02-11-2007, 4:18 AM
An interesting article regarding this can be found at: http://
On Feb 6, 3:20 pm, 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
02-11-2007, 10:12 AM
On 11 Feb 2007 04:02:09 -0800, "Matt Nemmers" <email@example.com>
>An interesting article regarding this can be found at: http://
One point the article doesn't touch on is the impact of GM draws on
02-12-2007, 12:05 AM
On Feb 11, 7:02 am, "Matt Nemmers" <qcch...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> 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
and in addition, he continually ignores the obvious refutations to his
My own opinion is that *if* we wish to elevate the so-called rights
the two players above all else, a change of rules is necessary -- not
further excuses for those who currently violate them. I have no
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,
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
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
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
very obvious that two players agreeing to split their point in the
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
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
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
at staws with which to build his ramshackle case.
-- help bot
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.