@ lajosarpad (an answer to a post - about the 3 - 1 scoring system - on this page : http://en.chessbase.com/post/moscow-grand-prix-r01) :

- Proof vs. large statistical sample : In fact, when I said "proof", I used it in a broad sense ; my meaning wasn't to affirm that an absolute proof was necessary.

What is indeed necessary, in my opinion, to implement on a wide scale such a important change, is to give very significant objective elements to demonstrate the usefulness of such a change.

But to give as sole and only argument "LOOK AT THE GAMES" (koko48 in one of his last posts, on this page : http://en.chessbase.com/post/moscow-grand-prix-r03) is more than insufficient : it is a completely subjective argument, and you will always find some persons that will find these given games particularly interesting, and some other persons that will find that there is absolutely no difference with a "normal" tournament. And it is impossible to prove that one person or the other is right or wrong, so this is really indeed a "non-argument". What is needed is an OBJECTIVE argument... and I haven't seen any for the moment...

- "I am interested to know whether you have the same expectations." I don't disagree at all with you, but I don't reason in the same way. This is my approach : The "3 - 1 scoring system" proponents explain that this system is useful to lower the draw percentage, or to lower the frequency of short and / or uninteresting draws. So, for me, there is a preliminary question that must be asked to these persons : "Can you prove that such is really the case ?" And if the proponents of this system are unable to prove (in a broad sense of the word...) that this system does indeed give this result, there is no need to push further the reflection on this theme. This because it would really be completely absurd to make such an important change in chess competitions without having very serious and objective reasons to think that the desired (by the proponents of this scoring system) result will be obtained.

- As for the way to answer to trolls, aggressive persons, etc., personally, when I'm attacked by such persons, I always defend myself energetically (not only on the Internet, but also in "real life" - this is permanently the way I react in such occasions). Perhaps it is also linked with the fact that I am a lawyer, and that, in my opinion, "lawyer" goes generally rather well with "fighter"...

- About a completely different subject, several months ago, we had a long discussion about the World Championship system, and you never answered my last posts (on this page : http://en.chessbase.com/post/seirawan-a-radical-solution-for-the-world-championship/5#discuss). Perhaps you simply weren't interested in continuing this (already quite lenghty !) discussion, but, as my last posts were on the sixth page of comments, which didn't appear on the bottom of the article's page - so perhaps you never find my last comments -, I nonetheless point this out to you... To access the sixth page of comments, it is necessary to go to the fifth page, and, after this, to press "NEXT" on the bottom of the page.

Does Harikrishna plays e4? I think this is not true. Also your article on chessbase india where you say Harikrishna unimpressive is false...he has fought like a warrior to make difficult draws. Your express reports are a joke...As a regular reader i request you to maintain some quality and not quantity.

@Petrarlsen

"...I'm a lawyer, blah blah blah" You take this way too seriously. What is your rating, 1300?

@Petrarlsen

Sorry for not answering to those comments, I have not seen them. I will address them here soon. I have nothing against your style of responding energetically to trolls, my disagreement was that if you criticize their person in your answer, then they will point to that part of your argument and say that it is trolling. Since they are not right I disagree with giving them any perspective of a narrative. In the other discussion there are some people who question my ability to comprehend what I read and to think rationally. I could tell them my opinion about them, but will refrain from doing so, since responding to their insults with insults would allow them to say that I have no more arguments and therefore my arguments can be ignored. Since they were the ones who did not manage to keep the level of the discussion, they have all the reasons to be ashamed. I will still welcome any arguments from anyone, even from these persons and will leave the question of "who the troll is" to the audience.

You are right when you state that whenever someone comes with an assumption, the onus of proving it is on him. However, if the proponent is not able to prove his/her thought, nor to provide powerful arguments, then we cannot assume that he/she is wrong. The only thing we know in this situation is that he/she is being inefficient in providing a solid founding of his/her thought. Which means that the proponent might still be accidentally right even when he/she is providing bogus arguments, like "look at the games". Surely, "look at the games" is a fallacy, as it relies on the debate partner's subjective appreciation of an irrelevantly small sample.

As about the Bilbao and any other proposed scoring system: I agree that there must be a proof or some strong objective arguments being very close to it at least that the proposed system will be philosophically sound, easy to understand, just and that overall, the level of play and/or the sporting value will increase or at least, if one of them decreases, the decrease should not be significant and should be compensated by the increase of the other.

@drcloak

I find Petrarlsen's posts high-level even when I disagree with him. I think he has put a lot of effort to share his thoughts with us and this should be respected. I am always enjoying a discussion with him and more often than not we agree, however, when we disagree, we are always able to discuss it in a civilized and friendly manner, showing our arguments and acknowledging when the other is right in the manner gentlemen do it. I do not know his actual playing strength, but I would believe that it has nothing to do with the level of his arguments. Distracting the attention from Petrarlsen's points to his rating is a fallacy called "red herring", read more about it here: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html

@Petrarlsen

Continuation of the discussion at http://en.chessbase.com/post/seirawan-a-radical-solution-for-the-world-championship/5#discuss

You have pointed out that the Challenger will have to fight for a win, as the stake of becoming the World Champion dwarfs the importance of the Élő points possibly lost if he actually loses, so this will increase the fighting spirit of at least a player compared to being in his/her comfort zone. I agree with this, however, my opinion was that the amount by which the chance of a decided game will not be so much that the chance of a draw will be reduced significantly. My point was that in general there are many draws in World Championship matches and even the increased chance of a decisive result will not increase by so much - I think - that the players are so good, in form and well prepared that a calculated risk by a challenger will be met with a simplifying incentive by the World Champion. We are on the same opinion that a draw will be less likely under the discussed circumstances, the difference in our opinion is about its amount. In the first game Topalov would have evaluated how the opening went and if he would have not found it promising-enough, a perfectly valid match strategy would have been to take a short draw and use a lot of time to prepare for the next game. On the other hand your scenario is plausible as well. Depends on the match strategy chosen by the player.

"For a system to be acceptable, there musn't be the very slightest possibility that it could favor the Challenger."
Agreed, the only case when the Challenger should have a favor is when he is better than the World Champion, proven on the board.

"It cannot be proven with a complete certainty that it is impossible that my proposed percentages (White Wins = 45 % ; Black Wins = 35 % ; Draws = 20 %) could turn out to be right. "
True, at least I cannot prove it.

If White is proven to have an advantage over Black, then your proposal that the discussed system should not give White to the challenger, then you are right. Otherwise this is unkown and we cannot rely on it. If we do not know about a given situation that it favors the Challenger, then we did not violate point 1. However, point 2 states that we cannot disprove the given percentages. However, if we cannot disprove it, it does not make it unquestioningly true. We only know that it is possible. However, if the perfect game happens to be a Black win with zugzwang or a draw where White has to play very precisely to achieve it, then giving Black to the challenger will not favor him. So, there are a lot of things unkown and when we try to protect the system from giving an advantage to the Challenger, we might give him that advantage, unkowingly, by accident. So I think we need to avoid to give any provable advantage to the Challenger, while I do not think we should protect the system from speculative, yet possibly sound advantages, therefore my opinion is that the colors can be randomized until someone proves otherwise.

"Taking together these two last elements, in fact, I think that we can simply affirm that if one of the two colors has an advantage, this color can't be given to the Challenger, and thus, must be given to the Champion. "
Agreed. In essence we were in agreement about this, the difference in the opinion is that we evaluate differently the starting position of the game. However, if we accept that a a given color has a better chance of performing well, then it should be given to the Champion in the first game.

People, if you need 'objective/mathematical' proof of the effectiveness of the 3-1-0 scoring system (but you're too lazy or disinclined to look at the games) - the mathematical proof is - literally - elementary. A first or second grade mathematics education should make it clear why the risk-reward equation is drastically altered in a 3-1-0 scoring system, as opposed to a 1 - 1/2 - 0 system.

Players do not collude for draws when leading a tournament in a 3-1-0 scoring system, because draws can conceivably knock them lower in the standings.

Even the leaders of the tournament play for wins in the last round under a 3-1-0 system, because a draw does not secure their place at the top. Bilbao scoring effectively ended GM draws when it was implemented.

Ding Liren and Mamedyarov would not have agreed to a (typical) prearranged draw this round, under Bilbao scoring. If they had, they would have lost their top place in the tournament. I guarantee you Paco Vallejo would not have offered a draw to Giri in Round 3 up a pawn, if Bilbao scoring was in effect

This tournament so far has had a lot of decisive results and even the draws can be fun games (e.g. Svidler-Radjabov game in this round); all this nonsense about draws and stuff is political and can be shown to be political when you compare draw rate with other recent tournaments (Tata Steel for instance).

@raymond - Quite right, but the organizers changed it, whether a fix of a wrong announcement on the site, or an actual change of the planned date. Go figure.

@Exabachay Non-games should never occur. They don't occur in any other sport except chess. If it happened in any other sport (two players/teams colluding for a draw to secure their place in a tournament) it would be a cheating scandal.

We get some infrequent rounds of relative fighting chess in elite tournaments and we say how fun it is. We call it a good tournament. This is how far our standards have fallen.

Meanwhile in this tournament we have had players offering draws in better positions, others playing 15 move draws, others playing out memorized, forced draws. And somehow we all think this is okay.

As a note, there is an interesting (in my opinion...) new post by lajosarpad on the "3 - 1 scoring system" on this page : http://en.chessbase.com/post/moscow-grand-prix-r03.

@ koko48 :

- On the "LOOK AT THE GAMES" argument :

On this subject, lajosarpad said in the post cited above : "I have been following high level chess for many years now and while I cannot claim that I have looked at all the high-level games played, I have seen a lot of games played in tournaments using the Bilbao scoring system. Even though this is completely irrelevant in our discussion, I am giving you this information to avoid any confusions about the fact that I have already looked at the games."

It is exactly the same for me : I don't want to be dragged in considerations on the interest of those games, because it is completely subjective, and that no-one can prove or disprove the interest of these games, but, nonetheless, I have followed ALL the tournaments that you regularly cite (and I've already said it previously), and my personal opinion is that the games of these tournaments are NOT more interesting that the games of comparable "normal" tournaments.

Lajosarpad shares my opinion, so I am not alone to think this.

But you can very well answer us that we are stupid and that these games are extraordinarily interesting, and, in turn, we can answer you that you are stupid and that these games have simply the same level of interest as "normal" games (...this would unquestionably be quite a high-level discussion...), and, in the end, the truth is that neither you nor we can prove anything about the interest of these games because this is a completely subjective argument.

So the only arguments that can be useful are OBJECTIVE arguments that can be REALLY discussed.

- On the arguments given in your post beginning with "People, if you need 'objective/mathematical' proof of the effectiveness of the 3-1-0 scoring system (...)" :

These arguments are indeed objective arguments (but, as an aside, are not new arguments - there are well-known since this scoring system began to be used).

About these arguments, the problem is that they represent THEORY while what we need is PRACTICE. As we all know, it could be possible to fill dozen of books with quite interesting and convincing systems and ideas in every field that has proved themselves to be completely ineffective in PRACTICE...

The one and only ultimate test is PRACTICE. And as several tournaments have been played using this system, now, this is the time of proving that the THEORY, confronted with PRACTICE, really gives the expected results.

Theory could be quite useful at the beginning to argue that it could be interesting to try this new system, but now, with all the tournaments that has been played with this system, it is completely insufficient to use only theoretical arguments.

@ drcloak :

"What is your rating, 1300?"

As lajosarpad said : "Distracting the attention from Petrarlsen's points to his rating is a fallacy called "red herring"".

I don't see how my rating could make true what would be false otherwise, or make false what would be true otherwise !

Globally, I don't see at all the link between the contents of my arguments and my rating ; either what I said is pure nonsense (but is isn't really quite sufficient to say so !...), either it is true, but in one or the other case, my rating has nothing to do with it !...

To say it more simply : I haven't seen a redder herring for quite a while...

And, yes, I am a lawyer, but you are a very eminent and celebrated doctor, "Dr. Cloak", isn't it ???!!!

@Petrarlsen You misrepresented yourself in our first conversation on this subject, when you claimed that you looked at ALL the games played under the Bilbao system. It was clear you did not, and you probably did not look at any of them....because you claimed that the reason for more decisive games under 3-1-0 was the presence of weaker GMs in the field.

I then pointed out to you that this assertion was incorrect. These were mostly elite eight or nine player round robins. I pointed out that even the Super GMs played for wins against each other under Bilbao, even in the last round.

You asked for proof. I gave you the names of several tournaments that used Bilbao. You then proceeded to post another overly wordy, disjointed argument almost immediately....proving you didn't even look at the games.

I have given you THEORY why Bilbao eliminates GM draws (elementary mathematical theory) and I have given you PRACTICE (the games themselves). Several of you claim to have seen the games played under Bilbao but I'm convinced none of you have looked at any of them recently. Nor have you compared those games to games played in typical elite tournaments like this one, using traditional scoring.

So do us all a favor, before you respond with another long, meandering post....Look at the games played under Bilbao. If you can find ONE non-game under a 3-1-0 format please post it. It's possible I might have missed it, because I recall none.

@ koko48 : "(...) before you respond with another long, meandering post (...)"

No, I will be quite short : in your very last post, you give no new arguments : I have already answered exhaustively to all of them, either on the present page, or on this page : http://en.chessbase.com/newsroom/post/gibraltar-rd05-peace-and-war?page=0.

So there is no need to add anything.

I will simply point out one thing ; you say :

"(...) It was clear you did not (note : did not look at all the games of the "3 - 1 tournaments"), and you probably did not look at any of them... because you claimed that the reason for more decisive games under 3-1-0 was the presence of weaker GMs in the field.

I then pointed out to you that this assertion was incorrect. These were mostly elite eight or nine player round robins. I pointed out that even the Super GMs played for wins against each other under Bilbao, even in the last round."

This is quite simply completely false. In several of these tournaments, there were several MUCH weaker grandmasters.

But I will not demonstrate this point more in details here, because I already answered you exhaustively on this subject here : http://en.chessbase.com/newsroom/post/gibraltar-rd05-peace-and-war?page=0.

@ lajosarpad :

- When I am attacked personally, I directly answer to this given attack, and I don't shun personal arguments (if and only if they have an objective grounding). And I don't agree when you say in effect that to use personal arguments is always : "responding to (...) insults with insults" ; if a personal argument has an objective foundation, it isn't an insult : for example, to say that someone who corresponds to the definition of a troll is a troll isn't an insult, but saying to someone that he is an idiot is an insult (because it has no objective foundation - it can't be demonstrated).

But this is also, in my opinion, perfectly compatible with what you said : "I will still welcome any arguments from anyone, even from these persons (...)" : If I use personal arguments with a commentator, I continue nonetheless to exchange normally with this commentator afterwards.

- "However, if the proponent is not able to prove his/her thought, nor to provide powerful arguments, then we cannot assume that he/she is wrong." I completely agree. And someone else can very well come and give a new (and quite convincing) argument on the same subject.

@ lajosarpad :

About the World Championship format :

Globally, I quite agree with your last post on this subject.

One last point on which I don't really agree for the moment : "(...) my opinion is that the colors can be randomized until someone proves otherwise."

If the colors are randomized, and if one of the colors gives an advantage, the result is that it isn't completely impossible that one player would be given an advantage by this system. And as this player can be the Challenger, I don't find this idea satisfying.

This is why (as I explained on the original page about this theme : http://en.chessbase.com/post/seirawan-a-radical-solution-for-the-world-championship/5#discuss) I would consider more satisfying to give the choice of the color in this case to the Champion (it gives a small advantage to the Champion - the advantage of choice ; and in this hypothesis, it is up to him to chose the "right" color ; if he choses the "wrong" one, it is his fault and not anyone else's fault). What do you think of this ?

@ koko48 :

"(...) Look at the games played under Bilbao. If you can find ONE non-game under a 3-1-0 format please post it. It's possible I might have missed it, because I recall none." Subjectivity, subjectivity, subjectivity, and again subjectivity...

I would use quite an amount of time studying these games, post you one, two, or three supposed "non-games" ; you would answer that I am really as stupid as it is possible to be stupid because these games are completely fascinating ; I would answer in turn that, no, these games have really no interest... What would we gain by this ??? This direction is a complete impasse !!

@ lajosarpad :

"I am always enjoying a discussion with him (...)" Me too !!!

@Petrarlsen So instead of posting one long meandering post, you give us five posts.

Please, keep it short and to the point. Less is more, and nobody reads all of that anyway.

"I would use quite an amount of time studying these games, post you one, two, or three supposed "non-games" ; you would answer that I am really as stupid as it is possible to be stupid because these games are completely fascinating ; I would answer in turn that, no, these games have really no interest... What would we gain by this ??? This direction is a complete impasse !!"

No, a non-game is a non-game. A GM draw is a GM draw. There is really no debate about it, everyone knows one when they see one.
Ding Liren-Mamedyarov was a non-game, and everyone recognizes it as such.

If you find one under Bilbao scoring and post it, I will admit what it is. I'm not going to sacrifice intellectual integrity for the sake of trying to win an argument. To me this argument is not about winning or losing anyway, but seeking the truth

@ koko48 : "Please, keep it short and to the point. Less is more, and nobody reads all of that anyway. " Says koko48, who has already given us three or four time the exact same arguments with only slight differences in wording... Yes, quite convincing...

"I'm not going to sacrifice intellectual integrity for the sake of trying to win an argument." Sorry, but it is quite obvious that you had no real argument from the beginning, and, if I follow your reasoning, your "intellectual integrity" must be gone from a long time, seeing how you obstinately refuse to admit the fact that your arguments are totally insufficient... (I remind you also the quite incredible series of insults that you have thrown at me under a previous article - http://en.chessbase.com/newsroom/post/gibraltar-rd05-peace-and-war?page=0 : "wordy drivel", "spam and mindless fluff", "exposed as a liar and a fraud", "you're intellectually outgunned", "Debating you is like a heavyweight fighting a flyweight, or a GM playing a 'C' player", "if you argue with me again just for the sake of argument (...), I'll take you apart at the joints" : a person who use such "arguments" will have some difficulties to convince anyone that he is only "seeking the truth", as you said in your last post...)

I will not say anything more about the "LOOK AT THE GAMES" argument ; between lajosarpad and me, I think that all has already been said on this subject.

It is not at all impossible that another commentator will find a convincing argument on this subject, but, to me, it seems obvious that you aren't able - for the moment, at least - to succeed on that matter.

@Petrarlsen That last argument occurred because you kept contradicting me on several pages and several topics, picking arguments without a shred of substance to your statements. And you're a lawyer?

On top of it you clearly lied about saying you looked at "ALL the games" using 3-1-0 scoring. You did not, and you still haven't looked at them

You don't need to 'study' them. It doesn't take much time. Search the Bilbao system tournaments I cited (try chessgames.com), look for the shorter games, and play through them quickly. If you are even an average or below average chess player, you'll know which of the games are real games, and which are non-games

If you're not willing to do that, then don't argue further. Just don't claim I have not given THEORY or PRACTICE, because I have provided both. You're just closing your eyes and being a blind contrarian.

@ koko48 :

This time, I think I can really safely affirm that you didn't put a single shred of a new argument in your last post.

So, I can also safely let everyone simply read all our previous posts, here, and under the Gibraltar tournament article (http://en.chessbase.com/newsroom/post/gibraltar-rd05-peace-and-war?page=0).

@ koko48 : I will not defend myself from your accusations of having lied, because you already accused me of this before, and I already defended myself at the time. And the posts are still there for everyone to see...

So, really, there is nothing more to add...

@koko48

Not sure why you waste time/energy on him. He just enjoys creating conflict for personal amusement, then pretends to get upset when "insulted".

@ drcloak : "(...) then pretends to get upset when "insulted"." But, my friend, I am not at all upset with your posts !

On the contrary, sincerely, now, I find them to be rather a recreation, in fact... It doesn't seem possible to take really seriously all the bizarre posts that you put here and there under ChessBase articles...

Why do I have the feeling that Petrarlsen and lajosarpad are the same person?

@fons

Because the force is strong with you.

@ fons : Go and read the discussions between lajosarpad and me there : http://en.chessbase.com/post/seirawan-a-radical-solution-for-the-world-championship/1#discuss (and in the following pages).

Do you really think that someone would exchange (long) posts for days and days with himself, simply to make believe that he "is" two different persons ?

And you will see for yourself that we agree on many things, but disagree on several things too (for example, I consider - even after long exchanges with lajosarpad on this question - that White - at least for now - has an advantage in Chess, while lajosarpad consider that this isn't proved).

So, all in all, I find this assumption of yours very strange !

@ fons : Regarding the exchanges between lajosarpad and me that I pointed to you in my last post, I particularly recommand to you the fifth (http://en.chessbase.com/post/seirawan-a-radical-solution-for-the-world-championship/4#discuss) and sixth (http://en.chessbase.com/post/seirawan-a-radical-solution-for-the-world-championship/5#discuss) pages of comments under this article.

Could you seriously think possible that lajosarpad's posts and mine could be written by the same person ????

Some new posts on the "3 - 1 scoring system" on this page : http://en.chessbase.com/post/moscow-grand-prix-r03.

@Petrarlsen

"I haven't seen a redder herring for quite a while... "
I am still laughing at this, thank you.

I considered randomizing as a valid option because we do not know who is better at the starting position, but letting the Champion choose is an improvement, so I am no longer advocating the option of randomizing unless this choice proves to be a non-option. However, if we are to introduce this choice into the system, then we need the Champion to make his choice well before the match to allow the Challenger to do his preparation.

I consider telling someone "you are trolling" to be correct when the statement is factually sound, but "you are a troll" an insult, since in that case we assume that someone is in general a troll, when his current trolling might be the exception from his general behavior. For instance, at article http://en.chessbase.com/post/moscow-grand-prix-r01-2 Fons denied that he stated he wants to change the current system and I have shown him that this is untrue. I could tell him he is lying, but since I do not factually know that, I am assuming, in order to be elegant the best imaginable possibility, namely that he forgot about the statement. If I knew he is lying - and I do not know whether that's the case - then I would tell him he is doing so without hesitation, but would refrain from calling him a liar, not knowing how often he lies otherwise. However, I do not know wheter his self-contradiction is a lie in the first place.

@Drcloak

Premature assumption. Several people here are trying to have a high-level debate, searching for the truth, yet the level of the debate is repeatedly reduced by the insults done by people who seemingly did not accept that their opinion was not accepted as a fact. To see better debates, take a look with my past debates with Petrarlsen, where we disagreed on several points, yet we did not have any conflicts. Possibly it is a coincidence, but you, nor others doing the insults here were part of that debate.

@koko48

I accept the proof that the Bilbao system motivates the players to try to achieve a win, yet it does not come without a risk. The real question is: is the increased motivation significantly increasing the chance compared to the classical point system that a player will take more risks? And this is the question you and the people agreeing with you should answer with preferably a proof, but if there is no proof, then strong arguments. It is good that you have your opinion, but I will not accept it as a fact until you convince me. "Look at the games" is not convincing. Insults are not convincing. I also wonder why do you doubt that we followed the said tournaments, even though we assured you we did? I surely did and I see no reason not to believe Petrarlsen that he did it as well. What could be the reason of the lie you are implying we say? Are we part of a cult which has the religious belief that the classical system is to be used? I observed cultic behavior from your part and the other insulters. I have never pressurized you to agree with me, yet you do. Or, is the supposed reason that we are some paid agents of a high-class conspiracy to prevent you from seeing fighting chess? Please, let me know how did you came to believe that Petrarlsen and me did not follow the games, I am interested to know it. Thank you in advance.

@Fons

Possibly because Petrarlsen and I agree on some points you disagree with. However, it is quite possible that in some cases some people you disagree with will agree with each-other. No need for accusations, I would rather read your arguments.

@ lajosarpad :

- "However, if we are to introduce this choice into the system, then we need the Champion to make his choice well before the match to allow the Challenger to do his preparation." - Agreed !

- "I consider telling someone "you are trolling" to be correct when the statement is factually sound, but "you are a troll" an insult, since in that case we assume that someone is in general a troll, when his current trolling might be the exception from his general behavior."

This is a question of definition : I found one "serious" definition of the word "troll", in the Oxford Dictionary, which is : "A person who makes a deliberately offensive or provocative online post." This definition doesn't include an element of repetition to be a troll. I suppose that the idea behind this definition is that it is possible to be a troll at one moment, and that this doesn't necessarily imply a "permanent quality" (in other words, it would seems possible to be a "part-time troll"). It is obviously possible to disagree with a definition, but, as for me, I think that to follow a definition from a good source (as the Oxford Dictionary) is the "safest" solution, or, at least, the best starting point.

However, even if the term "troll" was considered as including an element of repetition, it is sometimes possible to reach such a conclusion simply by taking into consideration the posts of a commentator on ChessBase. For exemple, drcloak continuously writes obviously "deliberately offensive or provocative" posts. So I think that it would not be an insult to consider that he is a "permanent troll" ; it is just simply an objective observation. Some riverbanks have there "local crocodile", and we, on ChessBase, have our "local troll" !... (...but this is quite a bit less dangerous than the crocodile !...)

@lajosarpad/Petrarlsen

"To see better debates, take a look with my past debates with Petrarlsen"

I have no wish to see a multiple/split personality, anonymous, self-righteous attention seeker holding long conversations with themselves.

@lajosarpad I never insulted you, and I only insulted Petrarlsen in previous threads because he initially insulted me

Getting back to the discussion at hand: you asked "Please, let me know how did you came to believe that Petrarlsen and me did not follow the games"

Because it is self evident by your arguments. If you had recently looked at the Bilbao scoring games, you would see that non-games are virtually non existent under that format. Hence there is a big difference between the games played under Bilbao, and the games played under traditional scoring.

When people tell me they have looked at the games played under Bilbao scoring and they see no appreciable difference in the number of GM draws, that proves to me they did not look at the games...When they tell me that they have followed ALL the tournaments using the Bilbao system, and then tell me that elite round robins like the London Chess Classic (using Bilbao) had more decisive games because there were weaker GMs in the field, that is proof to me they did not follow ALL the tournaments, and are not telling the truth.

When they ask me for proof and then don't bother to look at the proof, but keep making up reasons to argue anyway, that is a clear sign of intellectual dishonesty. Or just arguing for the sake of arguing.

I would think it should be self-evident (even if you don't look at the games) that the motivation for GM draws would be eliminated under a 3-1-0 scoring system. This is not my opinion, it is elementary mathematics. If you are not "convinced" by simple mathematics, and you can't see why it is counterproductive to agree to GM draws under a 3-1-0 system (as opposed to a 1 - 1/2 - 0 system, where a tournament leader can draw a game and still be assured of at least a tie for first place) then I have nothing more to say to you

@ koko48 :

- "(...) I only insulted Petrarlsen in previous threads because he initially insulted me".

This is quite simply a complete lie.

You insulted me there : http://en.chessbase.com/newsroom/post/gibraltar-rd05-peace-and-war?page=0 (and I gave you on the present page the exact quotations).

Everyone can see on the same page that I didn't insulted you.

If you make an accusation, you must prove it. So, can you do the same as me, and give us the exact quotation of my "insults" ? And I remind you that you said above : "(...) BECAUSE HE INITIALLY INSULTED ME", so you must necessarily give us a quotation of a post written BEFORE your own insults...

- "Getting back to the discussion at hand: you asked "Please, let me know how did you came to believe that Petrarlsen and me did not follow the games"

Because it is self evident by your arguments. If you had recently looked at the Bilbao scoring games, you would see that non-games are virtually non existent under that format. Hence there is a big difference between the games played under Bilbao, and the games played under traditional scoring."

This is really quite funny. You say to us, as a supreme argument : "LOOK AT THE GAMES", and when we answer, in substance : "We have looked at the games, and we are not convinced", your own answer is, still in substance : "You can't have looked at the games and see something different from what I have seen. You must have lied." So you are the Supreme Judge, and what you decide is the Truth Incarnated !! The games (following you...) are completely and absolutely convincing, and anyone who doesn't agree with this is a Vile Heretic ! (...lajosarpad was right, this resemble indeed very much to a pseudo-religious stance...)

I will remind you what I said in a previous post on the present page : "But you can very well answer us that we are stupid and that these games are extraordinarily interesting, and, in turn, we can answer you that you are stupid and that these games have simply the same level of interest as "normal" games (...this would unquestionably be quite a high-level discussion...), and, in the end, the truth is that neither you nor we can prove anything about the interest of these games because this is a completely subjective argument." As there is objectively no convincing reason to think that you represent the Truth Incarnated (!), I think we can go back to what I said in this post : what you say is indeed a supplementary element to prove that "LOOK AT THE GAMES" cannot be a good argument, the reason being that "neither you nor we can prove anything about the interest of these games because this is a completely subjective argument", as I said in this previous post, and you are thus reduced to affirm, as you did, that we cannot have looked at the games because it is (following you...) obvious that, if we had, we would have reached the same conclusion as you... and this lead us absolutely nowhere !...


- "I would think it should be self-evident (even if you don't look at the games) that the motivation for GM draws would be eliminated under a 3-1-0 scoring system."

"Nothing new under the sun" : as before, you give us THEORY without proving that in PRACTICE this really works. I've already developed this before, so I see no need to say more about this now.

@ drcloak :

"I have no wish to see a multiple/split personality, anonymous, self-righteous attention seeker holding long conversations with themselves." (about lajosarpad and I)

Dear drcloak, if you want to think that I have two, three, four, or even five personalities, I'm quite okay with it ! You never know, perhaps, in fact, even you, you don't exist, and you are also the third, fourth, or fifth personality of lajosarpad / Petrarlsen ! You musn't judge by appearances : you THINK that you exist, but perhaps, in fact, you are also a little bit of the "lajosarpad / Petrarlsen monster" !... This is a quite interesting new line of thought, isn't it ?? I think that even our so profound thinker drcloak hadn't thinked of it !...

@ drcloak :

If I'm not mistaken, seeing your new picture, you seem to officialy acknowledge that you are indeed now Our Local Troll !

This is a great progress to our website ! Until now, we had only Part-Time Trolls, and, now, we have a real Permanent Troll !

Welcome onboard !

@Petrarlsen

I changed my profile picture to be more in line with your opinion of me. I have no problem with people here insulting me; I've heard it all before and have dealt with much worse :)

@ drcloak :

"I have no problem with people here insulting me; I've heard it all before and have dealt with much worse :)"

Better still ! So, now, not only we can boast to have Our Very Own Local Troll, but, furthermore, he is a Heroic Troll !!

How lucky we are !!!

@ lajosarpad

How about you keep your accusations directed at me under the articles where it is relevant? You really do seem to have a whole lot of time on your hands.

>> "Fons denied that he stated he wants to change the current system and I have shown him that this is untrue."

I don't know why I'm bothering to answer this but ok, here it goes: I never made such a statement, it's factually incorrect.

I was merely giving alternative examples to illustrate a point. The point being that the Bilbao system is not unsound from a philosophical point of view. Whether or not this meant I was advocating to change the system was entirely beside the point in that discussion. All of which I already pointed out... in that discussion.

>> "I could tell him he is lying, but since I do not factually know that, I am assuming, in order to be elegant the best imaginable possibility, namely that he forgot about the statement."

Tell me again you're not trolling.