Author: Uri Blass
Date: 21:52:23 03/29/02
Go up one level in this thread
On March 29, 2002 at 19:21:00, José Carlos wrote: >On March 29, 2002 at 12:41:09, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On March 29, 2002 at 12:13:41, Roy Eassa wrote: >> >>> >>>A theory on this topic: >>> >>>The GM should get a small fixed stipend just for playing, plus $0 for each loss, >>>$x for each draw as White (where x is very small and perhaps 0), $y for each >>>draw as Black (where y is still pretty small, but larger than x), and $z for >>>each win (where z is much greater than y). Finally, a BIG bonus for winning the >>>match overall seems to make sense. >>> >>>That would seem to be real incentive to play his (or her) best every game. >>> >>>(Feel free to substitute pounds, Euros, whatever!) >>> >>> >>>Another (better?) approach is to reward only the final score. Besides a small >>>fee for showing up and playing, a GM score of 25% or less is no money, 100% is >>>BIG money, and the payments are distributed logically between these two extremes >>>(but the payoff for doing well should increase faster than linearly, IMHO). >> >>If the target is to encourage the GM to do the best then I think that payoff >>that increase linearly is a good idea. >> >>If the payoff increase faster than linearly then the GM may take unnecessary >>risks. >> >>The GM may prefer a strategy that give her(him) 30% chances to win and 40% >>chances to lose in the game and not 10% chances to win and 10% chances to lose >>that is more logical. >> >>Uri > > I disagree, because the same that you (correctly) apply to winning, applies >also to losing. I'll explain: let's suppose that the money increases >superlinearly with points. Then, for: > >0, 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2 > >points the money is: > >0, 50, 150, 300, 500. > > Now, the GM has 1 point. With a loss he gets 150, 300 for draw and 500 for >win. He sees he can easily draw. Your point is that he'll take innecessary risk >to get the 500 but he can also think "if I win the game I get 200 more but if I >lose I get 150 less". So he'll probably pick the draw if he thinks going for the >win is too risky. You may be right in that case because people hate risks and it is not clear if for them 150$ and 500$ with 50% probability is better than safe 300$. I still think that their gain(not in money) should be proportional to their result in order to convince them to do their best. Uri
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.