Re: Hastings


"David Kane" <davidekane@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Tdqdnbco87Hg9B_anZ2dnUVZ_sejnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

A real world illustration of why it is wrong to rate draws.

While I understand you general reservations on draws relating to Elo - I
would be a bit miffed if, in another example, I had struggled against a
much higher rated opponent, drew, but failed to achieve any rating
benefit from it.

You would be miffed only because of your expectations.

Not at all. If I should draw with a player 200 points above me, shall I not
enjoy the benefit of it -mathematically speaking- related to my rating?

I do not understand your objection to rating draws, which seem to be not
mathematical at all, [is this merely my poor understanding of your schema?]
and counter-intuitive to the entire idea of achieving a rating by actual
play against others.

Titles should be earned in contest - not given by higher rated players
who don't feel like playing.

It is most unfortunate for the young player to score his third norm this
way - the Hasting correspondent also thought it atrocious that
short-draws should be offered by paid-participants. I even wonder if the
Fide ratings commission will accept this result?!!

Short draws are the inevitable output of an incentive system that
rewards them!

Rewards what about them? Ratings, money, prestige, largesse, exhaustion,
lack of QA by the raters - you will note that Ken Sloan has not noticed my
own comment regarding Tanner, and the extent of that activity on the US
scene - this reservation is not mathematical! It is interested!

Anyway - this is to depart from mathematic basis for /ratings/.


Allowing people to manipulate their ratings by playing
pseudo-games has nothing to do with mathematics.

This instance is /not/ to do with ratings, since the stronger player
sacrificied to the lesser for position, and money.

Of course, this is not to fault the
individuals in the above example who are merely gaming a flawed
system. But the flaws need to be addressed.

I agree. Not the fault of the norm-seeker, certainly - the other guy is
as at fault as the organisers for permitting it. Its tough to solve.


Both players are equally at fault if you believe that players are
supposed to be oblivious to their tournament/reward incentives and
play to win every game.

Let us not talk about 'beliefs'? Whose bebiefs? Especially those supposed
upon other people. There is no incentinve to win every game; but there is
incentive to finish at the top, or near it, for the gong, and for the money.

But the real blame lies with people who
designed a tournament making this behavior optimal.

I agree there - and why they did so remains unclear. I am, btw, interviewing
the Brit Federation about themselves, and such questions will apppear - I
wonder what answers they will offer?

I see another GM has suggested that the situation could be remedied by
not allowing draw offers at all - but I am not so convinced of that. I
prefer my own idea <wink> of rewarding the draw with less than 50% of the
score for winning.

Again this is not to address the rating aspect of it. Andy Walker wrote
here about a week ago to mention an alternate to ELO, which was easier to
calculate [no calculator] though I am unsure if that system is superior
to address these scoring and rating factors mentioned in this post - I
think it is a third aspect of the issue.

The differences had nothing to do with this point. One of the problems is
that mathematicians cling to the foolish belief that ratings are some kind
of
impartial scientific measurement.

An objective if imperfect standard?

In reality, they are a number that
people very much want to control.

That is no parsable sentence.

Ratings influence people's behavior
and thus can distort the game. The norm seeker's behavior above is a
perfect example.

But the norm seeker did not offer the draw, and so is an imperfect example.
If the question is; do you want an easy quick draw which immediately gives
you a GM norm, against the toughest guy in the tournament? Who will answer,
'no'.

I think you are not recognising that there is complexity of factors at work
here, mathematical systems being only a part of it, a mere accounting
function. Also I cannot identify sufficiently whatever is your plaint. Is it
the mathematics of rating accounting - or are you ill disposed towards draws
and scoring 50% of a win for them, or some other aspect of the game?

Phil Innes


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Hastings
    ... "Simon Williams has qualified as England's ... rating exceeded 2500 and as he has secured three qualifying results in ... rated opponent, drew, but failed to achieve any rating benefit from it. ... allowing draw offers at all - but I am not so convinced of that. ...
    (rec.games.chess.misc)
  • Free Gift from the Chess Players Guild
    ... Rating, Opponent's Rating, Difference between the 2 ratings, Selected ... Highest rated opponent draw. ... Selected players current unoffical Rating ...
    (rec.games.chess.politics)
  • Re: Hastings
    ... much higher rated opponent, drew, but failed to achieve any rating benefit ... If I should draw with a player 200 points above me, ... counts draws for lower rated players, ...
    (rec.games.chess.misc)
  • Re: Hastings
    ... a much higher rated opponent, drew, but failed to achieve any rating ... If I should draw with a player 200 points above me, ... I /do/ agree with you that it seems indecent to achieve titles and awards ... abuses by some players should skew honestly obtained draws by all players. ...
    (rec.games.chess.misc)
  • Re: Vegas trip report (long)
    ... sure - he could just be an idiot that wanted to gamble it up. ... Flop is immaterial, 9 on turn. ... friend a straight and busting another player. ... the EP player had A9 and the guy to my left had a flush draw. ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)