Author: KarinsDad
Date: 15:11:20 05/06/99
Go up one level in this thread
On May 06, 1999 at 13:34:52, Michael Ginat wrote:
>On May 05, 1999 at 12:37:01, KarinsDad wrote:
>
[snip]
>>
>>When you resigned from the Colorado Closed, did you not improve the chances of
>>all of the other players. Hence, you partially fixed the results (you prevented
>>Michael from winning the tournament if nothing else).
>*** Oh please, that's not fixing!! You have to play a game for it to be a fix!
Is this so?
Renard lost to you and Imre. He then leaves the tournament. His choice. You and
Imre both do not get your win against him. He effectively steals the win you
already had. He modified the results of the tournament by withdrawing and
removed a +1 from both Imre and your columns. Two games were played, but the
results were changed. He made this decision not before the tournament and being
ill, but after he found out the results (2 loses for him). He could have tried
to play 2 more rounds and then all of his games would have counted. He improved
the chances of all other players who had draws or loses in the first two rounds,
so he did not fix the outcome of the tournament, but he modified it (and not by
playing).
Renard played 2 games and then changed the results of the tournament (he
decreased your and Imre's chances to win and increased the chances of other
players). Therefore, from your definition ("You have to play a game for it to be
a fix"), he fixed the tournament. He did not fix the actual outcome, but without
his withdrawal, Imre probably wouldn't have withdrawn and you probably wouldn't
have withdrawn. He effectively minimized his chances, Imre's chances, and your
chances of winning (his straight up, Imre's and yours due to psychological
factors).
So, my point below of it being a matter of degree seems valid, at least to some
extent.
>>
>>I guess it is a matter of degree. A fix implies a set result, but that result
>>does not have to be a win/loss, it could be a draw/draw.
>>
>>Something to think about.
>>
>>KarinsDad :)
>
>Hi Karinsdad,
>
>My point was that serious "fixing" occurred with Karpov and Botwinnik. For
>example Bronstein apparently could have won his match but was warned not to,
Bronstein probably lost his match when he told his girlfriend the night before
that he would probably be world champion the next day and her response was "So
what?". It psyched him out. The rest is probably an urban myth. If the fix was
really in, Bronstein would not have gotten that good of a score in the first
place and Botvinnik would have never lost his title later on to Smyslov and Tal.
>and
>Karpov used to play in tournaments with a certain GM who would lose to him and
>try to beat Karpov's main rivals.
This I do believe.
>GM draws are a different matter, I don't think it's the same thing and I don;t
>condone it either.
Agreed. It is a matter of degree. If it is an apparently drawn position after 50
moves, fine. And if your opponent give you a draw which allows you to win a
tournament, fine. However, GMs do it WAY too often for it to be "Gee, I just
couldn't find a way to improve my position.", especially after 15 moves. That's
bogus.
KarinsDad :)
> Maybe Miles agreed to a draw because both he and his opponent
>had no chance in the tournament and they wanted a rest day. I've seen Miles play
>and he usually is a real fighter.
>Anyway sorry for the off topic remarks.
>By the way I also always play to win :)
This page took 0.01 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.