From Norazlin
Well, Rationality (Really?) has thrown a baseless accusation that I have edited my post which I DID NOT.. Where is his evidence? he should save the original screen and make comparison before accusing me like that.... This accusation actually confirms one thing which somebody (my chess friend) has told me earlier...:) Ironically, according to Jimmy - The Analyst, this is very logic and rational.
OK. Very well. I have no screenshot evidence (but just so you know, a screenshot is editable), so I'll give you the benefit of the 'doubt' and assume you never edited your post and never said that (Other people do know though; and so do you. But fine).
Well, I do not wish to further dragged into this debate..If you believe that pre arranged draw is not a cheat for whateva reasons you think fits then be it... but simply accusing someone edited the post to defend yourself is a very low effort... well what to expect from a blogger who has no balls to identify himself... :)
If you didn't wish to be further dragged into this 'debate', you would have never made a reply. You want this to happen. Whether you know it or not. Yeah sure, I'll give you that point. Still have the other 2 points that you ignored though. Nice to see you using metaphors with your emotions. Makes your post look more....firey.
,
If you didn't wish to be further dragged into this 'debate', you would have never made a reply. You want this to happen. Whether you know it or not. Yeah sure, I'll give you that point. Still have the other 2 points that you ignored though. Nice to see you using metaphors with your emotions. Makes your post look more....firey.
,
To end this debate on wheter Pre Arranged Draw is a cheat or not, here are my opinions...:-
1. When pre arranged match lead to directly / indirectly DENYING / AFFECTING other player chances from winning or securing certain post or prize then it is unethical...
OK, let's use your analogy from down there. If smoking is a pre-arranged draw, tournaments would be smoking areas (There are no laws against smoking, nor is there against prearranging a draw). The negative effect would be second-hand smoking. Don't want to be affected? Don't enter the smoking area.
2. Fatigue or money reason can't justify to fix a match... how about the other players that possibly affected by the decision? Is it right? If you think you are unfit to finish all rounds or have no money to compete.. dont compete at all....or just resign...
Fatigue leads to short draws. Not fixed ones. In fact, I stand corrected about short draws in Malaysia; there is absolutely nothing wrong with short draws at all. If both players are tired, then that's an even better reason to just draw and call it a day. No reason to get a headache over something that is, in the end, just a game right? So what you're saying is, if someone does not have the money to compete (you mean compete but risk a good placing in the name of so-called 'sportsmanship'), don't? i.e. poor people should not play in chess tournaments? Now that's a nice one. 'Just resigning' is even worse. First of all, it's stupid to resign if you have the option of drawing. Did you know that a decisive game instead of (let's assume it would have been a) draw would lead to a drop of 1 place for one of a player's close rivals for a placing? That would affect the result, which to me, doesn't matter, but would lead to people like you writing about a blog post on resigning a game without a fight.
I left you with an anology... Smoking is bad for you and other people's health ... many people smoke does not make smoking is good... eventhough you might say that you buy cigarette with your own money does not make smoking is good also...if you say you smoke because it makes you feel macho or handsome also does not change the fact that smoking is bad for health....:)
You just proved my point. I never said a pre-arranged draw is good. What I am saying is that it's definitely not bad. I said it's up to the players themselves. I do admit, you have seem to have another point; Players cannot justify the negative affects of a fixed game onto other players with the positive effects on themselves. Unfortunately, you are missing the point, yet again. It's not welfare. We don't care how our games affect the results of others, frankly speaking. The reasons I gave were simply the motives/reasons behind fixing a game. If I'm trying to justify anything, it's that players have their reasons to make such draws, to which they can rightfully do at their will. They're not criminals. I stress again that the negative effects onto other people are just collateral damage.
Here's my analogy. Do people go to war (analogous to a chess tournament) with the intention of killing innocent civilians (analogous to other players chasing for a prize)? The answer, is of course, in case you haven't figured out, no. The reasons to go to war is over other things. But then alright, going to war is bad; practically the entire world agrees. Why? Because of the collateral damage, i.e. the mass casualties of innocent civilians which cannot justify whatever reason a country has to go to war. So maybe now you're thinking,"So that makes me right!". Wrong. The difference between this scenario and a chess tournament is that in the war scenario, civilians don't have a choice. They're stuck living in the war. They were forced into it. Chess players, on the other hand, voluntarily enter their war zone.
Conclusion
You're contradicting yourself. You do not say "regardless of my opinion" and follow it up immediately with "i believe". And that personal experience of yours makes you a hypocrite. That was probably the only time in your life where you came close to such a good position, and you couldn't bear to risk it, could you? So you probably know what it's like for the people who go through such a scenario, especially those who go through it in almost every tournament they play.
Now, again, to me, it doesn't matter what happens to the other players. I need to stress 1 more time that blaming a slip in position onto the performance of other players. It's like the 2nd place on solkoff with, say 6.5/7 blaming his previous opponents for blundering a mate in 4 in the final round, when instead, he could have improved himself by beating the champion. Here's a valuable lesson in life: It's people who blame their losses on other people that lose out. Why? Because they have the illusion that it's not their fault, and unconsciously (or even worse, consciously) think that they do not need any improvement on themselves.
Having said that, let me present you with a scenario anyway. Take a tournament, here's the pairing of 6 players and ranking prior to the final round, i.e. round 9.
Ranking after round 8
1. Player A 8 points 42 BH
2. Player B 7 points 39 BH
3. Player C 7 points 37 BH
4. Player D 6.5 points 38 BH
5. Player E 6.5 points 36 BH
6. Player F 6 points 40 BH
Round 9 Pairing
1.A-F
2.B-E
3.C-D
Trust me, this type of pairing is possible.
Let's consider this scenario, and also that the solkoff tiebreak relative positioning does not change:
A-F 0.5-0.5
B-E 0.5-0.5 fixed
C-D 0-1
Final Ranking:
1. Player A 8.5 points 42 BH
2. Player B 7.5 points 38 BH
3. Player D 7.5 points 39 BH
4. Player C 7.0 points 37 BH
5. Player E 7.0 points 36 BH
6. Player F 6.5 points 40 BH
Here, D would be cursing B and E for drawing because if B lost, D would be second. BUT, notice that if E won, the placing would be
1. Player A 8.5 points 42 BH
2. Player D 7.5 points 39 BH
3. Player E 7.5 points 36 BH
4. Player B 7.0 points 38 BH
5. Player C 7.0 points 37 BH
6. Player F 6.5 points 40 BH
Player C has slipped a place! But thanks to their actual fixed draw instead, he's placed 4th. So this means that as a result of the B-E fixed draw, instead of, say, a loss for B, player D has been negatively affected whereas C has gotten some benefit from their arrangement.
The conclusion? It's all about the point of view.
Alright, fine. It doesn't stop there. Nobody said that if B-E didn't fix their game, it would necessarily end in a loss for B. The game could still end in a draw (which is most common, after all, who would fix a draw with someone they can beat?), or a win for B. A crucial thing to understand about a fixed game is that it's done by mutual agreement (as you have once experienced). There is no gun to the head/threat to the family.
But anyhow, I'd like to point of that the title of this post is, of course, just a joke. It's not going to end here. I don't believe it will. You might figure out that the points I make here are not really directed toward Norazlin, because from my experience in arguments, it's not really possible for one side to concede, and I do not believe in dedicating my time to carefully write out a post in response to one that is hastily written on impulse with little substance. However, I am still obliged to answer. Instead, my points are written so that you, my faithful readers, can better understand the topics of discussion before you decide to take a side when your opinion is asked by, say, your friends. If I was going to make a foolish try to change a man's stance on his opinion which he has reinforced with his own reasoning, however flawed it might be, I would talk to him in private.
So yes, my dear readers, this blog is really for your reading/viewing pleasure. Enjoy!
