, your percentages are rather off.
> Of popular players:
>
> Alekhine: 30.5% draws black, 24.3% draws white
Again, where are you getting this? In five title matches, Alekhine
scored +43 -24 =73, a draw rate of 52.14%
> Fischer: 36.9% draws black, 24.8% draws white
This one should have been easy even for you Phil, since Fischer
played only one title match, scoring +7 -3 =11. That's 52.4%. Even if
we include the 1992 Spassky match, it's still about the same, +17 -8
=26, or 51.0%.
> Kasparov, 47.3% draws black, 30.8% draws white
This is amazingly wrong even by your standards, Phil. In eight title
matches from 1984 to 2000, Kasparov scored +31 -23 =143, a draw
percentage of 143/197 = 72.6%. You are off by a factor of two.
I would recommend tossing out your ouija board or random number
generator in favor of some accurate sources such as Winter's "World
Chess Champions" or Gelo's "Chess World Championships 1834-2004."
Mike Murray
wrote:
>An interesting article regarding this can be found at: http://
>www.iowachess.org/hesse.htm
One point the article doesn't touch on is the impact of GM draws on
sponsorship.
help bot
wrote:
> On Feb 10, 7:40 am, "Chess One" <inn...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > Historically I have much data on WDL stats - in W Ch games, the highest draw
> > rates are archieved by Smyslov at 57.9% draws with black and 50.3% draws
> > with white - who is exceeded by Petrosian with 61.5% draws with black and
> > 49.0% draws with white.
>
> Phil, I don't know where you're getting your stats, but they do not
> look at all accurate.
Read what the man wrote again; where above did IM Innes make any
claim to *accuracy* of his data? Nowhere that I can see. On the
contrary,
all he did was note that he had an abundance of it, and as we can see
from his post, this was no lie.
> > Fischer: 36.9% draws black, 24.8% draws white
>
> This one should have been easy even for you Phil, since Fischer
> played only one title match,
Well, not everyone can be a math genius like TK.
> scoring +7 -3 =11.
> I would recommend tossing out your ouija board or random number
> generator in favor of some accurate sources such as Winter's "World
> Chess Champions" or Gelo's "Chess World Championships 1834-2004."
Uh-oh. Did someone mention that heinous name, which brings to mind
his vicious criticisms of GM Evans' sloppiness? And all this time I
had
imagined that TK simply had chessbase MEGA-SUPERDUPERbase, and
was using it to pull up all these stats. The war zone has shifted to
include
this thread, so I'm ducking for cover.
-- help bot
help bot
> An interesting article regarding this can be found at: http://www.iowachess.org/hesse.htm
In this article, the author seems to slant the truth for his own
purpose,
and in addition, he continually ignores the obvious refutations to his
many contentions.
-----------------
My own opinion is that *if* we wish to elevate the so-called rights
of
the two players above all else, a change of rules is necessary -- not
further excuses for those who currently violate them. I have no
objection
to such a change, and indeed, it might be an improvement in the sense
that it would obviate the bias in application of the current rules,
which
falls upon arbiters or directors who are after all, only human.
However, unless and until such a rules change may be effected,
I consider the agreement to draws, whether done before or during a
game, without a real contest having ever begun, to be cheating, on
account of this fact being stated in the current rules, which of
course
are the very same rules which tell us that we have agreed on how
the Knight shall move, on how the King may castle, and so forth.
One very obvious point that the article deftly avoided was the
impact
of what the author called the players' "rights" to agree to a draw, on
all the other participants of, say, a tournament or round-robin. It
is
very obvious that two players agreeing to split their point in the
last
round can have a decisive impact on the placings and winnings of
other contenders; this is precisely why the word "collusion" was
selected, and to my mind, the connotations of such a word are not
dissimilar to those relating to terms like "fraud", "conspiracy",
"deception", and so forth. In sum, it was selected to point out the
bad smell associated with such behavior.
Another example of the author's (I should hope) deliberate
deceptions
is where he repeatedly insisted that the "grandmaster draw" was a
rarity, unworthy of much notice by virtue of same! Such dishonesty,
to me, makes his entire edifice crumble of its own corruptness and
lack of fortitude. Surely, a better argument than *this* could be
made
to justify the practice of grandmaster-drawing.
Nevertheless, as Mr. Nemmers said, it was "interesting", because of
the lengths to which the author had to distort the truth in order to
grasp
at staws with which to build his ramshackle case.
-- help bot
Taylor Kingston
Well, yes, I do have ChessBase MegaDatabase 2005, but I don't use
databases for this sort of thing, as they are often inaccurate.
Perhaps that's what Innes did, though knowing his usual methods, it
would not surprise me if he just made figures up. Even the worst
databases are usually more accurate than what he presented, especially
regarding such well-preserved events as world championship matches.
In case it's relevant, some draw statistics for some other world
champions:
Lasker:
Steinitz match 1894: +10 -5 =4
Steinitz match 1896-7: +10 -2 =5
Marshall match 1907: +8 -0 =7
Tarrasch match 1908: +8 -3 =5
Schlechter match 1910: +1 -1 =8
Janowski match 1910: +8 -0 =3
Capablanca match 1921: +0 -4 =10
------------------------------------
totals: +45 -15 =42
draw ratio 42/102 = 41.2%
Capablanca:
Lasker match 1921: +4 -0 =10
Alekhine match 1927: +3 -6 =25
------------------------------------
totals: +7 -6 =35
draw ratio 35/48 = 72.9%
Euwe:
Alekhine match 1935: +9 -8 =13
Alekhine match 1937: +4 -10 =11
Hague-Moscow 1948: +1 -13 =6
------------------------------------
totals: +14 -31 =30
draw ratio 30/75 = 40.0%
Botvinnik:
Hague-Moscow 1948: +10 -2 =8
Bronstein match 1951: +5 -5 =14
Smyslov match 1954 +7 -7 =10
Smyslov match 1957 +3 -6 =13
Smyslov match 1958 +7 -5 =11
Tal match 1960: +2 -6 =13
Tal match 1961: +10 -5 =6
Petrosian match 1963: +2 -5 =15
-----------------------------------
totals: +46 -41 =90
draw ratio 90/177 = 50.8%
David Richerby
> Historically I have much data on WDL stats - in W Ch games, the
> highest draw rates are archieved by Smyslov at 57.9% draws with
> black and 50.3% draws with white - who is exceeded by Petrosian with
> 61.5% draws with black and 49.0% draws with white.
If Smyslov has the *highest* rate, he cannot be exceeded by anyone.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Expensive Homicidal Toy (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a fun child's toy but it wants
to kill you and it'll break the bank!
David Richerby
> Why not make a win one and half points so tournaments put a premium
> on winning ..
We've been through this before. Under this scheme, it's to the
players' advantage to toss a coin to decide who resigns instead of
agreeing a draw. That way from ten drawn positions, they'd get five
wins on average, which means 7.5 points, instead of the 5 points
they'd get from the draws.
People who used this scheme would score more points and, so, be more
likely to win tournaments.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Accelerated Zen Radio (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a radio that puts you in touch with
the universe but it's twice as fast!
David Richerby
> Sin...@webtv.net (SAT W-7) wrote:
>> Why not make a win one and half points so tournaments put a premium
>> on winning ..
>
> 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.
There isn't any increased prize money in these circumstances. If they
come equal first, the prize money for first and second is divided
equally between them. If they come first and second and agree to
split the prize, the prize money for first and second is divided
equally between them. Exactly the same money.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Electronic Hi-Fi (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ music system but it uses electricity!
markgra...@gmail.com
> "help bot" <nomorech...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
You should take the time and test your theory on recent tournaments
and assign your scoring methods to the results and see if it changes
the standings in some substantial way.
David Kane
<markgra...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1171301713.9...@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
This is *not* an interesting exercise. The whole idea behind
changing the scoring systems is to change the *incentive structure*
so that the play becomes more interesting, not to historically
reinterpret events that are already over. Unfortunately, the
only way to really test the impact is to run tournaments using
alternate scoring methods. Even then, there could be many
difficulties in interpreting the data: players are so habituated
to winning the "drawing game" that they wouldn't know
how to adapt to something different(e.g. they have draw-heavy
opening repertoires and won't develop an alternate repertoire
for just one tournament), players who opt to play
under different rules might not be typical, etc.
However, there have been a few tournaments played with
BAP scoring (0 for White draw, 1 for Black draw, 2 for White
win and 3 for Black win) and these have generally shown that
the eventual winners would have done well under both systems,
but that games are hard-fought. There has been no evidence to
support the theoretical objections often raised by supporters
of 1867 scoring (increased collusion, difficult draws being
abandoned rather than played out etc.) Even though the
organizers have declared the BAP events a success, I
don't think the quantity and quality of these events is sufficient
to draw strong conclusions.
David Kane
"David Richerby" <dav...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
news:qYh*5F...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
> SAT W-7 <Sin...@webtv.net> wrote:
>> Why not make a win one and half points so tournaments put a premium
>> on winning ..
>
> We've been through this before. Under this scheme, it's to the
> players' advantage to toss a coin to decide who resigns instead of
> agreeing a draw. That way from ten drawn positions, they'd get five
> wins on average, which means 7.5 points, instead of the 5 points
> they'd get from the draws.
>
> People who used this scheme would score more points and, so, be more
> likely to win tournaments.
>
As has also been pointed out many times before, these schemes are
also present in the existing rules. Since prizes are based on place
finish (not linear with points scored), it is always beneficial
for the people at the bottom of the tournament standings to lose to
the people at the top, in return for a share of the winnings.
Terry
Have you considered the implications on the rating system. ?
Regards
Chess One
"Taylor Kingston" <tkin...@chittenden.com> wrote in message
news:1171210782.9...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 10, 7:40 am, "Chess One" <inn...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> Historically I have much data on WDL stats - in W Ch games, the highest
>> draw
>> rates are archieved by Smyslov at 57.9% draws with black and 50.3% draws
>> with white - who is exceeded by Petrosian with 61.5% draws with black and
>> 49.0% draws with white.
>
> Phil, I don't know where you're getting your stats,
Really? - I cited them. YOU cut them. YOU changed the topic to one of abuse,
and this is nothing new to you, eh, Kingston? What an inconsequential
commentator you have become!
>
> but they do not
> look at all accurate. You are including _ONLY_ world championship
> games?
Only W Ch games in a database, themselves not representative of all games. I
am surprised you do not have the book[s] in question.
> You did say "in W Ch games," right? In that case, my sources
Which you do not mention the source thereof - ROFL - as if to smear someone
else was enough for you and your fan club of utter morons.
> show these data for the players you name:
>
> Smyslov:
> Hague-Moscow 1948: +6 -4 =10
> Botvinnik match 1954: +7 -7 =10
> Botvinnik match 1957: +6 -3 =13
> Botvinnik match 1958: +5 -7 =11
> --------------------------------------------------
> totals: +24 -21 =44
>
> draw percentage = 44/89 = 49.4%
>
> It is impossible to draw "57.9% with black and 50.3% with white" and
> yet come out with an overall drawing percentagle of 49.4%. Either the
> white or black percentage could be higher than the overall percentage,
> but not both.
That would depend on which database was consulted. I think I mentioned my
own source. You seem to have neglected yours :) Of course, if you knew
about my source, then you would have seen the qualifications attending the
data.
> Petrosian:
> Botvinnik match 1963: +5 -2 =15
> Spassky match 1966: +4 -3 =17
> Spassky match 1969: +4 -6 =13
> --------------------------------------------------
> totals: +13 -11 =45
>
> draw percentage 45/69 = 65.2%
>
> This again contradicts your claim of "61.5% draws with black and
> 49.0% draws with white" for Petrosian. Either the white or black
> percentage could be lower than the overall percentage, but not both.
>
>> The LOWEST draw rate appears to be Steinitz, with 21.7% draws with black
>> and
>> 17.9% draws with white.
>
> The stats again contradict you. In six title matches, Steinitz
> scored +43 -33 =29, a draw rate of 27.6%. While this is still probably
> the lowest draw rate, your percentages are rather off.
>
>> Of popular players:
>>
>> Alekhine: 30.5% draws black, 24.3% draws white
>
> Again, where are you getting this?
Again, Kingston eliminates the citation, then asks where it is? ROFL
How normal for him!
> In five title matches, Alekhine
> scored +43 -24 =73, a draw rate of 52.14%
>
>> Fischer: 36.9% draws black, 24.8% draws white
>
> This one should have been easy even for you Phil,
Kingston, you are the less 'even' of any writer here - do you know what the
word means? How dare you eliminate the source of what I wrote, then give
your own material without citation at all. 'Even' - ROFL - This is
disgusting writing. You are such a light weight and utterly predicatable.
What shall you do next - have hysterics over Lasker being 8th?
> since Fischer
> played only one title match, scoring +7 -3 =11. That's 52.4%. Even if
> we include the 1992 Spassky match, it's still about the same, +17 -8
> =26, or 51.0%.
>
>> Kasparov, 47.3% draws black, 30.8% draws white
>
> This is amazingly wrong even by your standards, Phil.
This is amazingly normal for even your 'standards', Kingston.
But you have know better than Keene, Evans, Schiller, and now Adorjan [whose
citation you eliminated, while providing none your own] <snigger> but you
have the gall to criticise on the basis of your own editing of my post, and
offer your usual insults? God - California-man needs to get a brain! Maybe
you are a hero to Our Neil, but that, you know, ain't exactly an Oscar.
> In eight title
> matches from 1984 to 2000, Kasparov scored +31 -23 =143, a draw
> percentage of 143/197 = 72.6%. You are off by a factor of two.
>
> I would recommend tossing out your ouija board or random number
> generator in favor of some accurate sources such as Winter's "World
> Chess Champions" or Gelo's "Chess World Championships 1834-2004."
I would recommend to you that you do not continue to cheat in public - if
its not a lie, then its a 'forgot' or an 'under-researched' or, as in this
case, a pretence you argue with Adorjan's database from the best chess books
in the past 10 years, against your own un-cited material.
Try to do better, even at your age - what an embarrassing attempt, as usual!
Phil Innes
BTW: Hanon hasn't replied on the subject of Winter's copyright, and my
letter made expicit that unless he should do so, then it is a matter of
record that Winter is a claimant to copyright of what is in the public
domain - and since I offered him this legal challenge, and he declined to
defend Winter, then Winter's claims are not substantiated by his publisher.
Taylor Kingston
> "Taylor Kingston" <tkings...@chittenden.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1171210782.9...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Feb 10, 7:40 am, "Chess One" <inn...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> Historically I have much data on WDL stats - in W Ch games, the highest
> >> draw
> >> rates are archieved by Smyslov at 57.9% draws with black and 50.3% draws
> >> with white - who is exceeded by Petrosian with 61.5% draws with black and
> >> 49.0% draws with white.
>
> > Phil, I don't know where you're getting your stats,
>
> Really? - I cited them. YOU cut them.
Um, no, Phil. In your posts in this thread you have not named any
source. You said merely "Historically I have much data on WDL stats,"
saying nothing about where these stats came from.
In any event, the question of your source is secondary to the fact
that your statistics are just plain wrong, glaringly wrong. Lest
anyone be misled, I provided accurate statistics and named my sources.
> YOU changed the topic to one of abuse,
> and this is nothing new to you, eh, Kingston?
Um, no, Phil. I stayed on your topic of draw ratios in world
championship play.
> What an inconsequential
> commentator you have become!
>
> > but they do not
> > look at all accurate. You are including _ONLY_ world championship
> > games?
>
> Only W Ch games in a database, themselves not representative of all games. I
> am surprised you do not have the book[s] in question.
>
> > You did say "in W Ch games," right? In that case, my sources
>
> Which you do not mention the source thereof
Phil, once again your dyslexia appears to be flaring up. I named two
sources, Winter's "World Chess Champions" and Gelo's "Chess World
Championships." That's two more than you named. I have many more, all
of which corroborate the statistics I provided, and contradict yours.
> - ROFL - as if to smear someone
> else was enough for you and your fan club of utter morons.
>
> > show these data for the players you name:
>
> > Smyslov:
> > Hague-Moscow 1948: +6 -4 =10
> > Botvinnik match 1954: +7 -7 =10
> > Botvinnik match 1957: +6 -3 =13
> > Botvinnik match 1958: +5 -7 =11
> > --------------------------------------------------
> > totals: +24 -21 =44
>
> > draw percentage = 44/89 = 49.4%
>
> > It is impossible to draw "57.9% with black and 50.3% with white" and
> > yet come out with an overall drawing percentagle of 49.4%. Either the
> > white or black percentage could be higher than the overall percentage,
> > but not both.
>
> That would depend on which database was consulted.
Phil, I think you have finally attained total hallucinatory
insanity. The plain fact is: 57.9% and 50.3% simply cannot average out
to 49.4% no matter what database is consulted. They cannot, any more
than 2 + 2 can equal 3. This is a matter of simple, basic arithmetic,
comprehensible I would hope to the average 6th-grader, but apparently
not comprehensible to you.
> I think I mentioned my
> own source.
Again, you did not.
> You seem to have neglected yours :)
Again, for the third time: Winter's "World Chess
Champions" (Pergamon, 1981) and Gelo's "Chess World
Championships" (3rd edition, McFarland & Co, 2006). I have at least a
dozen more handy.
> Of course, if you knew
> about my source, then you would have seen the qualifications attending the
> data.
Even if your source is one of the lost Gospels, on the matter of
world championship statistics it is quite wrong, based on the totally
erroneous data you have presented.
> > Petrosian:
> > Botvinnik match 1963: +5 -2 =15
> > Spassky match 1966: +4 -3 =17
> > Spassky match 1969: +4 -6 =13
> > --------------------------------------------------
> > totals: +13 -11 =45
>
> > draw percentage 45/69 = 65.2%
>
> > This again contradicts your claim of "61.5% draws with black and
> > 49.0% draws with white" for Petrosian. Either the white or black
> > percentage could be lower than the overall percentage, but not both.
>
> >> The LOWEST draw rate appears to be Steinitz, with 21.7% draws with black
> >> and
> >> 17.9% draws with white.
>
> > The stats again contradict you. In six title matches, Steinitz
> > scored +43 -33 =29, a draw rate of 27.6%. While this is still probably
> > the lowest draw rate, your percentages are rather off.
>
> >> Of popular players:
>
> >> Alekhine: 30.5% draws black, 24.3% draws white
>
> > Again, where are you getting this?
>
> Again, Kingston eliminates the citation, then asks where it is? ROFL
> How normal for him!
Again, Innes claims to have written something he never did. How
normal for him.
> > In five title matches, Alekhine
> > scored +43 -24 =73, a draw rate of 52.14%
>
> >> Fischer: 36.9% draws black, 24.8% draws white
>
> > This one should have been easy even for you Phil,
>
> Kingston, you are the less 'even' of any writer here - do you know what the
> word means? How dare you eliminate the source of what I wrote, then give
> your own material without citation at all. 'Even' - ROFL - This is
> disgusting writing. You are such a light weight and utterly predicatable.
>
> What shall you do next - have hysterics over Lasker being 8th?
>
> > since Fischer
> > played only one title match, scoring +7 -3 =11. That's 52.4%. Even if
> > we include the 1992 Spassky match, it's still about the same, +17 -8
> > =26, or 51.0%.
>
> >> Kasparov, 47.3% draws black, 30.8% draws white
>
> > This is amazingly wrong even by your standards, Phil.
>
> This is amazingly normal for even your 'standards', Kingston.
>
> But you have know better than Keene, Evans, Schiller, and now Adorjan [whose
> citation you eliminated, while providing none your own] <snigger>
You did not mention Adorjan in this thread until now. Google shows
your last mention of Adorjan to have been on 7 February 2007, in the
thread "Improvemnt [sic] and blindfold." You did not say Adorjan was
your source for world championship statistics. If he is indeed your
source, I strongly recommend citing him no more, because he is
egregiously wrong, based on what you have presented here.
> but you
> have the gall to criticise on the basis of your own editing of my post, and
> offer your usual insults? God - California-man needs to get a brain! Maybe
> you are a hero to Our Neil, but that, you know, ain't exactly an Oscar.
>
> > In eight title
> > matches from 1984 to 2000, Kasparov scored +31 -23 =143, a draw
> > percentage of 143/197 = 72.6%. You are off by a factor of two.
>
> > I would recommend tossing out your ouija board or random number
> > generator in favor of some accurate sources such as Winter's "World
> > Chess Champions" or Gelo's "Chess World Championships 1834-2004."
>
> I would recommend to you that you do not continue to cheat in public - if
> its not a lie, then its a 'forgot' or an 'under-researched' or, as in this
> case, a pretence you argue with Adorjan's database from the best chess books
> in the past 10 years, against your own un-cited material.
>
> Try to do better, even at your age - what an embarrassing attempt, as usual!
>
> Phil Innes
>
> BTW: Hanon hasn't replied on the subject of Winter's copyright, and my
> letter made expicit that unless he should do so, then it is a matter of
> record that Winter is a claimant to copyright of what is in the public
> domain - and since I offered him this legal challenge, and he declined to
> defend Winter, then Winter's claims are not substantiated by his publisher.- Hide quoted text -
>
Phil, this is probably the most memorable public meltdown I have
ever seen from you here. You have really made a bigger fool of
yourself than your worst enemy could ever have thought possible.
Congratulations.
David Kane
"Terry" <terry...@tbean.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:oOadndckubm...@giganews.com...
Clyde Ballard is the originator of the BAP system (Ballard
Anti-Draw Point System) and he has done some experimentation
with use of alternate scoring systems that produce more accurate ratings.
You can find his work on the internet. It can safely be concluded
that 1867-scoring which is imbedded into the Elo system is not
optimally predictive. But it would be coincidence if the point
system that produced the best fighting chess also produced the
best ratings. But it's a matter that can be determined empirically.
help bot
wrote:
> > There is a potential drawback here: 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.
>
> There isn't any increased prize money in these circumstances. If they
> come equal first, the prize money for first and second is divided
> equally between them. If they come first and second and agree to
> split the prize, the prize money for first and second is divided
> equally between them. Exactly the same money.
Nonsense. In the case of a decisive result, the GM who loses can
often be passed up in the scorings by a lesser player who happened
to win. This happens all the time. I recall one tournament where the
local favorite -- apparently -- deliberately only drew his first two
games,
in order to, round by round, avoid any possible pairing with the GM.
It worked! Not only did he avoid having to face the single superior
player in that Swiss event, but he also came sneaking up from behind
and passed the guy who sat on board one in round 4, facing the GM
for him. Where there are two GMs, the odds of them both having a
large enough lead in a typical 5-round Swiss to leave all other prize
contenders clearly *behind* the loser are not good. More often, at
least one of the GMs can be caught, if not surpassed, by some mere
Expert or Masterwho by virtue of his much lower rating and early
stumble, has been the beneficiary of relatively easy pairings.
Another possibility is that of this imaginary Expert or Master
dragging
into the fray some Class prize money, which otherwise would be out of
range of the grasp of the GMs, were they to simply draw one another.
In cases where the entries in the Class in question are numerous, the
Class prize could be substantial.
In any event, the point is there is an obvious flaw in the suggested
solution, in that it over-weights wins with one color, while under-
weighting
wins with the opposite color, and this in itself introduces myriad new
possibilities of, shall we say, "off-the-board strategies" directed
at
exploiting the newly introduced peculiarities in the rules. Perhaps a
better solution may be found which does not entail this drawback.
-- help bot
help bot
<markgravityg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You should take the time and test your theory on recent tournaments
> and assign your scoring methods to the results and see if it changes
> the standings in some substantial way.
Can this poster specify which "theories" he means above?
As far as I can see, the only theories posited here were his own,
in which he asserted (without providing substantiation) that GMs
have been forced to adopt a drawing habit, on account of the
scoring system making them into draw addicts.
---------
As an addition to all the reasons I have already mentioned, I
should like to add that in lower level tournaments, such as those
in which I have frequently played, the tendency to draw is quite
disadvantageous -- except in special cases where an unscrupulous
player wishes to manipulate his rating downward. The inevitable
result of too many draws is gravitation toward the middle of the
pack, and there isn't much in the way of prize money there.
Of course, this does not apply to the few top-level events we
have already mentioned. I should hope that the rules of chess
are not designed only with those few elite players in mind.
-- help bot
help bot
> This is *not* an interesting exercise. The whole idea behind
> changing the scoring systems is to change the *incentive structure*
> so that the play becomes more interesting,
I recall some discussion of the attempt to make things more
"interesting" via a speed-up in the time controls. As I recall, GM
Larry Evans (and, automatically, his ratpack) complained loudly
that standards were being lowered, that chess was being degraded,
etc., etc.
> not to historically
> reinterpret events that are already over. Unfortunately, the
> only way to really test the impact is to run tournaments using
> alternate scoring methods. Even then, there could be many
> difficulties in interpreting the data: players are so habituated
> to winning the "drawing game" that they wouldn't know
> how to adapt to something different
If you really believed your own commentary, then there would be
no point in trying it out, for the players, as you have it, cannot
adapt.
Without any adaptation to the new formats, the results would tell us
little of value.
> (e.g. they have draw-heavy
> opening repertoires and won't develop an alternate repertoire
> for just one tournament),
In world championship play, there has already been some play
under a different scoring system. Some *matches* have seen the
draw as not counting at all.
> players who opt to play
> under different rules might not be typical, etc.
This makes sense.
> However, there have been a few tournaments played with
> BAP scoring (0 for White draw, 1 for Black draw, 2 for White
> win and 3 for Black win) and these have generally shown that
> the eventual winners would have done well under both systems,
> but that games are hard-fought.
What you (deliberately?) left out above is the obvious flaw:
0 for White draw, 0 for White loss. Obviously, a draw is *better
than*
a loss, even if one plays the purple pokedot pieces.
> There has been no evidence to
> support the theoretical objections often raised by supporters
> of 1867 scoring (increased collusion, difficult draws being
> abandoned rather than played out etc.) Even though the
> organizers have declared the BAP events a success, I
> don't think the quantity and quality of these events is sufficient
> to draw strong conclusions.
Well, I rather liked it, until I discovered that you had left out
mention of the scoring of a White loss, and that it is identical
to the scoring of a draw, which of course is the fly in the
ointment.
-- help bot
David Kane
> On Feb 12, 1:07 pm, "David Kane" <davidek...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> This is *not* an interesting exercise. The whole idea behind
>> changing the scoring systems is to change the *incentive structure*
>> so that the play becomes more interesting,
>
> I recall some discussion of the attempt to make things more
> "interesting" via a speed-up in the time controls. As I recall, GM
> Larry Evans (and, automatically, his ratpack) complained loudly
> that standards were being lowered, that chess was being degraded,
> etc., etc.
>
>> not to historically
>> reinterpret events that are already over. Unfortunately, the
>> only way to really test the impact is to run tournaments using
>> alternate scoring methods. Even then, there could be many
>> difficulties in interpreting the data: players are so habituated
>> to winning the "drawing game" that they wouldn't know
>> how to adapt to something different
>
> If you really believed your own commentary, then there would be
> no point in trying it out, for the players, as you have it, cannot
> adapt.
> Without any adaptation to the new formats, the results would tell us
> little of value.
These are speculations. Maybe they can adapt,
maybe they can't, maybe only those who can adapt
will try them? You can't really know until you
try.
Alternately, we could introduce BAP scoring to
5 year olds, and then, when they become GMs,
they will lack the attachment to 1867-scoring.
Counting a draw as half a win will seem like sheer
insanity to them.
>
>> (e.g. they have draw-heavy
>> opening repertoires and won't develop an alternate repertoire
>> for just one tournament),
>
> In world championship play, there has already been some play
> under a different scoring system. Some *matches* have seen the
> draw as not counting at all.
>
>> players who opt to play
>> under different rules might not be typical, etc.
>
> This makes sense.
>
>> However, there have been a few tournaments played with
>> BAP scoring (0 for White draw, 1 for Black draw, 2 for White
>> win and 3 for Black win) and these have generally shown that
>> the eventual winners would have done well under both systems,
>> but that games are hard-fought.
>
> What you (deliberately?) left out above is the obvious flaw:
> 0 for White draw, 0 for White loss. Obviously, a draw is *better
> than*
> a loss, even if one plays the purple pokedot pieces.
I have described the system honestly. (Surely it
would make no sense to give points for a loss,
so including that would be redundant) What you
describe as a flaw is simply a feature. BTW a white draw
is better than a loss even in BAP, because it denies your
opponent, with whom you are competing, 2 points.
There was no evidence of White giving up and not
playing out draws in the BAP tournaments that have
been held.
>> There has been no evidence to
>> support the theoretical objections often raised by supporters
>> of 1867 scoring (increased collusion, difficult draws being
>> abandoned rather than played out etc.) Even though the
>> organizers have declared the BAP events a success, I
>> don't think the quantity and quality of these events is sufficient
>> to draw strong conclusions.
>
> Well, I rather liked it, until I discovered that you had left out
> mention of the scoring of a White loss, and that it is identical
> to the scoring of a draw, which of course is the fly in the
> ointment.
>
For chess to advance, we must abandon the visceral
and illogical reactions, of which yours is *the* perfect example.
Instead, we must approach the problem dispassionately
and analytically - what scoring system produces the best
chess? We already know that 1867-rules will lose that
analysis because it has produced such obviously
anti-competitive practices for such a long time. Is
BAP the ultimate? Even the originator doesn't claim that.
But it is a simple integer method that both makes
the return on playing for wins much higher, as well
as addressing the obvious unbalance in color at the GM
level. In my book, a much better attempt than
whining about how lazy GMs are.
David Kane
Conversely, GM chess shouldn't be relegated
to the shadows because some patzers are attached to
draws. Quite a number of golfers play with mulligans,
but I'd bet that even those that do would not suggest
that they be introduced into professional golf.
.
David Richerby
> David Richerby <dav...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>> There is a potential drawback here: 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.
>>
>> There isn't any increased prize money in these circumstances. If they
>> come equal first, the prize money for first and second is divided
>> equally between them. If they come first and second and agree to
>> split the prize, the prize money for first and second is divided
>> equally between them. Exactly the same money.
>
> Nonsense. In the case of a decisive result, the GM who loses can
> often be passed up in the scorings by a lesser player who happened
> to win.
Ah. I misunderstood you. By `outclass the field', I thought you
meant that they had dramatically better results than anyone else in
the tournament, i.e., they were first and second (or joint first) by a
wide enough margin that they couldn't be overtaken by a third party.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Aluminium Projector (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a 16mm film projector that's really
light!
David Richerby
> Really? - I cited them. YOU cut them.
Please provide a Google groups URL for the post where you cite your
source for the statistics you posted in the article at
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.misc/msg/0cab6dfefde02c83
Dave.
--
David Richerby Moistened Addictive Robot (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a high-tech robot but you can
never put it down and it's moist!
David Kane
players are so far ahead of the field that they will finish 1-2 no matter the
outcome of their game.
1st place is $1000, 2nd place is $500. Imagine that their ratings just
balance color so that they have a 0.5 winning expectancy. Now consider
the following scenarios.
1. Both play for draw, outcome draw, Prize $750
2. Both play for win, win% = .4, draw%=.2, loss% = .4.
Winnings = 0.4*1000 + 0.2*750 + 0.4*500 = $750
3. A plays for win, B plays for draw. A win% = .3, B win% =.5, draw%=.2.
A winnings = 0.3*1000 + 0.5*500 + 0.2*750=$700 , B winnings = $800.
Clearly, given this hypothetical table, playing for a draw is optimal.
The math is even clearer if losing were to cause either to play to
fall back in the standings and then have to share 2nd and lower places
with others (the usual case). e.g. if 3rd place is worth $250, and a loss will
cause you to tie with one other player, then the reward for losing
is $375, not $500 as above. Then the returns for 1,2, and 3 above
are $750, $700, and $637.50.
In "Chicken" two drivers drive directly towards each other in a way that
they will crash. The loser is the person who first veers off course to
avoid the crash. GM Chess has become the same thing, except in this
version of the contest the drivers start by driving *away* from each other.
Peaceful and rational and all that, but not interesting to the masses who
want to see blood.
help bot
> > If you really believed your own commentary, then there would be
> > no point in trying it out, for the players, as you have it, cannot adapt.
> > Without any adaptation to the new formats, the results would tell us
> > little of value.
>
> These are speculations. Maybe they can adapt,
> maybe they can't, maybe only those who can adapt
> will try them? You can't really know until you
> try.
Ah, so they were mere "speculations".
> Alternately, we could introduce BAP scoring to
> 5 year olds, and then, when they become GMs,
> they will lack the attachment to 1867-scoring.
> Counting a draw as half a win will seem like sheer
> insanity to them.
Not so fast, Freddie. The scoring of a draw as half a win
and half a loss, is based on more than just custom or whim.
In fact, it makes sense from a logical viewpoint because
the alternatives average out to this, and both players have
failed equally -- or almost equally, if you wish to concede
something to Black -- to attain victory or defeat. Oddly
enough, this introduces the idea of splitting the one point
allotted in the current system in a somewhat different manner,
such as .6 to Black and .4 to White, for example. In this way
the overall scoring of a single game remains precisely one
point, and the possibilities of manipulation are thus, rather
limited.
> > What you (deliberately?) left out above is the obvious flaw:
> > 0 for White draw, 0 for White loss. Obviously, a draw is *better
> > than*
> > a loss, even if one plays the purple pokedot pieces.
>
> I have described the system honestly.
Then I suppose it was sheer luck that the flaw of this system
was hidden from plain view by your peculiar omission of the
scoring of the White loss being dead equal to the scoring of
a White draw. What a coincidence! As I recall, in an article
posted at some link recently given here, the author (not you)
went to great lengths to twist words such as to lend support
to his thesis. I find that this may well be the indirect result of
the weaknesses thereof, which themselves require great care
from being exposed to the light. :>D
> (Surely it
> would make no sense to give points for a loss,
> so including that would be redundant)
LOL! Your straw creation is funny enough, but to *again*
hide the fact that the scoring of a draw is precisely the same
as that of a lost game, is telling indeed.
> What you describe as a flaw is simply a feature.
That's just what the salesman told me when he explained why
there was a heavy white smoke emission from the tailpipe....
Snip further balogna.
-- help bot
help bot
> Conversely, GM chess shouldn't be relegated
> to the shadows because some patzers are attached to
> draws. Quite a number of golfers play with mulligans,
> but I'd bet that even those that do would not suggest
> that they be introduced into professional golf.
Ad hom tendency noted; and BTW, it is the GMs who seem
to be inordinately attached to their precious draws, not the
multitude of patzers. From my own experience, these patzers
much prefer to lose, than to draw, and I am more than happy
to accommodate them.
-- help bot
help bot
wrote:
> Ah. I misunderstood you. By `outclass the field', I thought you
> meant that they had dramatically better results than anyone else in
> the tournament, i.e., they were first and second (or joint first) by a
> wide enough margin that they couldn't be overtaken by a third party.
For me, outclassing the field refers not to any single result in
such an event as a weekend Swiss in Peoria. For me, it consists
in having a much higher rating, and I much prefer to give credit to
overall results, than to any single performance. In my experience,
even a lowly patzer might sometimes have an exceptional result,
especially in an event of few rounds. I recall one of my early
experiences wherein not one, but two patzers, as they were
considered, simultaneously drew their vast superiors and went
on to face a field containing no one else who could demonstrate
such a gap in strength. At the time, no one could explain it, but
later on it was learned (or at least believed) that they had been
under-rated by a few hundred points, and *underestimated* in the
same vein.
-- help bot
help bot
wrote:
> Chess One <inn...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > Really? - I cited them. YOU cut them.
>
> Please provide a Google groups URL for the post where you cite your
> source for the statistics you posted in the article at
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.misc/msg/0cab6dfefde02c83
FYI: IM Innes is not quite sane, and the fact that there is no such
citation will, and can, have no effect upon his determination to claim
that he did. For him, it is a matter of sheer willpower, and self-
rightiousness, and so far above question as to brand anyone who so
dares a hated enemy.
By the same token, the fact that Taylor Kingston *did* cite his
sources is irrelevant. Mr. Innes will claim 'till the day he dies
that
he didn't, and that any evidence in support of him is necessarily
fabricated. It's all part of his dread disease, often termed
insanity,
but due to the interwoven nature of chess, possibly something
even worse.
The important thing to remember is that PI *believes* his own
version of things, and so he must not be treated as a leper, as
some sub-human creature incapable of thought; nay, I say he is
still human, despite everything, despite his utter separation from
reality; his submersion into the deep void of lunacy.
At this point, science has not yet developed a cure; all we can
do is treat the symptoms. My suggestion is to try and get him
to play more chess, on account of the inherent logic of the game.
Is there not some possibility -- however remote -- that this internal
logic might not rub off on him, to some small degree? And while
he can still play there is yet some hope in waiting for a real cure.
-- doc bot
David Kane
>
>> What you describe as a flaw is simply a feature.
>
> That's just what the salesman told me when he explained why
> there was a heavy white smoke emission from the tailpipe....
>
> Snip further balogna.
>
If you don't want to look at the evidence and try
to understand what is going, don't. Go back to
your whining about "unmotivated" GMs and
remain ignorant. It doesn't bother me.
help bot
> The analysis is incomplete even in that case. Suppose that the one and two
> players are so far ahead of the field that they will finish 1-2 no matter the
> outcome of their game.
In such a rare case as this, the "rights" of other players to
have a fair shot at winning some prize is unaffected, thus it
becomes quite irrelevant to the issue at hand.
BTW, I noticed a distinct tendency on the part of another
advocate of alternative scoring systems to either misconstrue
or else entirely ignore the rights of other players, and your
apparent desire to focus on this example falls right in line.
Obviously, the rights of the two players are every bit as
important as the rights of any others, and vice versa.
> 1st place is $1000, 2nd place is $500. Imagine that their ratings just
> balance color so that they have a 0.5 winning expectancy. Now consider
> the following scenarios.
>
> 1. Both play for draw, outcome draw, Prize $750
The way in which they play for the draw could have an ill
effect here; it is not unknown for penalties to be levied by
zealous arbiters, who feel that sportsmanship has been
cheated by an arrangement.
> 2. Both play for win, win% = .4, draw%=.2, loss% = .4.
With both playing to win, the player of the White pieces
has a distinct advantage, countered -- according to your
example -- by the difference in ratings.
> Winnings = 0.4*1000 + 0.2*750 + 0.4*500 = $750
> 3. A plays for win, B plays for draw. A win% = .3,
Hold on there! Where did you pull this from -- out of a magic
hat? You failed to specify which player was the higher-rated,
which had Black, and so forth. How can you determine that
where one plays for a win, the other for a draw, the results
must be as you decide above?
> B win% =.5,
Same here.
> draw%=.2.
And here.
> A winnings = 0.3*1000 + 0.5*500 + 0.2*750=$700 , B winnings = $800.
>
> Clearly, given this hypothetical table, playing for a draw is optimal.
It is in fact anything *but* clear, as you have failed to specify
many crucial details in support of these (invented) numbers.
> The math is even clearer if losing were to cause either to play to
> fall back in the standings and then have to share 2nd and lower places
> with others (the usual case).
On the contrary, in this case it often can happen that a
substantive class prize (or prizes) is tossed into the mix.
How many times have I seen a GM or IM share in an
Expert class prize, leaving all but one Expert shaking
his head in disgust!
> e.g. if 3rd place is worth $250, and a loss will
> cause you to tie with one other player, then the reward for losing
> is $375, not $500 as above. Then the returns for 1,2, and 3 above
> are $750, $700, and $637.50.
Perhaps. Yet you are focusing *only* on the division of
monies not yet won! The whole point of such a competition
is that the players who earn the most points, receive their due
reward. Obviously, this cannot work if certain players are,
by virtue of their special recognition as GMs, for example,
freely allowed to collude to cheat the others of their rights
to a fair shot. This is why you will find a few zealot TDs who
insist on enforcing the rules as they are actually written,
and agreed to before play begins. IMO, you are wasting
your time trying to justify cheating in this manner, when all
you really need to do is organize a technical change in the
rules of chess to allow the players to do this *legally*.
Take my word for it: changing the rules a bit is infinitely
easier than attempting to convincingly justify cheating.
> In "Chicken" two drivers drive directly towards each other in a way that
> they will crash. The loser is the person who first veers off course to
> avoid the crash.
On the contrary, the loser is the one who, thinking his
opponent *must* veer off or die, drives straight to his doom,
never realizing that the other driver is just as stupid as he!
This is why the game was modified to both drivers heading
for a cliff, and the winner being he who stops closest, without
going over. Here the loser is the one who underestimates
stopping distance, and goes over the cliff. The other two are
winners, one a tad more than the other. I wish this had been
incorporated into Aesop's fables, so that more people would
have the opportunity of learning from it and not becoming
losers.
> GM Chess has become the same thing, except in this
> version of the contest the drivers start by driving *away* from each other.
> Peaceful and rational and all that, but not interesting to the masses who
> want to see blood.
A miserably poor analogy, IMO. But yes, the masses wish to
see blood, or at least an interesting struggle, or lacking that, at
least a struggle of some sort. This explains why the current
rules incorporate the need for a "real contest" before any
agreement to a draw. Were it not for this rule, I have little
doubt that organizers themselves would find an effective way
to promote fighting chess, despite the current tendency of
many complacent GMs to draw prolifically.
In the old days, there were "brilliancy" prizes and such, which
served as inducements to play very interesting, attacking games
to please the spectators. But oddly enough, these prizes did
not always go to those with wild, attacking styles, or reckless
dispositions. In fact, I have won such a prize by simply playing
in my usual, sound manner, and not to please anybody, but
because the best moves I could find happened to be more
pleasing than any other players' moves.
Another method is the layout of the prizes themselves, such
as to discourage too-frequent drawing. In my experience, the
lower level tourneys tend to adopt this method, funneling monies
to the top places, and making those who finish near the middle
no better off than had they finished at the bottom.
-- help bot
David Kane
>> e.g. if 3rd place is worth $250, and a loss will
>> cause you to tie with one other player, then the reward for losing
>> is $375, not $500 as above. Then the returns for 1,2, and 3 above
>> are $750, $700, and $637.50.
>
> Perhaps. Yet you are focusing *only* on the division of
> monies not yet won! The whole point of such a competition
> is that the players who earn the most points, receive their due
> reward.
It is not clear to me *what* you are talking about.
Apart from having something against GMs,
attributing lack of motivation and unethical
practices to them, you've argued no position.
*I* have been talking about how the GMs
"drawing game" is a direct result of the
(mathematically unsound) practice of
counting draws as half a win. (That would
only be a rational practice if GM draws
included as much information as decisive
games. Empirically, we know that to be an
incorrect assumption.) Overcounting draws
increases their number.
The example given above was something of
a sideshow because excess draws do not
only occur in the last round, even though
those are the most obvious and offensive.
In fact, if it really is a 2-man race, then
changing the point structure won't help.
That is why Kasparov, known correctly
as a fighting chessplayer, had a 73% draw
rate in his WC matches. He had to
play optimally (aka drawishly) and
so produced lots of draws. However,
in a tournament, anti-draw scoring can
produce situations where the two players
collude in a good way (i.e. they play for
wins) and leave their drawing brethren
behind.
David Kane
> On Feb 12, 12:35 pm, "markgravityg...@gmail.com"
> <markgravityg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> You should take the time and test your theory on recent tournaments
>> and assign your scoring methods to the results and see if it changes
>> the standings in some substantial way.
>
> Can this poster specify which "theories" he means above?
>
> As far as I can see, the only theories posited here were his own,
> in which he asserted (without providing substantiation) that GMs
> have been forced to adopt a drawing habit, on account of the
> scoring system making them into draw addicts.
>
It's funny that when substantiation is offered,
mr. bot conveniently opts not to reply.
Consider the case of the Linares. For the past 25 or
so years, it has been chess' showcase event
involving many of the top players in the world.
The organizer of the event has been famous for
being "anti-draw". At various times, there have
been prohibitions against short draws, monetary
incentives for longer games, tiebreaks favoring
wins, not reinviting quick drawers etc. Essentially
they've tried, to their credit, most of the mild
anti-draw measures.
So what have the results been? Here is the
incidence of the winner's draw percentage since
1981, when it became world class.
Winner's draw percentage #
>=20 <30 2
>=30 <40 2
>=40 <50 1
>=50 <60 11
>=60 <70 1
>=70 <80 1
>=80 < 90 2
Nobody has ever won Linares with more
than 2 losses, but some have won with as
many as 10 draws. These statistics make a
fairly strong case that the way to win
Linares is to draw half or more of your
games and win the rest. No easy
feat, of course!
It convincingly establishes that, for top
GMs, playing in a way that produces a
high incidence of draws is rewarded.
It also suggests that the mild anti-draw
measures aren't very effective. No doubt
GMs are as capable as I am of seeing
that scores with lots of draws bring
home the big prizes, and factor
that into their playing strategy.
Or else, in help bot's fantasy world,
GMs are blissfully ignorant of what prizes
they are playing for and draw simply
because of some innate (and unexplained)
lawlessness forcing them to violate rules
requiring them to contest their games.
If only they all shared his noble fighting
spirit, or else he their chess skill, the
chess world would be a wonderful place!
help bot
> > Perhaps. Yet you are focusing *only* on the division of
> > monies not yet won! The whole point of such a competition
> > is that the players who earn the most points, receive their due
> > reward.
>
> It is not clear to me *what* you are talking about.
I have frequently noticed that you are lacking in the ability to
discern the obvious.
> Apart from having something against GMs,
To this, I will note that just below, you *yourself* have laid
the blame for the problem of too-frequent drawing on the
GMs -- LOL!
> attributing lack of motivation and unethical
> practices to them, you've argued no position.
Perhaps it is only that you are not intelligent enough to
grasp the positions I have argued?
One position is that the current rules, as written and agreed to
by all before play begins, disallow the agreement to premature
draws. It seems that you don't particularly like this fact, and
wish for it to "go away". My own position is that although I have
become accustomed to the current rule, I am not against any
change -- especially any change for the better. Call me flexible.
> *I* have been talking about how the GMs
> "drawing game" is a direct result of the
> (mathematically unsound) practice of
> counting draws as half a win.
You certainly have. But you have failed to demonstrate
this opinion to be anything more than that. At least in
*this* thread.
> (That would
> only be a rational practice if GM draws
> included as much information as decisive
> games. Empirically, we know that to be an
> incorrect assumption.)
"We" seem to "know" all sorts of things, don't we?
One of my suggestions was the splitting of a drawn game
as .6 for Black (to recognize his slightly inferior position at move
one) and .4 for White (a small penalty for not having made
something more of his first-mover advantage). In short, I did
not make the assumption that draws deliver a whole lot of info
about the respective strength of the two players, but only the
assumption that between them lies the splitting of exactly one
point per game, which seems fair enough since all games are
treated equally at one point apiece.
> Overcounting draws increases their number.
Perhaps this mere assertion would be more meaningful if you
were to define exactly what you mean by the term "overcounting".
> The example given above was something of
> a sideshow because excess draws do not
> only occur in the last round, even though
> those are the most obvious and offensive.
And they are so because of their obvious effect on the prize
monies, to which every entrant (not just the draw-mongers)
has a claim, having paid his fee and entered. Some of the
apologists for the draw-mongers seem to believe that anything
goes, including collusion and other forms of cheating.
> In fact, if it really is a 2-man race, then
> changing the point structure won't help.
Not so fast, Eddie. My suggestion, repeated above, would
in fact kill the possibility of two players agreeing to split the
point so that each of them would share equally the two top
prizes. The trouble is, these same players could secretly
agree to do redistribute the prizes equally, after the player of
the Black pieces has collected his 1st place prize, and the
player of the White pieces has collected his 2nd place prize.
But for that to happen, they would of course have to collude
in secret, and trust one another to follow through as fair and
honest men; I believe this is called "honor among thieves".
> That is why Kasparov, known correctly
> as a fighting chessplayer, had a 73% draw
> rate in his WC matches.
You, sir, are a complete idiot! Seriously. I mean the whole
world knows that the reason GM Kasparov had so many draws
in those matches is because he had a problem with GM Karpov,
despite a significant rating advantage at times. In addition to
this,
there was the psychological issue of his having been rolled in the
beginning of their first match, which naturally made GM Kasparov
wary of playing too aggressively against his foe. On top of that,
there was the indisputable fact of GM Karpov's superiority in the
endgame, which tended them toward battles of opening theory,
and GK's concession of small advantages in the endgame as
draws -- at least until he established about a one hundred rating
points superiority.
In terms of match strategy, it is often the case that a player
will allow draws freely, because they have no ill effect on his
match score or because they draw him closer to the fixed end
of such a match, and victory. Again, I should hope the rules of
chess are not fixed with *only* the world champions and their
few challengers in mind. That would indeed be a pity, for 99.999%
of the chess players in the world would then be excluded from any
consideration. The same goes for tournaments, with regard to the
few world championship matches.
> He had to play optimally (aka drawishly)
FYI: the term "aka" does not mean drawishly; it means also
known as. Unless and until you have established your mere
assertion, this lunacy will be regarded as evincing your own
desire to apologize for the draw-mongers, and little more.
Currently, there is a gross misunderstanding of the so-called
advantage of playing to draw. I have seen GM Kramnik's
method in action, and yes, it is very effective -- against idiots!
But not always will the world of chess have such easily tricked
fools as challengers for the title. I believe -- and hope -- that
this
is merely a passing phase, like a new moon. :>D
> AND so produced lots of draws.
Nonsense. Your selection of GM Kasparov is evidence of
nothing more than your strong desire to apologize for *cheaters*.
It is clear that many world champions had no trouble in
avoiding too-frequent draws, with rare exceptions. On such
example would be GM Alekhine, who managed to *not* draw
a multitude of games, except against the drawing machine,
GM Capablanca, who was his equal in strength. Another
example was GM Fischer, who acceded to a drawing record
against GM Botvinnik, but not without a *serious contest*
having begun. One more example would be GM Tal, who, as
his many victims would loudly complain, could not be stopped
from *winning*.
The current preference for opening novelties followed by a
either a quick crush or a quick draw, is hardly forced, or
"optimal". The truly optimal strategy is to play hard every
game, striving for the best result possible and ignoring such
irrelevancies as fatigue, conservation of strength, etc.
This is the strategy adopted by the strongest players in
the world -- by Deeper Blue, for instance. :>D
> However, in a tournament, anti-draw scoring can
> produce situations where the two players
> collude in a good way (i.e. they play for
> wins) and leave their drawing brethren
> behind.
I suspect you meant that the two leading players agree to
strive for wins, so as to be "alone" in their sharing of the top
prizes between themselves. I have seen this done, and yes,
it happened to be two GMs colluding against a field of
lesser players. In sum, the effect is the same as if these
players with the same title hated and despised all those
"below" them, and would go to great lengths to greedily
gather the monies to themselves -- nevermind the rules of
common decency. I know this cannot be said of all GMs,
but the prominent nature of their actions lends to them a
spotlight, magnifying their misjudgments and character
flaws. Clearly, the same approach can and has been taken
by untitled players on countless occasions, and their greed
is attributed more to pettiness and a lack of good breeding.
You see, the GMs are presumed to be not only "geniuses"
of the game, but to have superior aspects in other areas,
and their fall from grace is a longer, more tragic one to our
eyes. We even see the agreement between these "geniuses"
of chess to quick, meaningless draws, as a loss to us all,
and not only in the sporting sense, but the artistic as well.
-- help bot
David Kane
> On Feb 14, 3:42 pm, "David Kane" <davidek...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> > Perhaps. Yet you are focusing *only* on the division of
>> > monies not yet won! The whole point of such a competition
>> > is that the players who earn the most points, receive their due
>> > reward.
>>
>> It is not clear to me *what* you are talking about.
>
> I have frequently noticed that you are lacking in the ability to
> discern the obvious.
>
>
>> Apart from having something against GMs,
>
> To this, I will note that just below, you *yourself* have laid
> the blame for the problem of too-frequent drawing on the
> GMs -- LOL!
>
>
>> attributing lack of motivation and unethical
>> practices to them, you've argued no position.
>
> Perhaps it is only that you are not intelligent enough to
> grasp the positions I have argued?
>
> One position is that the current rules, as written and agreed to
> by all before play begins, disallow the agreement to premature
> draws. It seems that you don't particularly like this fact, and
> wish for it to "go away". My own position is that although I have
> become accustomed to the current rule, I am not against any
> change -- especially any change for the better. Call me flexible.
"Flexible" would be the very last word that would
apply to you. You're obsessed with this rule and
obviously annoyed that it is rarely enforced. I have
never expressed an opinion about it except to
state the obvious - that it doesn't do much to
reduce the frequency of draws.
>
>> (That would
>> only be a rational practice if GM draws
>> included as much information as decisive
>> games. Empirically, we know that to be an
>> incorrect assumption.)
>
> "We" seem to "know" all sorts of things, don't we?
>
> One of my suggestions was the splitting of a drawn game
> as .6 for Black (to recognize his slightly inferior position at move
> one) and .4 for White (a small penalty for not having made
> something more of his first-mover advantage). In short, I did
> not make the assumption that draws deliver a whole lot of info
> about the respective strength of the two players, but only the
> assumption that between them lies the splitting of exactly one
> point per game, which seems fair enough since all games are
> treated equally at one point apiece.
Seeming "fair enough" to someone as unthinking
as yourself is not addressing the underlying
mathematical flaw. Since GM draws are
frequent, they contain less information than decisive
games. Before 1867-scoring was introduced (draw = .5),
the practice, I believe, was simply to not count draws
and replay them. That position (i.e. draws contain zero
information) is probably a better fit to the GM game
than what we now use. Other anti-draw proposals,
e.g. BAP, are an attempt to deal with the issue
yet maintain the traditional flow of tournaments.
>> Overcounting draws increases their number.
>
> Perhaps this mere assertion would be more meaningful if you
> were to define exactly what you mean by the term "overcounting".
>
>
>> The example given above was something of
>> a sideshow because excess draws do not
>> only occur in the last round, even though
>> those are the most obvious and offensive.
>
> And they are so because of their obvious effect on the prize
> monies, to which every entrant (not just the draw-mongers)
> has a claim, having paid his fee and entered. Some of the
> apologists for the draw-mongers seem to believe that anything
> goes, including collusion and other forms of cheating.
What is truly remarkable in this exchange is that you
portray yourself as being opposed to draw-mongers,
yet reflexively defend the system that produces
them.
>> In fact, if it really is a 2-man race, then
>> changing the point structure won't help.
>
> Not so fast, Eddie. My suggestion, repeated above, would
> in fact kill the possibility of two players agreeing to split the
> point so that each of them would share equally the two top
> prizes.
It would do no such thing. The rules of chess do not
prohibit playing for a draw. The issue, which you
conveniently do not address, is how two
players "contest" a game in which they have exactly
the same objective. Logic does not seem to
be your strong suit.
I have snipped your Innesian rambling.
However, your last paragraph demonstrates your
bitterness towards GMs, and on a number of
occasions you've attempted to refute arguments
with personal anecdotes from your own, presumably
non-GM, experience, and I will comment on that.
I have limited my discussions
to GMs for several reasons: 1. The math is not
the same at all levels. The drawing percentages
are different at different ratings. Players have
to have a certain skill to implement drawing strategies
etc. Almost everything I've claimed is completely
wrong for scholastic chess, for example.
2. No one is ever going to find an audience
for amateur chess. There are no lost market
opportunities when B-players draw more often,
(although it *is* conceivable that there is an impact on
tournament popularity.) However, chess is a very
popular activity with very little marketable product
from the world's best players. That is a feature
of the chess world that deserves some thought,
since it is so abnormal. I believe, as do many
others, that chess' draw culture is a big part of that.
help bot
> It's funny that when substantiation is offered,
> mr. bot conveniently opts not to reply.
I hadn't noticed any such "substantiation" from the maker
of mere assertions in this thread, nor any pointer to another
in which any such substantiation might appear.
> Consider the case of the Linares. For the past 25 or
> so years, it has been chess' showcase event
> involving many of the top players in the world.
> The organizer of the event has been famous for
> being "anti-draw". At various times, there have
> been prohibitions against short draws, monetary
> incentives for longer games, tiebreaks favoring
> wins, not reinviting quick drawers etc. Essentially
> they've tried, to their credit, most of the mild
> anti-draw measures.
Not so fast, Eddie. You just listed not inviting the quick
drawers back, and that can hardly be described as a
"mild" measure. In fact, this would seem to be a very
*strong* measure, unless these quick-draws were so weak
as to have been the bottom-dwellers, who had little to lose.
Even then, their assured replacement would seem to be
sufficient to ensure a random chance of a fighting player
taking the place of a known draw-monger, and over time
this should have a powerful, cumulative effect.
> So what have the results been? Here is the
> incidence of the winner's draw percentage since
> 1981, when it became world class.
> Winner's draw percentage #
>
> >=20 <30 2
> >=30 <40 2
> >=40 <50 1
> >=50 <60 11
> >=60 <70 1
> >=70 <80 1
> >=80 < 90 2
Something about this newsgroup's format seems to have
made that "chart" into something of an unclear mess. We
need Adobe or RTF for this sort of thing. And labels for
each column, to show what the numbers represent.
> Nobody has ever won Linares with more
> than 2 losses, but some have won with as
> many as 10 draws. These statistics make a
> fairly strong case that the way to win
> Linares is to draw half or more of your
> games and win the rest. No easy
> feat, of course!
Round by round, a superior player may be able to
predict with some accuracy what the next pairing
demands, and if there are lots and lots of draws
among the "leaders", then draws may be perfectly
suited to the job of *not being overtaken* or left
behind. Yet the surest way to victory in war is
victory in many battles.
> It convincingly establishes that, for top
> GMs, playing in a way that produces a
> high incidence of draws is rewarded.
Only at Linares, perhaps. And only when *all*
the other contestants are of like ability. I wonder
how well this drawing strategy would work out if
GM Fischer were one of the players? Probably,
these draw-mongers would all complain that too
much of the prize fund was allocated to the first
prize, which for reasons they could not ascertain
was quite beyond their grasp!
In addition to Linares, I could cite the example of a
recent match between GM Kramnik and some challenger
who apparently adopted the strategy of sheer desperation,
which backfired heavily due to GM Kramnik's patient,
shifty style. Instead of many draws, the end result was
GM Kramnik's domination via winning nearly all the
drawish games, along with any he may have earned
otherwise. Thus, the apparent style of playing for the draw
was in effect, really a style of playing to win via conservative
moves which either provoked or else exploited his opponent's
severely flawed style.
> It also suggests that the mild anti-draw
> measures aren't very effective.
Rather, it would seem to suggest that either you
have misrepresented the facts, or that even such
*strong* measures as not inviting offenders back
are insufficient in themselves. In that case, the
enforcement of the rules might require even sterner
measures. Alternatively, the entrants could all agree
*in advance* that draws were hunky dory under any
circumstances, and let their own mediocrity be the
rule of the day. I favor the latter, since this avoids any
nasty favoritism in the application of rules enforcement.
> No doubt
> GMs are as capable as I am of seeing
> that scores with lots of draws bring
> home the big prizes, and factor
> that into their playing strategy.
It might be helpful if you were to give a relevant
example of this; for instance, show us how the
middle scorer at Linares gains financially from his
drawing addiction, and demonstrate how, had he
attempted to win, he would have likely lost instead,
leaving him "out of the money". As it is, your
mere assertions appear weak; without substance.
You are becoming notorious for this tendency.
> Or else, in help bot's fantasy world,
> GMs are blissfully ignorant of what prizes
> they are playing for and draw simply
> because of some innate (and unexplained)
> lawlessness forcing them to violate rules
> requiring them to contest their games.
In my fantasy world, all the GMs are afraid to
enter any such tournament as Linares, on account
of the possibility that either I or perhaps GM Fischer
will show up at the last moment, and they will of
course be squashed like tomatoes! It turns out
that when pressed by organizers, these many GMs
happen to all be "previously engaged", and cannot
possibly be persuaded to enter. Thus, the tourney
is canceled, and I am sent a telegram containing
profuse apologies for having to alter *my* plans,
being as I was the only entrant.
Instead, I arrange a sort of rematch with IBM,
which pledges to spend millions in the way of
the design and building of special hardware, to
ensure another victory for Big Blue. Unfortunately,
their stock takes a tumble when it is discovered
that some tiny flaw exists in the software, allowing
me to win in under twenty moves in game one. The
match is forfeited, and IBM pledges to "one day"
get even with humankind. More to the point, I
cleverly use my winnings to immediately snatch
up a huge chunk of the temporarily depressed
stock, effectively doubling my victory. I am, of
course, describing only a tiny part of my fantasy,
for much of it involves issues which have nothing
whatever to do with chess; what can I say? I am
a man, not an automaton, after all.
> If only they all shared his noble fighting
> spirit, or else he their chess skill, the
> chess world would be a wonderful place!
Not really. It would make for more interesting
games, though. More critically, the example of
good sportsmanship (in following the rules of the
game, just as they are written and agreed to by all)
would be set for everyone. This, I think, is the
more important aspect. For if all people wanted was
to look over interesting games, they might easily go
to GetClub or RedHotPawn and see mine. One
caveat, though: I do not claim to be a follower of
all the latest and greatest developments in openings
theory, so the "book" players may be disappointed
there. And those who cannot bear to look at games
which are, almost without exception, one-sided
massacres of the weak by the strong, would do well
to turn their heads and avoid perusing the carnage
(which I must say, is not unlike that shown on
Animal Planet, where the lions feast upon the beasts
of the plain, almost at will).
-- help bot
help bot
> It's funny that when substantiation is offered,
> mr. bot conveniently opts not to reply.
I hadn't noticed any such "substantiation" from the maker
of mere assertions in this thread, nor any pointer to another
in which any such substantiation might appear.
> Consider the case of the Linares. For the past 25 or
> so years, it has been chess' showcase event
> involving many of the top players in the world.
> The organizer of the event has been famous for
> being "anti-draw". At various times, there have
> been prohibitions against short draws, monetary
> incentives for longer games, tiebreaks favoring
> wins, not reinviting quick drawers etc. Essentially
> they've tried, to their credit, most of the mild
> anti-draw measures.
Not so fast, Eddie. You just listed not inviting the quick
drawers back, and that can hardly be described as a
"mild" measure. In fact, this would seem to be a very
*strong* measure, unless these quick-draws were so weak
as to have been the bottom-dwellers, who had little to lose.
Even then, their assured replacement would seem to be
sufficient to ensure a random chance of a fighting player
taking the place of a known draw-monger, and over time
this should have a powerful, cumulative effect.
> So what have the results been? Here is the
> incidence of the winner's draw percentage since
> 1981, when it became world class.
> Winner's draw percentage #
>
> >=20 <30 2
> >=30 <40 2
> >=40 <50 1
> >=50 <60 11
> >=60 <70 1
> >=70 <80 1
> >=80 < 90 2
Something about this newsgroup's format seems to have
made that "chart" into something of an unclear mess. We
need Adobe or RTF for this sort of thing. And labels for
each column, to show what the numbers represent.
> Nobody has ever won Linares with more
> than 2 losses, but some have won with as
> many as 10 draws. These statistics make a
> fairly strong case that the way to win
> Linares is to draw half or more of your
> games and win the rest. No easy
> feat, of course!
Round by round, a superior player may be able to
predict with some accuracy what the next pairing
demands, and if there are lots and lots of draws
among the "leaders", then draws may be perfectly
suited to the job of *not being overtaken* or left
behind. Yet the surest way to victory in war is
victory in many battles.
> It convincingly establishes that, for top
> GMs, playing in a way that produces a
> high incidence of draws is rewarded.
Only at Linares, perhaps. And only when *all*
the other contestants are of like ability. I wonder
how well this drawing strategy would work out if
GM Fischer were one of the players? Probably,
these draw-mongers would all complain that too
much of the prize fund was allocated to the first
prize, which for reasons they could not ascertain
was quite beyond their grasp!
In addition to Linares, I could cite the example of a
recent match between GM Kramnik and some challenger
who apparently adopted the strategy of sheer desperation,
which backfired heavily due to GM Kramnik's patient,
shifty style. Instead of many draws, the end result was
GM Kramnik's domination via winning nearly all the
drawish games, along with any he may have earned
otherwise. Thus, the apparent style of playing for the draw
was in effect, really a style of playing to win via conservative
moves which either provoked or else exploited his opponent's
severely flawed style.
> It also suggests that the mild anti-draw
> measures aren't very effective.
Rather, it would seem to suggest that either you
have misrepresented the facts, or that even such
*strong* measures as not inviting offenders back
are insufficient in themselves. In that case, the
enforcement of the rules might require even sterner
measures. Alternatively, the entrants could all agree
*in advance* that draws were hunky dory under any
circumstances, and let their own mediocrity be the
rule of the day. I favor the latter, since this avoids any
nasty favoritism in the application of rules enforcement.
> No doubt
> GMs are as capable as I am of seeing
> that scores with lots of draws bring
> home the big prizes, and factor
> that into their playing strategy.
It might be helpful if you were to give a relevant
example of this; for instance, show us how the
middle scorer at Linares gains financially from his
drawing addiction, and demonstrate how, had he
attempted to win, he would have likely lost instead,
leaving him "out of the money". As it is, your
mere assertions appear weak; without substance.
You are becoming notorious for this tendency.
> Or else, in help bot's fantasy world,
> GMs are blissfully ignorant of what prizes
> they are playing for and draw simply
> because of some innate (and unexplained)
> lawlessness forcing them to violate rules
> requiring them to contest their games.
In my fantasy world, all the GMs are afraid to
> If only they all shared his noble fighting
> spirit, or else he their chess skill, the
> chess world would be a wonderful place!
Not really. It would make for more interesting
David Kane
I guess it's a matter of opinion whether
this method is "mild" or not. Empirically
it was ineffective. You continue to cling the
(unsupported) theory that the high incidence
of draws stems from some character defect
of certain GMs. But as the numbers show,
draws pay. I think most would consider
these measures "mild" compared to
alternate scoring.
>
>> So what have the results been? Here is the
>> incidence of the winner's draw percentage since
>> 1981, when it became world class.
>> Winner's draw percentage #
>>
>> >=20 <30 2
>> >=30 <40 2
>> >=40 <50 1
>> >=50 <60 11
>> >=60 <70 1
>> >=70 <80 1
>> >=80 < 90 2
>
> Something about this newsgroup's format seems to have
> made that "chart" into something of an unclear mess. We
> need Adobe or RTF for this sort of thing. And labels for
> each column, to show what the numbers represent.
I stated very clearly what the numbers are.
They are the winner's draw percentage at Linares
and the number of times that it has occurred.
For example, the winner has had a draw percentage
of 50%-50.99999% 11 times. The winner has
had a winning percentage of 80.0-89.999%
2 times, etc.
>
>> Nobody has ever won Linares with more
>> than 2 losses, but some have won with as
>> many as 10 draws. These statistics make a
>> fairly strong case that the way to win
>> Linares is to draw half or more of your
>> games and win the rest. No easy
>> feat, of course!
>
> Round by round, a superior player may be able to
> predict with some accuracy what the next pairing
> demands, and if there are lots and lots of draws
> among the "leaders", then draws may be perfectly
> suited to the job of *not being overtaken* or left
> behind. Yet the surest way to victory in war is
> victory in many battles.
>
>> It convincingly establishes that, for top
>> GMs, playing in a way that produces a
>> high incidence of draws is rewarded.
>
> Only at Linares, perhaps.
Faced with actual evidence, you have no reply
but idle speculation. Do the words "closed mind"
mean anything to you? BTW, I already put this year's
Corus data out there, all of which support the same
point.
If 20 years of the world's best tournament (already famous
for using anti-draw measures) won't convince you,
what will?
You seem incapable of processing information beyond
your own subjective experience at weekend Swisses
in Kalamazoo or whatever equally irrelevant background
you are drawing from.
help bot
[Nothing of note.]
The imbecile David Kane seems to wish for the rule regarding
no-contest draws to simply "go away". In that, I wish him good
luck. My own position is that such things do not simply go
away of their own accord; they must be changed by real action,
requiring effort, not mere wishes or hopes.
Apparently, my repeated requests for substantive evidence in
support of DK's "theories" are too much in their demanding of
work on his part, and here I can sympathize, for I too am a bit
of an idler. In order to present substance it might require many
hours of data-gathering, and organization of same in a logical
manner -- which may well be quite beyond his powers.
By contrast, my "theory" (that the current rules forbid his
desired methods) can simply be looked up in any rulebook on
a whim. I expect this can even be done on the internet, via
Google.
There are many who condone the practice of cheating, and
DK is hardly alone in this. But for me, the whole point of
having an agreed-upon set of rules is to put every contestant
on an equal footing, so that their respective levels of chess
skill can be accurately measured. To me, any sort of cheating
defeats this purpose, and is therefore to be condemned.
The truth is, I have known many players (and in real life, non-
players) who believe and practice the "art" of cheating as if it
were a sport, not less worthy than the game or sport or
whatever they were engaging in. I strongly suspect DK is
among these, shall I say, low-lifes, who see -- and indeed,
are incapable of seeing -- the problems associated with such
a stance. In fact, one fellow I once knew cheated on a routine
basis, and this fact was an inconvenience to him in that every
game suffered from inflated expectations, based upon his
"enhanced" rating number, while not every game afforded him
an "equal opportunity" of successfully cheating once again.
There was, for instance, the fear that an enraged opponent
might beat him up, or that an over-zealous TD might forfeit
him the game, and kick him out of the tourney, sans entry
fee and expenses. And there was the not-so-small matter
of finding a ride home, which might well have been given by
his erstwhile victim! Such a miserable existence these
people lead, and how worthy of pity and disdain. Yet
nonetheless, they seem to regard the alternative -- playing
fair and square -- as somehow unacceptable. They march,
as it were, to the beat of a different drummer (whose sticks,
I expect, are every moment in peril of being purloined).
-- help bot
David Kane
One the one hand, he is desperate to defend
chess' draw culture. Therefore, he refuses to
look at the mountains of evidence as to why
draws exist. Addressing that issue, after all,
could ultimately lead to a reduction in their
number, and the drawing game which
he is desperate to preserve might change. On
the other hand, there are few fans of short
GM draws, so he attempts to shore
up his reputation by feigning a dislike of them.
Moreover, he has a great "solution" which
he claims will rid the game of them - outlaw
them, or enforce rules which he believes already
outlaw them. But then, if they are illegal, then
why do they exist? This is a questions which
needs to be answered but our raving Innes
clone is not up to the task.
Personally, I have zero interest in help bot's
interpretation of that or any rule. It obviously
has nothing to do with the *reason* for (excessive)
drawing rates. That is the topic I have been
considering and and which help bot is
demonstrably unable to contribute to.
Chess One
> On Feb 11, 11:19 am, "Taylor Kingston" <tkings...@chittenden.com>
> wrote:
>> On Feb 10, 7:40 am, "Chess One" <inn...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> > Historically I have much data on WDL stats - in W Ch games, the highest
>> > draw
>> > rates are archieved by Smyslov at 57.9% draws with black and 50.3%
>> > draws
>> > with white - who is exceeded by Petrosian with 61.5% draws with black
>> > and
>> > 49.0% draws with white.
>>
>> look at all accurate.
>
> Read what the man wrote again; where above did IM Innes make any
> claim to *accuracy* of his data?
Where did "1300-bot' Kennedy claim to be interested in *accuracy* ROFL.
But I did think I mentioned these statistics were Adorjan's and that I also
mentioned from which books.
Chess One
"Taylor Kingston" <tkin...@chittenden.com> wrote in message
news:1171292356.8...@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 12, 1:37 am, "help bot" <nomorech...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 11, 11:19 am, "Taylor Kingston" <tkings...@chittenden.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > On Feb 10, 7:40 am, "Chess One" <inn...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > Historically I have much data on WDL stats - in W Ch games, the
>> > > highest draw
>> > > rates are archieved by Smyslov at 57.9% draws with black and 50.3%
>> > > draws
>> > > with white - who is exceeded by Petrosian with 61.5% draws with black
>> > > and
>> > > 49.0% draws with white.
>>
>> > Phil, I don't know where you're getting your stats, but they do not
>> > look at all accurate.
>>
>> Read what the man wrote again; where above did IM Innes make any
>> contrary,
>> all he did was note that he had an abundance of it, and as we can see
>> from his post, this was no lie.
>>
>> > > Fischer: 36.9% draws black, 24.8% draws white
>>
>> > This one should have been easy even for you Phil, since Fischer
>> > played only one title match,
>>
>> Well, not everyone can be a math genius like TK.
>>
>> > scoring +7 -3 =11.
>> > I would recommend tossing out your ouija board or random number
>> > generator in favor of some accurate sources such as Winter's "World
>> > Chess Champions" or Gelo's "Chess World Championships 1834-2004."
>>
>> Uh-oh. Did someone mention that heinous name, which brings to mind
>> his vicious criticisms of GM Evans' sloppiness? And all this time I
>> had imagined that TK simply had chessbase MEGA-SUPERDUPERbase, and
>> was using it to pull up all these stats.
>
> Well, yes, I do have ChessBase MegaDatabase 2005, but I don't use
> databases for this sort of thing, as they are often inaccurate.
> Perhaps that's what Innes did, though knowing his usual methods, it
> would not surprise me if he just made figures up.
Nothing at all surprises Kingston! In fact he lacks curiosity.
But the main thing is that I bet Louis could track down references to these
figures, and also how they were qualified as a group of statistics by
Adorjan. Although doutful Louis will never track them down since his
objective reporting is always selective reporting.
And even if he did - would a couple of people who abuse first in order to
make way for their own egos, then tell their version -would such people pay
any attention at all?
PI
Taylor Kingston
> "help bot" <nomorech...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Yes, looking back I see you posted "stats on World Champions is
[sic] from Adorjan's
Black is still OK!/Batsford." If you have correctly presented what
Adorjan wrote, then I am amazed at how careless he was. Those
statistics are grossly inaccurate.
Chess One
A- O on the Kingston Scale
So (a) you and bot-fink were wrong, but instead of noticing that, you now
criticise me and Adorjan! and (b) you do not report the /qualification/
that Adorjan made about the /specific database/ he drew from, which I also
recorded at the same place you just looked!
But (c) as usual other people are wrong entirely because you, Lord Kingston,
say so, utilising your usual vehement insistence of being right in place of
presenting facts.
Though (d) it seems your more recent ventures with copyright issues at the
cafe and calling other people names are nothing the publisher wishes to
defend on Winter's behalf after an official challenge.
The last time you wanted to spend 20 threads on your unproved insistance you
(e) would not verify what Hooper said about Lasker in the encyclopedia you
had to hand. You also insisted he was wrong [then couldn't prove it either
way even after getting the tournament book] - and although (f) I simply said
I couldn't tell, you insisted you were right and I and Hooper were wrong,
and (g) and I had identified my source originally as Hooper, from Sunnucks.
Today you provide us the spectacle of (h) writing about Wade's politics and
nothing else, then after two other people challenged you, you (i)denied you
had. Even after this denial, nothing happened and you (j) continued to write
ONLY about Wade's politics.
Even after responding to a 'deaf-ears' mention by Russian Literats about
Western attitudes to oppression you (k) took no opportunity yourself to make
even the mildest inquiry when you had the opportunity with Averbakh - EVEN
after seeking advice and receiving it.
This is your recent record of (l) public writing standards here, which is
(m) all of a kind using the process of rubbishing others by misrepresenting
them and presenting no refutation your own at all, (n) coupled with the
[usual and proxy] misrepresentation of chesscafe in recent instances of
ripping-off the public copyright.
The (o) only consistent feature of all the above is that you are completely
oblivious to it all.
Phil Innes
Taylor Kingston
> So (a) you and bot-fink were wrong, but instead of noticing that, you now
> criticise me and Adorjan! and (b) you do not report the /qualification/
> that Adorjan made about the /specific database/ he drew from, which I also
> recorded at the same place you just looked!
Sorry, Phil, but I see no mention of any "qualification" by either
you or Adorjan in that post. You claim to be presenting accurate
statistics of win/lose/draw ratios in world championship matches. The
data is not at all accurate. I reproduce that portion of your post
from several weeks ago:
*** begin excerpt ***
Historically I have much data on WDL stats - in W Ch games, the
highest draw
rates are archieved by Smyslov at 57.9% draws with black and 50.3%
draws
with white - who is exceeded by Petrosian with 61.5% draws with black
and
49.0% draws with white.
The LOWEST draw rate appears to be Steinitz, with 21.7% draws with
black and
17.9% draws with white.
Of popular players:
Alekhine: 30.5% draws black, 24.3% draws white
Fischer: 36.9% draws black, 24.8% draws white
Kasparov, 47.3% draws black, 30.8% draws white
It is fair to say that increasing the reward for black wins to 1.5
points is
an untested system, that is, there are no measurements of it in
practice to
warrant an understanding if this factor would reduce the draw rate. It
is
simply the idea of many strong players that it would encourage black
more,
and this itself would reduce the draw rate, since black is attempting
to get
ahead the black bits, and white to stop that gain - this making for a
better
battle!
Phil Innes
//Corus data above is my own; stats on World Champions is from
Adorjan's
Black is still OK!/Batsford
*** end excerpt ***
There is no mention of any "qualification" (e.g. only games played
on Tuesday) in the above excerpt. And don't bother with your usual
"you cut it" excuse; it won't fly. You say simply "in W Ch games," not
"in certain W Ch games." If you explained this alleged qualification,
it was not in that post. You may explain it now, if you like.
Louis Blair
7 ... Louis ... his objective reporting is always selective
7 reporting. ...
_
"... I am not a 'reporter' ..." - Louis Blair
(17 Dec 2006 13:37:28 -0800)
help bot
wrote:
> > >> On Feb 10, 7:40 am, "Chess One" <inn...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > >> > Historically I have much data on WDL stats - in W Ch games, the highest
> > >> > draw
> > >> > rates are archieved by Smyslov at 57.9% draws with black and 50.3%
> > >> > draws
> > >> > with white - who is exceeded by Petrosian with 61.5% draws with black
> > >> > and
> > >> > 49.0% draws with white.
>
> > >> Phil, I don't know where you're getting your stats, but they do not
> > >> look at all accurate.
>
> > > Read what the man wrote again; where above did IM Innes make any
> > > claim to *accuracy* of his data?
>
> > Where did "1300-bot' Kennedy claim to be interested in *accuracy* ROFL.
The nitwit, IM Innes, failed to notice that my comment
related entirely to *logic*, not my interest in anything.
To restate it, I was pointing out the simple fact that
the nearly-an-IM had only claimed to have "much"
data, not *accurate* data. Thus, I was chiding TK
for a silly assumption [i.e. that Mr. Innes and accuracy
somehow would go hand-in-hand]. IMO, just the
opposite is true.
> > But I did think I mentioned these statistics were Adorjan's
Precisely *when* did you think so, and why ever did you
stop? Discuss.
> > and that I also mentioned from which books.
>
> Yes, looking back I see you posted "stats on World Champions is
> [sic] from Adorjan's
> Black is still OK!/Batsford." If you have correctly presented what
> Adorjan wrote, then I am amazed at how careless he was. Those
> statistics are grossly inaccurate.
Hmm. I seem to have overlooked that "sentence".
Or maybe I discarded it as untranslatable jibberish.
Now I can see that it means something, if you only
insert a period here, and replace a word there. I
suppose the imbecile known as IM Innes will find
some way of blaming me for his illiteracy, just the
same. I am assumed to be able to translate any
and all gobbledygook, simply because, at times, I
have somehow managed it in the past.
At any rate, as I can now see the meaning clearly,
IM Innes was right if you make allowances for his
grave difficulties with the English language; and if
you hold me accountable for translating everything
for him, I was obviously wrong on that score. And
if you believe Rob Mitchell, I was also wrong about
the famous IM's chess skill. But that still leaves
my other thirty-seven points to be addressed. ;>D
-- help bot
Louis Blair
(to Taylor Kingston):
7 ... The last time you wanted to spend 20 threads on your
7 unproved insistance you (e) would not verify what Hooper
7 said about Lasker in the encyclopedia you had to hand.
7 You also insisted he was wrong [then couldn't prove it
7 either way even after getting the tournament book] - and
7 although (f) I simply said I couldn't tell, you insisted you
7 were right and I and Hooper were wrong, and (g) and I
7 had identified my source originally as Hooper, from
7 Sunnucks. ...
_
Some quotes:
_
"... Lasker only placed 8th at Nottingham ..."
- Phil Innes (Fri, 10 Nov 2006 15:48:49 GMT)
_
_
"... Lasker never finished sole 8th in any tournament
ever. ..." - Taylor Kingston (11 Nov 2006
16:54:25 -0800)
_
_
"... Perhaps [Taylor Kingston] should complain to
St. Martin's Press so they can update their records,
Kingston even says he has their book!
_
If they continue to permit Sunnocks to say 8th in their
encyclopedia, perhaps he will ..." - Phil Innes (Wed,
15 Nov 2006 15:18:59 GMT)
_
_
"... [The encyclopedia] does say Lasker was
'8th at Nottingham 1936,' but that is inaccurate.
He was =7-8th, a minor yet definite difference.
The entry contains other errors as well. ...
...
... David Hooper wrote the entry on Lasker.
Uncharacteristic of him to make such an error.
..." - Taylor Kingston (15 Nov 2006 08:11:50 -0800)
_
After working on the Encyclopedia, David Hooper went
on to collaborate with Ken Whyld on the Oxford Companion
to Chess.
_
"... looking at their entry on Lasker, I see:
_
'... and at Nottingham 1936 [he scored]
(+6 =5 -3) to share seventh place.'
_
It's right there in the Lasker entry on page 218, ..."
- Taylor Kingston (24 Nov 2006 06:25:06 -0800)
Chess One
> On Feb 27, 10:18 am, "Chess One" <inn...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> So (a) you and bot-fink were wrong, but instead of noticing that, you now
>> criticise me and Adorjan! and (b) you do not report the /qualification/
>> that Adorjan made about the /specific database/ he drew from, which I
>> also
>> recorded at the same place you just looked!
>
> Sorry, Phil, but I see no mention of any "qualification" by either
> you or Adorjan in that post. You claim to be presenting accurate
> statistics of win/lose/draw ratios in world championship matches. The
> data is not at all accurate.
You will no doubt allow Batsford your opinion - except if you write about
'the data' they might ask if you refer to the qualified data in their book.
But since YOUR INSIST that I do not refer to Adorjan's book, since you
presumably don't have it or can't find it, and wish to talk about YOUR data
set, why don't you qualify what set that is?
As to what follows, if I did mention the source, what will you do? Since I
did absolutely do so.
ANY database is a limited set of inclusions. You seem unable to make your
own point stating what in in your set of data, and what ain't in it. That is
a useless thing to contest.
PI
Chess One
"Louis Blair" <lb...@blackburn.edu> wrote in message
news:1172602951.9...@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
reported Louis Blair. though previously he has sort of admitted that he uses
certain selection criteria for what he, er, does not report. i wonder if he
is able to quote himself?
but this post is itself a nonsense, since Louis has snipped what he was
challenged to find, which is the sort of non-reporting on events he prefers.
when they are to his choice, Louis will quote 50,000 of them, from whatever
context.
the only thing he will not not report on is his own criteria for what he
does not report ;)
PI
Chess One
> On Feb 27, 8:58 am, "Taylor Kingston" <tkings...@chittenden.com>
> wrote:
>
>> > >> On Feb 10, 7:40 am, "Chess One" <inn...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> > >> > Historically I have much data on WDL stats - in W Ch games, the
>> > >> > highest
>> > >> > draw
>> > >> > rates are archieved by Smyslov at 57.9% draws with black and 50.3%
>> > >> > draws
>> > >> > with white - who is exceeded by Petrosian with 61.5% draws with
>> > >> > black
>> > >> > and
>> > >> > 49.0% draws with white.
>>
>> > >> Phil, I don't know where you're getting your stats, but they do
>> > >> not
>> > >> look at all accurate.
>>
>> > > Read what the man wrote again; where above did IM Innes make any
>> > > claim to *accuracy* of his data?
>>
>> > Where did "1300-bot' Kennedy claim to be interested in *accuracy*
>> > ROFL.
>
> The nitwit, IM Innes, failed to notice that my comment
> related entirely to *logic*, not my interest in anything.
liar kennedy - how pathetic you now are
> To restate it, I was pointing out the simple fact that
> the nearly-an-IM had only claimed to have "much"
> data, not *accurate* data.
lies. you accused me of inventing the material. you also mock this IM rank
which you know to be a lie, but that's because you are such a patzer its the
only remaining way you can get attention - a Brennanism
here you and kingston are caught lying outright
what a waste of time you both are!
PI
Louis Blair
7 ... Louis has snipped what he was challenged to find, which
7 is the sort of non-reporting on events he prefers. ...
_
Why should I pay any attention to the research desires of
Phil Innes?
_
Phil Innes wrote (Tue, 27 Feb 2007 22:54:01 GMT):
7 ... the only thing he will not not report on is his own
7 criteria for what he does not report ;)
_
Nonsense. There are many things that I do not discuss, and
there is no one reason that would explain all the things that
I do not discuss.
Chess One
> Phil Innes wrote (Tue, 27 Feb 2007 22:54:01 GMT):
>
> 7 ... Louis has snipped what he was challenged to find, which
> 7 is the sort of non-reporting on events he prefers. ...
>
> _
> Why should I pay any attention to the research desires of
> Phil Innes?
O really, I thought I was writing about wasting your time on the truth?
> _
> Phil Innes wrote (Tue, 27 Feb 2007 22:54:01 GMT):
>
> 7 ... the only thing he will not not report on is his own
> 7 criteria for what he does not report ;)
>
> _
> Nonsense. There are many things that I do not discuss and
> no one reason that would explain all the things that I do not
> discuss.
There are no things you will discuss which require you to speak plain about
your own motive. These include circulating false-Sloan messages without
identifying them as such, no? Of all people for which this is not necessary!
Yet even here we see how honest is dear Louis, who does not even deny it,
but asks for proof.
Chess One
>
> So (a) you and bot-fink were wrong, but instead of noticing that, you now
> criticise me and Adorjan!
1 down, and Kingston has written at some length without acknowledging I am
quoting from Black is Okay forever, which of course he fails to find
reference to. He neither affirms nor denies.
B- O to go... :)
Of course, the infamous Kingston files (item p, for private) he also neither
affirms nor denies that his views whether authors have a right to reply
where they are critised. Instead he can't remember - and wants to see what
he wrote before admitting he wrote it - whereas I would have thought he
could deny it anyway! And if it is my claim that he sent it then that would
be a libel - so I think he doesn't want you the reader to know.
PI
help bot
> As to what follows, if I did mention the source, what will you do? Since I
> did absolutely do so.
If I am not mistaken, it was TK who just recently
quoted the garbled sentence in which IM Innes
listed his sources.
> ANY database is a limited set of inclusions. You seem unable to make your
> own point stating what in in your set of data, and what ain't in it. That is
> a useless thing to contest.
One point I saw was that -- no matter what source
was quoted from or alluded to -- the claims regarding
world championship match results were horribly
flawed, because the data was either misrepresented
by IM Innes, or else completely wrong (as in grossly
incomplete). This is a point worth considering, IMO.
In the case where IM Innes has faithfully reported the
data to which he alluded, there still remains the issue of
his choosing to reference a book of incomplete data, and
then going full-kilter at TK for having mentioned the fact
that it *was* incomplete, as if that were a crime. LOL
In the famous quote alluding to lies and statistics, I
believe any presentation of *partial* statistics would fall
under any number of these categories, but mainly under
the last of them.
-- help bot
help bot
> > "... I am not a 'reporter' ..." - Louis Blair
> > (17 Dec 2006 13:37:28 -0800)
>
> reported Louis Blair. though previously he has sort of admitted that he uses
> certain selection criteria for what he, er, does not report. i wonder if he
> is able to quote himself?
>
> but this post is itself a nonsense, since Louis has snipped what he was
> challenged to find, which is the sort of non-reporting on events he prefers.
>
> when they are to his choice, Louis will quote 50,000 of them, from whatever
> context.
>
> the only thing he will not not report on is his own criteria for what he
> does not report ;)
Let me set the record straight here, once and for all:
Louis Blair does not report... "that which LB sees fit to
exclude".
-- The National Chess Enquirer,
Clark Kent reporting
help bot
> >> > Where did "1300-bot' Kennedy claim to be interested in *accuracy*
> >> > ROFL.
>
> > The nitwit, IM Innes, failed to notice that my comment
> > related entirely to *logic*, not my interest in anything.
>
> liar kennedy - how pathetic you now are
Why not tell him?
> > To restate it, I was pointing out the simple fact that
> > the nearly-an-IM had only claimed to have "much"
> > data, not *accurate* data.
>
> lies. you accused me of inventing the material.
Nonsense. At one point I opined that you had not
given any source (based on what all I had read), but
that TK had in fact given one, again, based upon my
own reading.
Now things have changed, for TK just recently quoted
(from who knows where) an addendum to one of your
countless posts; a comment which, when properly
"translated" into comprehensible English, listed your
source. Accordingly, I have already confessed my error,
and moved on. Meanwhile, you seem to be stuck like
a stick in the mud.
> you also mock this IM rank which you know to be a lie,
Very good! I had little faith that you would *ever*
admit your past transgression, but I am now proved
wrong (again). I commend you, and may you stay
on the path of straight and narrowness, never again
backsliding.
> but that's because you are such a patzer its the
> only remaining way you can get attention - a Brennanism
Ridiculous! I fully intend on getting all the
attention I could ever hope for by racking up a
record of being undefeated forever at RedHotPawn.
My record at GetClub has never been superceeded,
not in quantity of games won nor in dogged
determination to suffer endless hours for no
particular rhyme or reason! It is a record I expect
never to be broken, or for that matter, for anyone
to even attempt breaking. Masochism is dead.
> here you and kingston are caught lying outright
Nonsense. I sleep on my back, while everyone
knows Mr. Kingston is too important to sleep at all!
Even as I write this, TK is hard at work, uncovering
the *real* story behind the speech given by FIDE
President Florencio Campomanes just before halting
the match between two future world champions. It
is only a matter of time, now. [Hint: GK bribed FC
to save his keister from a sure-fire beating. Only
*after* pocketing the money, did FC inform GK and his
team that AK was on the verge of collapse. The dog!]
-- help bot
Chess One
> On Feb 27, 5:50 pm, "Chess One" <inn...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> As to what follows, if I did mention the source, what will you do? Since
>> I
>> did absolutely do so.
>
>
> If I am not mistaken, it was TK who just recently
> quoted the garbled sentence in which IM Innes
> listed his sources.
This is becoming like a reader-comprehension exercise. The question above
asks what Kingston will do if I surface the source - which he first said
didn't exist. And what he did is call them bogus.
>
>> ANY database is a limited set of inclusions. You seem unable to make your
>> own point stating what in in your set of data, and what ain't in it. That
>> is
>> a useless thing to contest.
>
> One point I saw was that -- no matter what source
> was quoted from or alluded to -- the claims regarding
> world championship match results were horribly
> flawed, because the data was either misrepresented
> by IM Innes, or else completely wrong (as in grossly
> incomplete). This is a point worth considering, IMO.
Adorjan's chart points out the %age games reported - and notes some
anomalies in his databse. By referring to his works - In Black is still Okay
and Okay forever! I both avoid copyright infrinegement and also the labor of
producing charts in a text medium. If the caveats or qualifications of ANY
database are not noted, then this would indeed be material of lesser value.
In these instances there are strong reported differences for some specific
players.
> In the case where IM Innes has faithfully reported the
> data to which he alluded, there still remains the issue of
> his choosing to reference a book of incomplete data, and
> then going full-kilter at TK for having mentioned the fact
> that it *was* incomplete, as if that were a crime. LOL
Nonsense. Kingston call the stats and their qualifications 'bogus', whatever
that means. And if a database contains an uneven representation of
White/Black games per player, or all games per player - then it is
necessarily incomplete. The point is to qualify your data. Kingston's own db
can't seem to find the Marshall innovations Dulanto/Alexander. So it too is
incomplete.
> In the famous quote alluding to lies and statistics, I
> believe any presentation of *partial* statistics would fall
> under any number of these categories, but mainly under
> the last of them.
Thank you for your usual contribution to chess knowledge and support of its
investigation. Back to the knitting, it is interesting to visit some
historic tournaments like Hastings 1895, which Arpad Foldeak [1917-2004]
says in 'more relevant (many participants, or double round robins) produce
surprising results.' He notes specifically H '95 where each player had 21
games in an essay on chess statistics.
Name White Back
Chigorin 7/10 9/11
Lasker 6/10 7.5/11
Steinitz 6.5/11 6.5/10
Teichmann 4.5/10 7/10
Schlecter 5/11 6/10
Blackburne 5/11 5.5/10
Bird 3/5/10 5.5/11
Foldeak was a major chess historian whose works were translated to German
and English. His statistical and psychological appraisal of chess was first
published in Sakkelet, 1995/1-3]
The attentive reader will note the rather strange differentials from 1895
with very strong black performances compared to modern day tournaments.
---
In the case of the previous 'incomplete' material, the database used is
noted to contain highest share of black games [Bronstein 50.2%] and lowest
are Capa and Alekhine - below 35%. In fact the database records the precise
share of black and white games with respective results for each, and for
each player.
The TYPE of data is therefore different from the Hastings one which has all
players in competition with each other at the same time playing either 10 or
11 games each colour.
Adorjan is quite scrupulous about his results, and says of a data set [of W
Ch]: ...from Steinitz to Kasparov, 23,362 games, of which 1,148 were played
in matches - and then follows analysis of WDL with each colour. Furthermore
he compares these percentages [shown as pie chart] of W Ch /matches/ and
world champion's /games/. He then notes some very interesting factors, and
suggest some conclusions.
He makes overall conclusion on the state of first-tier play citing growth in
number of draws, the 2 times black won more games than white, the two times
when all wins were white [1910 and 1990 !!!]
If 1300-bot or Lord K have not understood any or all of the above, it will
need no encouragement from me for them to write rash conclusions based on
these perfunctory representations of a tolerably complex subject, and their
understanding of what is in effect an extended reference rather than all the
qualifications attending the data itself.
I suppose the alternate is to obtain these books themselves - they are both
pioneering works of a quality unusual in chess titles. Batsford publ.
Phil Innes
> -- help bot
>
>
>
Taylor Kingston
1) you presented figures you claimed were actual W/L/D statistics
from World Championship play, and
2) the statistics you presented were woefully wrong.
I don't need Adorjan's book to know this, because I have many books
with *accurate* records of world championship matches and tournaments.
Their figures are quite different from the figures you presented.
Therefore, it seems to me that we have three main possibilities:
1) Adorjan's stats are all wrong.
2) Adorjan's stats are correct, but Innes is a lousy reader and/or
typist, and did not report them correctly.
3) Innes reported Adorjan's numbers correctly, but they refer to
something *other* than world championship play, and so Innes
misrepresented their meaning.
I have ordered "Black is Still OK" from abebooks.com. It should be
here in a week or so, at which time I will report which of the three
(if any) is the case. Meanwhile I'm betting on #2 or #3. Other than
death and taxes, betting that Innes is wrong is the closest I know to
a sure thing.
On Feb 28, 8:38 am, "Chess One" <inn...@verizon.net> wrote:
> "help bot" <nomorech...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > -- help bot- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
help bot
> > This is becoming like a reader-comprehension exercise.
That should be "reading" comprehension exercise.
> > The question above
> > asks what Kingston will do if I surface the source
Plane it smooth? Or un-submerge it so it doesn't drown?
> > - which he first said didn't exist. And what he did is call them bogus.
I don't recall anyone stating that IM Innes' source did not
exist. What I do recall is TK disputing the validity of PI's
data, because it didn't pass the quality test. Quality, you
may remember, is that which was tossed out with the
bathwater when you first left the straight and narrow path.
> > >> ANY database is a limited set of inclusions. You seem unable to make your
> > >> own point stating what in in your set of data,
Nothing whatever is "in in" my set of data. I have
no such data, except for vague memories of these
past events. For example, I know that at San Remo
around 1930ish, one fellow left me and everybody else
in the dust -- quite rude, if I do say so myself. Hell bent
on revenge, I schemed to enter at Bled the following year,
only to once again have my head handed to me, on a
silver platter! Alas, it was at this point -- for the first
time in my life -- that I suddenly realized there was
true chess talent even beyond my own. I was utterly
flabbergasted. Then it hit me: he had probably just
been consistently lucky! This point of logic was
later confirmed when a fellow named Maxwell
Sheep -- or something like that -- defeated him
with that ridiculous Slavic cr*p of his.
> > >> and what ain't in it. That is a useless thing to contest.
>
> > > One point I saw was that -- no matter what source
> > > was quoted from or alluded to -- the claims regarding
> > > world championship match results were horribly
> > > flawed, because the data was either misrepresented
> > > by IM Innes, or else completely wrong (as in grossly
> > > incomplete). This is a point worth considering, IMO.
>
> > Adorjan's chart points out the %age games reported - and notes some
> > anomalies in his databse. By referring to his works - In Black is still Okay
> > and Okay forever! I both avoid copyright infrinegement
O', bother! Our man Ray Keene would have bailed you
out here; he has vast experience in circumventing the law,
and taking the credit for anything ever published under the
sun. You oughtn't to worry so much, old man.
> > and also the labor of
> > producing charts in a text medium. If the caveats or qualifications of ANY
> > database are not noted, then this would indeed be material of lesser value.
No doubt then this is all nothing but a small misunderstanding.
I expect readers like myself and Taylor Kingston (a paltry 2250
player, despite often bragging of 2300+ exploits) simply made
the dreaded mistake of reading the words literally, when you of
course meant nothing like what you had written at all, but were
misunderstood. It's no easy matter, always being mistook for
having written something you didn't mean, only on account of
a lack of decent education and clarity of thought. Ask any true
Rock'n'Roll star and he'll tell the same story; drugs and wine,
and women and song -- and more drugs -- do not afford one the
luxury of clearheadedness or writing exactly what one means.
Ordinary folks ought to make allowances for the more important
stars among them. We oughtn't to hold anyone accountable
to what they actually write; 'taint fair to them what are above
us all.
I tell you what, old man -- why from now on, me an' Taylor K.
and our kind will simply stop trying to make sense of yer
mutterings, and accept them for what they are: jist drug-
crazed ramblings that make no sense to ordinary folks like
us. They are so deep, so subtle, that no mere mortal may
ever hope to grasp but the faintest whiff of their glories, their
delectable aromas which float out o'er the ocean so vast and
so blue, heaven bound. We were fools; fools, I tell ya, ta even
dream of being able to snatch them from out o' the sky with
our bare hands, and examine them ta see if'n they wasn't
somfin good fer us mortals ta eat.
-- reflective bot
Chess One
> Phil, all of your doubletalk below does not change the fact that:
>
> 1) you presented figures you claimed were actual W/L/D statistics
> from World Championship play, and
> 2) the statistics you presented were woefully wrong.
>
> I don't need Adorjan's book to know this,
Yes you do Kingston, since otherwise how will you know what set of
statistics he is citing?
> because I have many books
> with *accurate* records of world championship matches and tournaments.
By *accurate* I suppose you mean something *special*.
> Their figures are quite different from the figures you presented.
> Therefore, it seems to me that we have three main possibilities:
>
> 1) Adorjan's stats are all wrong.
Are you entirely dense? What are your many book representing? The same data
set? You seem shy of previously mentioning if you have AA's book or know
what is referenced - I wrote it out in more detail earlier today. If you
want to knwo what he thought of my review of it, then I could post that too.
But this is no inquiry to Kinston's Kastle, just an observation of the usual
vague glib quibbles in which other people are always wrong - and which at
very great length its admitted Kingston has assumed far too much as usual,
but has no intention of changing his opinion.
> 2) Adorjan's stats are correct, but Innes is a lousy reader and/or
> typist, and did not report them correctly.
Of course, a de riguer trashing of another poster, no Lord K post would be
verifiable without one!
> 3) Innes reported Adorjan's numbers correctly, but they refer to
> something *other* than world championship play, and so Innes
> misrepresented their meaning.
A tentative admission about knowing nothing about what is criticises - this
is quite an advance!
> I have ordered "Black is Still OK" from abebooks.com.
Lovely! Do let us know your opinion when you know something.
PI
Taylor Kingston
> "Taylor Kingston" <tkings...@chittenden.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1172673110.7...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Phil, all of your doubletalk below does not change the fact that:
>
> > 1) you presented figures you claimed were actual W/L/D statistics
> > from World Championship play, and
> > 2) the statistics you presented were woefully wrong.
>
> > I don't need Adorjan's book to know this,
>
> Yes you do Kingston, since otherwise how will you know what set of
> statistics he is citing?
Because I know what you, Phil Innes, wrote. *_That_* is what I'm
talking about, your obtusity. Understand? What YOU, Phil Innes, wrote
here on 10 February 2007:
"Historically I have much data on WDL stats - in W Ch games, the
highest draw
rates are archieved by Smyslov at 57.9% draws with black and 50.3%
draws
with white - who is exceeded by Petrosian with 61.5% draws with black
and
49.0% draws with white."
That is an exact quote. You stated very clearly "in W Ch games ...".
You stated *no* further qualification. Understand, Phil? You said that
in world title competition these players had these percentages of
draws. That's very clear, in your own words.
Yet a look at actual WCh results shows that Smyslov's draw
percentage was 49.4% and Petrosian's 65.2%. What you presented for
Alekhine, Fischer, and Kasparov was even further off the mark, much
further. Therefore, Phil, what YOU PRESENTED WAS WRONG.
It's quite simple, Phil. You said "A is true," when in fact A is
false and B is true. Got it?
My only concern now is whether the errors actually stem from the
Adorjan book you claim to be citing, or are products of your own
bizarre mentality. We'll know when the Adorjan book arrives here.
help bot
wrote:
> That is an exact quote. You stated very clearly "in W Ch games ...".
> You stated *no* further qualification. Understand, Phil? You said that
> in world title competition these players had these percentages of
> draws. That's very clear, in your own words.
> Yet a look at actual WCh results shows that Smyslov's draw
> percentage was 49.4% and Petrosian's 65.2%. What you presented for
> Alekhine, Fischer, and Kasparov was even further off the mark, much
> further. Therefore, Phil, what YOU PRESENTED WAS WRONG.
> It's quite simple, Phil. You said "A is true," when in fact A is
> false and B is true. Got it?
> My only concern now is whether the errors actually stem from the
> Adorjan book you claim to be citing, or are products of your own
> bizarre mentality. We'll know when the Adorjan book arrives here.
As an aside, it should probably be mentioned that Black is *not*
OK. In fact, Black has serious issues: 1) a psychological one,
which encourages him to draw all too often; and 2) a scoring
problem, which causes him to score far fewer wins than his
brother, White, even though both are patzers and make a multitude
of careless blunders which ought to balance out closer to 50/50.
Personally, I think it is an ego thing; Black simply has low self-
esteem, and perhaps could use some help from Viagra or maybe
steroids or else giving up the Caro Kan and QGD.
-- doc bot
Rob
wrote:
You could always contact AA directly and ask him. He isn't shy about
communicating and I think it might prove a useful exercise.
Rob
Louis Blair
7 ... Louis has snipped what he was challenged to find, which
7 is the sort of non-reporting on events he prefers. ...
_
7 Why should I pay any attention to the research desires of
7 Phil Innes?
_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 28 Feb 2007 01:24:46 GMT):
7 O really, I thought I was writing about wasting your time
7 on the truth?
_
I am not necessarily going to get involved just because Phil
Innes thinks he is writing about the truth.
_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 28 Feb 2007 01:24:46 GMT):
7 There are no things you will discuss which require you to
7 speak plain about your own motive.
_
Here is an example from not too long ago:
_
"... If [Blair] has some interest in the SUBJECT
MATTER of the post he might indicate it clearly,
in a non-diffident sentence, ..." - Phil Innes (Sun,
17 Dec 2006 14:12:57 GMT)
_
"... My current interest, at the moment, is to
correct the misleading Phil Innes statements."
- Louis Blair (17 Dec 2006 14:58:58 -0800)
_
It seems to me that I wrote plainly enough.
_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 28 Feb 2007 01:24:46 GMT):
7 These include circulating false-Sloan messages without
7 identifying them as such, no?
_
I know of no incident where that happened.
_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 28 Feb 2007 01:24:46 GMT):
7 Of all people for which this is not necessary! Yet even here
7 we see how honest is dearLouis, who does not even deny it,
_
A previous exchange:
_
"... you knowingly circulated false-sloan
messages without identifying them as false
..." - Phil Innes (Sat, 19 Aug 2006
01:41:22 GMT)
_
"... I have not attempted a deception of the
sort that Phil Innes described. ..." - Louis
Blair (19 Aug 2006 17:28:57 -0700)
_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 28 Feb 2007 01:24:46 GMT):
7 but asks for proof.
_
Phil Innes gives no examples of me asking for proof.
He also gives no examples of himself providing
evidence or even specifics about his charge.
help bot
> You could always contact AA directly and ask him. He isn't shy about
> communicating and I think it might prove a useful exercise.
> Rob
A very sensible suggestion, Mr. Mitchell. In fact, relying
upon IM Innes to *accurately* transmit data is much like
relying upon the weatherman to accurately predict the
weather; or relying upon Sanny to relate the latest
advances in chess programming techniques; or relying
upon the rain to wash one's car regularly; or relying upon
Sam Sloan to give a synopsis of opening theory in
Damiano's Defense; or relying upon Gary Kasparov as
to whether or not his hand actually left a piece before he
shifted it elsewhere; or relying upon Larry Parr for an
objective account of the most recent gaffe by GM Evans.
It would seem that the most sensible thing to do is go
straight to the source (which, BTW, is what TK has
attempted by ordering yet another book). This is simply
because the accuracy of data is inversely proportionate
to the square of the distance from its original source.
[-- A. Einstein, Discourse on Chess Statistics, 1921]
-- help bot
Taylor Kingston
There is no need at this point to contact Adorjan personally. This
issue does not involve him at this time; it involves only Innes and a
book. If it turns out that the book is full of invalid data, then I
might contact Adorjan to suggest correcting in a future edition. But
at this point I tend to think that the errors belong to Innes -- no
point in contacting GM Adorjan about that.
Chess One
crap?
I see there are another half dozen posts on this subject yet unread - unless
there is other contribution to the topic, I'll leave you to your, whatever
it is. and Lord K until he gets the book and authoritatively states what i
wrote in the first place.
PI
"help bot" <nomor...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1172686095.5...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
Chess One
> On Feb 28, 3:01 pm, "Chess One" <inn...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> "Taylor Kingston" <tkings...@chittenden.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1172673110.7...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > Phil, all of your doubletalk below does not change the fact that:
>>
>> > 1) you presented figures you claimed were actual W/L/D statistics
>> > from World Championship play, and
>> > 2) the statistics you presented were woefully wrong.
>>
>> > I don't need Adorjan's book to know this,
>>
>> Yes you do Kingston, since otherwise how will you know what set of
>> statistics he is citing?
>
> Because I know what you, Phil Innes, wrote. *_That_* is what I'm
> talking about, your obtusity. Understand? What YOU, Phil Innes, wrote
> here on 10 February 2007:
That is not an answer. Neither does it admit that when I first posted the
data I identified its source and its qualifications.
> "Historically I have much data on WDL stats - in W Ch games, the
> highest draw
> rates are archieved by Smyslov at 57.9% draws with black and 50.3%
> draws
> with white - who is exceeded by Petrosian with 61.5% draws with black
> and
> 49.0% draws with white."
>
> That is an exact quote.
But that is not ALL I said - a cheap cheat!
? You stated very clearly "in W Ch games ...".
> You stated *no* further qualification. Understand, Phil?
I understand Kingston well enough. What is it you he doesn't understand even
now? Is this to do with what I wrote or what he can't be bothered to
represent I wrote? Is it actually to do with him?
Kingston is the nutcase who just wrote several serial lies, including
writing only about Wade's politics, and when 2 other people pointed this
out - strangers to me! - he immediately denied you did so = a palpable lie.
THEN, he continued to talk ONLY of Wade's politics but without quite
qualifying what he means by that - and ignoring inquiries.
R
O
F
L
!
!
!
Following that disaster, he messed up the Marshall line which he had to
admit was wrong. Even so he continued from his own database to not find the
stem game in 1939. [this is presumably a 'full' db]
And if this needed a kicker, he then asked who was Quigley = and Rob
Mitchell referred him to his own website. :)))
> You said that
I know what I said. I have no idea what Kingston choses to understand by it,
or what he choses to represent. It is interesting that he, even after
messing up everything he has written for an entireweek, still prefers the
IDIOTIC insistance that he STILL doesn't understand this issue.
Instead of commenting on the issue, his own admitted lack of understanding
of what I wrote reflecting Adorjan's stats is all he writes here, which, of
course, is all other people's fault.
Lord K has done this with everyone who has corrected him since I first saw
his public writing. 'Winterised' says it all.
> in world title competition these players had these percentages of
> draws. That's very clear, in your own words.
> Yet a look at actual WCh results shows that Smyslov's draw
> percentage was 49.4% and Petrosian's 65.2%. What you presented for
> Alekhine, Fischer, and Kasparov was even further off the mark, much
> further. Therefore, Phil, what YOU PRESENTED WAS WRONG.
> It's quite simple, Phil. You said "A is true," when in fact A is
> false and B is true. Got it?
> My only concern now is whether the errors actually stem from the
> Adorjan book you claim to be citing, or are products of your own
> bizarre mentality.
ROFL - Kinston who has never read the book has already decided in advance of
reading it what's true!!! What a reviewer! - and can't resist even more
abuse based on his own ignornace.
> We'll know when the Adorjan book arrives here.
LORD K's DILEMMA
When he does read the book what will he say? Perhaps everything I wrote in
the last post? Or will he say that I didn;t summarise it sufficiently to his
understanding?
Actually Kingston will know when Adorjan's book arrives. Quite often it
happens that people write their strident opinions AFTER they know stuff,
except chesscafe's book reviewer, the 1300+ expert on copyright and
bookbanning.
But there is no drama here, since if I am right there will not be a peep out
of Kingston, who would have to admit that he was totally nutz@ for an entire
week on every subject he tried! Instead he will do the usual and retreat for
a while citing pressures of work or something more important than abusing
other people. Then he will return like nothing happened as start all over
again.
Anyone can dispute anything without knowing nuthin'. *Nothing* depends on it
apart from looking like a complete dork as usual. Shoot! this is still items
a-c, and we got to 'p' to go!
Phil Innes
Chess One
"Rob" <robm...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1172699103.5...@8g2000cwh.googlegroups.com...
> You could always contact AA directly and ask him. He isn't shy about
> communicating and I think it might prove a useful exercise.
> Rob
Sure, I wrote him a hundred messages - he writes full answer. The joke will
be if I misrepresented him, and then I can reply with his message of what
exactly he thought of my review compared with other 'reviewers'. PI
Chess One
Ker-ist! What will he 'tend to think' if his understanding is wrong?
Understanding of what? Kinstons say he 'tends to think' but does he? What
about?
He is admitting he doesn't know what he is talking about, but still 'tends
to think' and this guy is a book reviewer! - and making selections of what I
wrote to substantiate your misunderstanding.
I have since qualified even to people like Kingston who admit they don;t
know nuthin' the qualifications to this database Adorjan uses - which he
STILL resolutely ignores in order to write shit about other posters like
'Einstein of the Cornfields' above.
What massive idiocy! Except, if you happen to be a chess author Kingston
will hate your guts forever for calling him on what he has never admittedly
read, but made decisions about! He selectively blames his ignorance on less
than a 100% facsimile of what it cited.
If Kingston ever gets to write to Adorjan, I can imagine a certain
fireworks, since Adorjan is no fan of such 'reviewers'.
:))))
PI
Louis Blair
7 ... [Taylor Kingston's 28 Feb 2007 12:35:31 -0800 note does not]
7 admit that when I first posted the data I identified its source and
7 its qualifications. ...
_
Is Phil Innes referring to the note reproduced below? If so, where
is the identification of qualifications?
_
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
Path: g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!
border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!
nntp.giganews.com!cyclone1.gnilink.net!spamkiller2.gnilink.net!
gnilink.net!trndny01.POSTED!02fb8435!not-for-mail
From: "Chess One" <inn...@verizon.net>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc
References: <F8SdnVTbeNx6lVTY...@comcast.com>
<14899-45...@storefull-3332.bay.webtv.net>
<1170834136.9...@a34g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
<372dne7sz7Aw6VfY...@comcast.com>
<1170911218.5...@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <W_-
dnRYL_6YTTlfYn...@comcast.com>
<1170926846.1...@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>
<FsCdnc36aJiV-1bY...@comcast.com>
<1171015281.4...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>
<8aydncI9dKmAu1DY...@comcast.com>
<1171085392.8...@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>
<dKmdnVdaseXA8lDY...@comcast.com>
Subject: Re: Draws in professional chess -- strange contradictory
attitude
Lines: 140
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Response
Message-ID: <J2jzh.67$5M1.60@trndny01>
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 12:40:09 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.222.101.127
X-Complaints-To: ab...@verizon.net
X-Trace: trndny01 1171111209 64.222.101.127 (Sat, 10 Feb 2007 07:40:09
EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 07:40:09 EST
"David Kane" <david...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:dKmdnVdaseXA8lDY...@comcast.com...
> A slightly more recent and relevant anecdote:
> The 3 top scorers at Corus (8.5/13) had a draw rate of 59%.
> The section as a whole had a draw rate of 61%. Doesn't
> seem like draw aversion was the winning ticket to me.
Here was my own analysis of Corus
White-wins Draws Black-wins analysis
Group A = W16 D46 B12 Ratio Decisive : Draw =
28:46
Group B = W30 D32 B14 Ratio Decisive : Draw =
44:32
The first tier players of Group A achieved a decisive to draw ratio
of
28:46, or about 2:3; whereas Group B achieved 44:32, or about 7:5. In
percentages this resolves to first tier players scoring 50% more draws
than
wins, and elsewhere the GM 'norm', being about 35% less draws than
decisive
games
A slightly more telling statistic between Group A and Group B at Corus
is
the win results with white, since black is almost the same in both
groups:
Group A = W16 D46 B12, and Group B = W30 D32 B14.
An analysis of draws must also include wins with white and wins with
black,
especially black. It is fascinating to note that in Group A the white/
black
differential is much less, but in Group B it is better than 2 :: 1.
Historically I have much data on WDL stats - in W Ch games, the
highest draw
rates are archieved by Smyslov at 57.9% draws with black and 50.3%
draws
with white - who is exceeded by Petrosian with 61.5% draws with black
and
49.0% draws with white.
The LOWEST draw rate appears to be Steinitz, with 21.7% draws with
black and
17.9% draws with white.
Of popular players:
Alekhine: 30.5% draws black, 24.3% draws white
Fischer: 36.9% draws black, 24.8% draws white
Kasparov, 47.3% draws black, 30.8% draws white
It is fair to say that increasing the reward for black wins to 1.5
points is
an untested system, that is, there are no measurements of it in
practice to
warrant an understanding if this factor would reduce the draw rate. It
is
simply the idea of many strong players that it would encourage black
more,
and this itself would reduce the draw rate, since black is attempting
to get
ahead the black bits, and white to stop that gain - this making for a
better
battle!
Phil Innes
//Corus data above is my own; stats on World Champions is from
Adorjan's
Black is still OK!/Batsford
>> The only situation I know of whereby lots and lots of draws seems
>> "optimal", is where in a match between just two players, one is
>> already
>> ahead by a large margin, and wishes to reduce the risk of failing.
>> Also,
>> in team play, where one game has already been decided, and it may be
>> optimal for the winning side's teammates to play cautiously, on
>> account
>> of the desperation of the opposing side, which *may* thus be
>> exploited.
>>
>> But as for a general rule, I believe it pays better to take some
>> risks in
>> shooting for the top prizes, since that is where the big money lies.
>> Of
>> course, this does not mean one should play recklessly.
>
> You are certainly entitled to your theories. However, my
> argument is based on their actual behavior.
>
>>
>>> By analogy, a straight flush is a winning poker hand,
>>> but it is (extremely) suboptimal to draw for one except very,
>>> very rarely.
>>
>> I don't see that as a good analogy. In chess, the analogy here would
>> be that one should not often play for a mate-in-one, because this plan
>> generally is doomed to failure.
>>
>>
>>> The math is not so extreme in chess,
>>> but the principle is the same - at the highest level playing for draws
>>> is often (not always) the smart thing to do given 1867-scoring.
>>
>> Perhaps you mean in top-level tournaments, where there is a hefty
>> appearance fee, and where maintaining one's top-ten status weighs
>> heavily on the issue of draws, because by not dropping below a certain
>> level, a player is assured of future invitations to prestigious (and
>> lucrative)
>> events. In this narrow sense, your assertion would make sense; and
>> yet
>> you never narrowed your assertion, nor have you given any substantive
>> evidence in support thereof.
>
> The only reason to narrow it would be if a high incidence
> of draws was found only to occur in those situations.
> It doesn't. Some of the most blatant example of "GM
> draws" do of course occur in special situations
> (last round of a tournament to clinch a prize), but draw rates
> are high *throughout* top-GM chess.
>
> All have the same underlying explanation. The fiction
> that there are "bad" uncontested draws and "good"
> contested ones is simplistic and unhelpful. Why?
> Because if two GMs are essentially happy with
> a drawn outcome and play very cautiously, the
> "contested" game is practically not much different
> than the "uncontested" one. I.e., we don't really
> know what a "contested" game looks until we
> change the scoring so that both players play
> to win.
>
>
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
help bot
> have you added any sense in this post to this issue? or is this the usual
> crap?
>
> I see there are another half dozen posts on this subject yet unread - unless
> there is other contribution to the topic, I'll leave you to your, whatever
> it is. and Lord K until he gets the book and authoritatively states what i
> wrote in the first place.
>
> PI
This is precisely why the nearly-an-IM is so often considered
"insane". Even when presented with the direct quote from one
of his own postings, and carefully directed to consider its many
factual errors, he is quite at a loss to see *any* reason for
complaint or comment. In sum, the nearly-insane-IM Innes
believes, deep down, that he is incapable of error; or at the
very least, that any such rare events ought never to be
mentioned, let alone discussed by others. He seems lost
in a dense fog of self-worship, of self-immersion. He is Zeus
and Narcissus rolled into one. Let no one dare to criticize,
or the bolts of lightning will rain down from above.
Saner men need only read the claim, and consider TK's
quick corrections, to get a firm grip on the issue. This reminds
me a bit of the incident regarding the Andean language, in
which IM Innes was outed by TK for pretending to lecture on
a subject which essentially existed only in his own mind.
-- help bot
Rob
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
I respectfully disagree. AA does indeed hold that statistically black
is no worse than white historically. Now of course you can make any
set of numbers say almost anything depending upon what sample group
you select.The greater issue being what the intent of AA's theory
holds.You may read his book with an editors eye looking for small
issues to dispute. I would think it would be a more fruitful exercise
to contact him and ask directly.
Rob
help bot
> > There is no need at this point to contact Adorjan personally. This
> > issue does not involve him at this time; it involves only Innes and a
> > book. If it turns out that the book is full of invalid data, then I
> > might contact Adorjan to suggest correcting in a future edition. But
> > at this point I tend to think that the errors belong to Innes -- no
> > point in contacting GM Adorjan about that.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I respectfully disagree. AA does indeed hold that statistically black
> is no worse than white historically. Now of course you can make any
> set of numbers say almost anything depending upon what sample group
> you select.The greater issue being what the intent of AA's theory
> holds.You may read his book with an editors eye looking for small
> issues to dispute. I would think it would be a more fruitful exercise
> to contact him and ask directly.
> Rob
IMO, Rob Mitchell -- in attempting to come to his friend's
aid in time of need -- has quite missed the point here.
Simply look back over the thread and you will quickly
find that this basic course of events unfolded, in this
order:
1) IM Innes posted some claims about world championship
statistics, without any qualification such as admitting his
stats. were partial, incomplete, or just plain wrong.
2) Taylor Kingston, after several hours of dedicated study,
promptly posted corrections, scolding IM Innes for his
erroneous stats.
3) IM Innes went into his usual denial mode, where he
has been hibernating ever since.
This entire sequence has been repeated itself so many
times one would expect even RM to have learned the
pattern by now. BTW, it's okay to be human, to admit
careless mistakes. What is not okay is the pretense
to immunity from mistakes!
One day, perhaps, both Rob Mitchell and even IM Innes
may come to accept responsibility for these careless
errors, these blunders. But it will undoubtedly not happen
in *our* lifetimes. (Thank goodness for reincarnation... .)
-- help bot
Chess One
> Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 01 Mar 2007 00:17:09 GMT):
>
> 7 ... [Taylor Kingston's 28 Feb 2007 12:35:31 -0800 note does not]
> 7 admit that when I first posted the data I identified its source and
> 7 its qualifications. ...
>
> _
> Is Phil Innes referring to the note reproduced below? If so, where
> is the identification of qualifications?
<....>
> //Corus data above is my own; stats on World Champions is from
> Adorjan's
> Black is still OK!/Batsford
(1) "Is" yes, (2) "Where" in the book.
I did write a very long review on this title, which I perhaps assumed people
would have as a book, and also assumed that they would understand all data
is qualified data, even if the qualification says 'all games'. As a
mathematician I feel sure that Louis will agree that data needs
qualification as to the nature of the set it comprises.
Since the identification of qualification in this case are more extensive
than the data itself, and also qualified by 2 essays on statistical analysis
specific to chess, then the prudent reader should not assume Adorjan's
reference is to 'all' games. Why should they?
But [lol] this is not to say that Lord K has any genuine interest in this
subject or even understand that between all and *nothing*, his usual
expression, there exists everything! But if he has some interest, after he
has read Adorjan's book, I wonder if he could then bend his mind to what it
says?
After all, he has fallen out with a long string of people about their
commentary compared with his own, rather than the material itself; a list
now comprising not exclusively, Laurie, Evans, Parr, Keene, Hooper, Me,
Adorjan, Schiller.
This is not to say he is wrong! But rather that he hasn't yet presented
anything which is right ;)
And while he correctly notes here and there that some commentator's views
are contentious, he matches these with his own superior contentions, rather
than substance - and also that some people are more fit to contend than
others, mostly by virtue that they are very strong players, and understand
not analysis as much, but the conditions of strong play.
Phil Innes
Taylor Kingston
Just one minor note, bot. It didn't take hours -- just 15-20
minutes, maybe, to gather all the relevant stats for Steinitz, Lasker,
Capablanca, Alekhine, Euwe, Botvinnik, Smyslov, Petrosian, Fischer et
al and compute their draw %s in world title play.
> 3) IM Innes went into his usual denial mode, where he
> has been hibernating ever since.
>
> This entire sequence has been repeated itself so many
> times one would expect even RM to have learned the
> pattern by now. BTW, it's okay to be human, to admit
> careless mistakes. What is not okay is the pretense
> to immunity from mistakes!
>
> One day, perhaps, both Rob Mitchell and even IM Innes
> may come to accept responsibility for these careless
> errors, these blunders. But it will undoubtedly not happen
> in *our* lifetimes. (Thank goodness for reincarnation... .)
>
> -- help bot- Hide quoted text -
Chess One
not them, but his own corn-poke understanding.
He demonstrates he is incapable of addressing a chess issue without
rubbishing someone else [obsessing on chess ratings, since this sort of rank
is oddly important to him as a man <shrug>], and content to smear and
distort what they write and who they are by deliberated lying and defaming
them.
He might consider getting a life of his own, and quit being a fish-wife in
the great plains <grin> and get out there and risk something himself -
which of course, takes balls...
This of course is a challenge to play chess or write about chess, not a
challenge to mouth off for the rest of his zzzzzzzz
Phil Innes
"help bot" <nomor...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1172722705.6...@8g2000cwh.googlegroups.com...