Moscow Grand Prix R05: Six crowd the podium

@Drcloak

LOL, that was a good one :)

@lajosarpad

"...using the rules of binary logic..."

You realize, it doesn't have to be binary with your character. It is possible to be both gifted (a genius) and a decent person.

@ lajosarpad :

"I was lucky to read it in the original language." ... What I can't (unfortunately) do... precisely because "I'm not you" !!

@Petrarlsen

Drcloak has just embraced the "feeling" shown by Fons, which clearly had a defamatory intention. I say "clearly" and can prove it with reductio ad absurdum. If we assume that he did not have a defamatory intention, then he would have not shared this "feeling" (real or unreal, does not make any difference) with the audience until he knows for sure that his "feeling" is valid. Since we are different persons which can be proven from our comments as well, we factually know that he cannot know for sure that we are different. For third parties I can give quite a lot of URLs containing our older debates where we have written long posts to present our arguments to each-others when we did not have any knowledge about this debate where some people think that we are the same persons. And since our assumption that he did not have a defamatory intention has led us to a false conclusion, using the rules of binary logic concerning the implication we can conclude that our initial assumption was wrong and therefore disproven. Since we have assumed the negation of the statement we wanted to prove and the negation of the statement we wanted to prove has been disproved, the result is that my initial statement has been proven. This "feeling" of Fons was taken up by Drcloak, but the author is Fons.

I did not take Drcloak seriously. Let me quote Madách Imre from the Tragedy of Man:
"This scene a comedy and be thou gay."
I recommend you this excellent piece of literature (the English translation can be found here http://mek.oszk.hu/00900/00915/html/), I was lucky to read it in the original language.

"(...) (probably several thousands of kilometers one from the other) (...)" (my last post on this page)

Perhaps a little less, in fact (...if I'm not completely wrong, which is naturally also quite a distinct possibility !) ; my knowledge in geography seems to need to be a little brushed up !!... (...too bad, too bad...)

@ All (!) :

"@Petrarlsen/lajosarpad

Why you're probably the same person:

1. Both have very similar writing styles, use of correct punctuation & grammar.
2. Both use the spatial hyphen (eg. "I don't consider it to be functional - but perhaps in error - or not") rather than a normal hyphen. Frequent use of parentheses and quotation marks as well.
3. Neither use "slang" or other internet jargon.
4. Both are obsessed with defending their "honor" if an insult has been perceived.
5. Both are obsessed with being provided evidence, statistical analysis or proof anytime someone states an opinion that does not concur with their own.
6. Both are highly active within the same threads. It is rare you will find one without the other.
7. Both enjoy attaching labels to those that don't agree with their ideas, particularly the word "troll"
8. Both have contradicted themselves in claiming "ad hominen attacks/insults" thus negating someone's argument or opinion, only to turn around and do the very same thing to others by name calling and labeling.
9. Both display arrogance and self-righteous tendencies. (...)" (drcloak)

If these common points are more or less true (I will let others check themselves...), this is rather funny, because I think that, objectively, there must not be much in common between lajosarpad and me : I think that we are not at all from the same country (probably several thousands of kilometers one from the other), our native language is (very probably, at least) not the same, he is (if I remember well...) a computer scientist and mathematician and I am a lawyer, etc.. Very different, in fact !...

@ drcloak :

Thank you (nonetheless...) for : "Why you're PROBABLY the same person"... You could have gone all the way to : "Why YOU'RE the same person"...

@ lajosarpad and drcloak :

"@Petrarlsen/lajosarpad

Why you're probably the same person:

1. Both have very similar writing styles, use of correct punctuation & grammar.

2. (...)" (drcloak)

Ta- ta - ta - tssss... ! This is what happens when you (...lajosarpad, in the present case...) take a troll too seriously !!!!

@Petrarlsen/lajosarpad

Why you're probably the same person:

1. Both have very similar writing styles, use of correct punctuation & grammar.
2. Both use the spatial hyphen (eg. "I don't consider it to be functional - but perhaps in error - or not") rather than a normal hyphen. Frequent use of parentheses and quotation marks as well.
3. Neither use "slang" or other internet jargon.
4. Both are obsessed with defending their "honor" if an insult has been perceived.
5. Both are obsessed with being provided evidence, statistical analysis or proof anytime someone states an opinion that does not concur with their own.
6. Both are highly active within the same threads. It is rare you will find one without the other.
7. Both enjoy attaching labels to those that don't agree with their ideas, particularly the word "troll"
8. Both have contradicted themselves in claiming "ad hominen attacks/insults" thus negating someone's argument or opinion, only to turn around and do the very same thing to others by name calling and labeling.
9. Both display arrogance and self-righteous tendencies.

I could go on but I think you get the point.

@ lajosarpad :

Personally, I consider that drcloak's post on us ("I have no wish to see a multiple/split personality, anonymous, self-righteous attention seeker holding long conversations with themselves.") was so obviously an attempt to provoke us and to stir up a debate out of nowhere, that I didn't think at all necessary to answer seriously to his post... In fact, I consider this post as rather the archetype of a "troll's post" ; our "resident troll" shows himself quite up to his (already well-asserted) reputation !!!

I didn't react in the same way to fons post on the same subject ("Why do I have the feeling that Petrarlsen and lajosarpad are the same person?"), because this last post could be seriously misleading, and that, in my opinion, it thus necessitated a serious answer.

@Petrarlsen

I always thought that a troll was someone who had a tendency of trolling, thank you for pointing out the definition. I consider Drcloak to be a troll as well. I consider Fons to be a troll as well, as he refrained to insults and has wrongly quoted one of my statement which seems to be impossible to be done by accident.

@Drcloak

Wow. So you assume that Petrarlsen and I are the same persons. Do you have proof for this claim? I know you do not have, since I am not Petrarlsen, but please, try to prove it.

@Koko48

"I never insulted you, and I only insulted Petrarlsen in previous threads because he initially insulted me "
My point was that
"Insults are not convincing."
So, tell me, how should your insults towards Petrarlsen (which happened) be more convincing than an insult directed towards me (which did not happen prior to your last comment, but unfortunately, you could not control yourself, could you)?
I have seen the games (not all of them, there were some that I missed, as I already mentioned), but the games we enjoy or find boring are not constituting a proof. We need to quantify them and create a large statistic to prove or to disprove the point that the games using the Bilbao system are more fighting than the games in general. This should never rely on subjective feelings, one will need to provide objective data. Yet you are applying to our subjectivity when you tell us to look at the games. This is unscientific. However, I acknowledge that you think I lack knowledge in mathematics. Perhaps you are willing to teach me :D

@fons

Your original statement:
"I don't see what's philosophically unsound about this. Better performance; more points.

0 loss with white
1 loss with black
2 draw with white
3 draw with black
4 win with white
5 win with black

Imo this makes the most sense and reflects the game more accurately."
When I mentioned that you stated that a change is needed, you said:
"I have never done that, I have merely given alternative examples to illustrate a point. "
And while looking back to the posts I have to acknowledge you did not state it per se, but you told us that your system is better, that is, you have shown desire to change the system. This is a self-contradiction and no, I am not trolling, I am just showing you a self-contradiction. You were trolling when you misquoted my statement at the article about the third round and answered to the changed version. Here I have mentioned the problem you have answered to as an illustrative example. As about how much time I have: it is not your business. Since you questioned my ability to comprehend what I read and to think rationally I do not think you have any reasons to expect me to provide you any more respect than I do.

@ 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.

@ 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 !!!

@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 :

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 !

@ 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 !...

@ 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.

@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

@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 :

- "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 !...)

@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.

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

@ 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 ????

@ 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

Because the force is strong with you.

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

@ 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...

@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".

@ 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 :

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).

@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 : "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 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

@ lajosarpad :

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

@ 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 :

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 ?

@ 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.

@ 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.

@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.

@ 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 ???!!!