Yes. Sorry...

@ Elubas and SpaceOddity - perhaps you could continue your discussion elsewhere in private correspondence? It no longer seems related to the original news article! Thanks.

"Take child abuse.  Imagine a parent who beats the crap out of his kid every day for just about everything the kid does.  The father goes to court and tells the judge, "well, it's not really 'abuse', since 'abuse' is subjective, you have your opinion, I have mine."  Would you agree with the father?"

Technically, yes, at least that there is nothing that is absolutely right or wrong -- why that is I'll get to towards the end of this paragraph. The only reason why child abuse would be against a law is because an overwhelmingly large number of people feel that way. Generally, if say 90 or so percent of people believe something is absolutely wrong, then there is a law against it, which would make sense, as most people in congress wouldn't object to it and so on. That's actually how we determine right and wrong morals: it's purely with feeling and attitude towards something, nothing else.

You seem to like to insult my arguments. I don't really see how your negative tone is necessary, and because of that, it seems like the reason for your tone is that you feel some sort of sense of superiority from the claims you make. That's unfortunate, because I like sincere discussion; a respectful exchange of ideas, and you're making it insincere and disrespectful. If you really respected me you wouldn't act as if my flawed ways were a very bad thing; you act as if my choice of words will have an incredibly negative effect on something, when there really hasn't been one. I refuse to continue this discussion if you keep up that attitude.

That is, by the way, an opinion, which can not be proven to be true; however, there are enough logical points to it to convince me that it's likely, and I'm fine with that; I'm fine with not ever completely knowing what your intentions were.

Elubus,

what you write, whether you intend it to be so or not, leads to the conclusion that 'cruelty' among other things, just is not part of the world, but merely a phantom illusion, a sort of massive error on our part whenever we actually make real life claims to the effect that Hitler was cruel, or any other of a countless number of claims we make all day and every day on just about everything.  I'll ask again--clarify for me please what it means for something to be 'subjective' rather 'objective'.  What do those terms mean, according to you?

What is an 'opinion' according to you, other than mass illusion, such as when Catholic Theologians discuss the mysteries surrounding the holy trinity?  IF there is no trinity, then all the theologians are doing is spouting nonsense.  Do you think we are also spouting nonsense in claiming that Hitler was cruel?  IT's just an illusion?

Why does 'evidence' have anything to do with the JFK issue?  There's evidence that Hitler was cruel too, big deal. 

So forget Hitler and JFK and the problem of 'evidence' there.  Let's take a simple claim about chairs.  There are two chairs in my study.  Is the word "chair" objective or subjective?  What is a study, really?  

You seem to think that everything is subjective, and even entertain the suggestion that this is actually possible.  But it's hopelessly impossible because then the very idea of subjectivity would lose meaning, since subjectivity only makes sense in contrast to an objectivity, and you've lost all objectivity by your account.  Nothing is objective.  But then, nothing would be subjective either.

Clarify what it means for something to be objective or subjective. 

you write:

"anyway, I'll ask this to clear things up: If you're saying that I should talk about things as if the world always determines one answer, do you, then, indeed think that there is a right or wrong answer to the question of the value of a win? And if not, why then would it be wrong to use the word "subjective?"

The problem with your use of the word 'subjective' is that it undermines itself, fails to adequately understand the relation between words, thought and reality, and lead to nothing but confusions.   My answer to the question about chess scoring systems does not generalize or lend itself to generalizations about my position on ALL claims about ANYTHING.  Why should it?  Claims about chess scoring systems need have nothing to do with claims about whether Hitler was cruel, or who shot JFK, or anything else.  There's no right or wrong answer on the intrinsic value of a win relative to a loss in chess because chess has nothing to do with scoring systems.  That's a completely sufficient and complete response, and I don't need to introduce conceptions of objectivity or subjectivity to clarify that.

What about ethics?  You think all ethics are 'subjective' or 'relative'?  IF so, then that's just another way of saying it's all bullshit.  you have your opinion, i have mine, that's that, since there's nothing in the world to decide.  That's not my opinon.  I claim that "Hitler was cruel" is true, and it's made true by the world, and people who disagree are wrong.

Take child abuse.  Imagine a parent who beats the crap out of his kid every day for just about everything the kid does.  The father goes to court and tells the judge, "well, it's not really 'abuse', since 'abuse' is subjective, you have your opinion, I have mine."  Would you agree with the father?

"Suppose somebody says, "I have the subjective opinion that JFK was killed by the Cubans as part of an assassination plot, you have the subjective opinion that he was not killed by the Cubans as part of an assassination plot, we merely disagree because it's a matter of opinion, there is no 'objective criterion' of what constitutes an assassination plot, and you have your view, I have mine, and so there is really no fact about the world that makes one opinion true and the other false, because this is not a fact in the natural world (ie, the kind you'd get from an 'objective' natural science).  So there is no fact one way or the other on who killed JFK."  Is that your position?"

Well, actually, it's not... I think you may be misunderstanding what I'm actually arguing. That is something for which there can be evidence.

But if you were instead to give an adjective to describe it, then yes, it would be a matter of opinion. "I think the whole thing was stupid." "I think the whole thing was cruel." Now, if the opinion came from someone smart, he may have thought about his opinion a bit more than a dumb person who came up with a different opinion. So it's not to say that all ideas are equal in value necessarily.

That is my position . I'm basically talking about those words like "good," "bad," "cruel," "nice," "generous," "stupid," "smart" -- they're all relative. A move considered "smart" by a lower rated player might just be considered "natural, nothing special" by a strong player. Whose opinion is better? Well, if the descriptions are regarding how much skill you need to play the moves, there probably isn't a right or wrong answer because there isn't objective criteria. Calm down, I'll explain why this time. An objective criterion, in this case would be a system that everyone could use, and couldn't argue against e.g. -- needing 5 books read (and another objective criterion here, in this case for "read," could be something like "every word of every page outside the table of contents and the pages before it read) to understand this position equals "heavy skill"; only 2 books equals "light skill." Since chess is too complex for something like that to work, there isn't really an objective way for us to determine the answer; we simply feel differently about how hard something is to do and learn. Perhaps if we were gods we could determine the answer (calculate the exact amount of brain cells you need, etc ), but for all practical purposes we shouldn't even try. 

If on the other hand, if it's about the quality of the move, it's easier to use an objective scale: we could call it something that keeps the most good features in the position, both in itself and relation to the opponent's position. And of course, although it would be possible to be objective here, that doesn't mean it would be easy -- just how much quality there is in a move is hard for us mortals to always understand, but this is the ideal that we are constantly striving for in our play and analysis. And sometimes we have been successful with it -- we make our own little proofs of how "this move should win" and "this move doesn't" -- we offer variations, and explain the positions that those variations lead to. True, we don't offer every single variation, so it might not be a perfect proof -- we ignore really horrible looking moves, but, well, sometimes we can still come pretty close

Hitler killed the Jews -- that is a fact, but that descriptive word we use to describe it I don't believe can be true or false. The killing of the jews is reality -- that is not a matter of opinion -- but the determination of what this means  can lead to pure opinion; in this case, a popular such interpretation is that it was indeed "cruel."

"and if we did, as you do, then you'll find that everything is subjective"

That could be the case . In some way or another. Obviously there is the irony that words like unbiased or objective have meanings totally arbitrary.

But though you could waste too much time and complain about this problem, for practical purposes, I have not experienced this to be a problem: I still use both words, and the meaning of what I say when I use the words is still generally understood. Ideally, language should be precise; in reality, it's not, but if the use of a word conveys our intended message, then I look at it as a success.

"cruelty was and is a part of the world,"

Actually, it isn't. Things we interpret as cruel are part of the world. Now, don't get me wrong -- I'm not saying every opinion is equal in value -- I'm just saying that things based on opinion, like the value of a win, can't have a right or wrong answer. The world will not collapse if a win is worth 5 points. You can make logical arguments for a certain value, and chances are if you do then many people will agree with you (hence classical time controls; laws against murder), more than an opinion perhaps founded more out of thin air and with no regard to things such as respect or logic.

Anyway, I'll ask this to clear things up: If you're saying that I should talk about things as if the world always determines one answer, do you, then, indeed think that there is a right or wrong answer to the question of the value of a win? And if not, why then would it be wrong to use the word "subjective?"

Elubus,

looking up definitions of words, in this case, is not relevant or helpful, because our discussion is on the relation between words, meaning, thought and the world, not on the definitions of any particular words.  When you introduce terms like 'subjective' and 'objective criteria' you are already presupposing a conception of subjectivity and objectivity, and, as i suspect, a very confused conception that leads to self-contradiction/incoherence/infinite regress and other problems.  For example, if you argue that we need objective criteria for determining whether something is an X or not, and apply that to everything (ie, cats, dogs, tables, chairs, cruelty, sexual harrassment, etc), then you'll find it leads to an impossibly high demand and infinite regress.  We can always then ask, well, what about the objective criteria of THAT (ie, of each criterion).  For example, what makes something a game?  What constitutes a game?  Are you looking for the necessary and sufficient conditions of what constitutes a game?  What makes something subjective?  Are there objective criteria for what makes something subjective?  What are they?

As I believe Supreme Court Justice Scalia said about pornography, "I know it when I see it."  That's true of pornography, cruelty, tables, chairs and most other things.  That there can be, on occassion, disagreement, does not mean that, in general, the words don't have sufficiently clear meanings to refer to facts in the world.  That there is disagreement on occasion only shows that there is disagreement on occasion.

Then you make the claim about how we 'interpet' the world.  I agree, there is interpretation in our perception of reality, but I don't identify that with subjectivity--and if we did, as you do, then you'll find that everything is subjective, then nothing will be objective, and then there will be a collapse in any distinction between objectivity and subjectivity.  So your argument seems to prove what you want it to prove, but then it proves 'too much' as they say, in so far as it undermines itself.  You demonstrate this problem yourself without actually dwelling on how radical your own assertion is when you claim that it hasn't been determined yet that Hitler is cruel is true or false because we haven't the 'objective criteria'.  Really?!?  What is 'objective criteria'?  And what is the objective criteria for each objective criterion?  Again, infinite regress for an impossibly high standard of meaning.  If there is no fact of the matter, one way or another, on whether Hitler was cruel, then it's hard to see what would ever be a fact, what would ever be our having knowledge of anything in the world.  So again, I suggest you think of all these issues without using the terms 'objective' and 'subjective', and just explain what you mean.  I can explain what I mean just fine without those terms.  The burden is on you to explain and justify them, not by appealing to a dictionary, but by making sense of ordinary claims about hitler, tables and chairs, etc.  The act of 'interpreting' could mean that there is a raw piece of uninterpreted 'something' (we can't say what, or else then it would already be interpreted), and then that something gets interpreted (and how, on the basis of what?  It's impossible to see how anything completely uninterpreted could be magically interpreted into something else--it must ALREADY come packaged with some meaning, so that it gets interpreted as a 'this' instead of as a 'that').  I think that's what you mean by 'interpreting' in your claim.  I have no problem saying that we perceive the world by interpreting it, and that simply means the world comes pre-packed to us in a meaningful way, and there can be alternative ways of accessing the world.  Certainly, there are different points of view (ie, Ancient Greek vs Modern American), and yet, for all that, it does not follow that 'anything goes', and that the world is whatever we want it to be, and that there is no truth or falsity.

You demonstrate more confusion, and a disagreement with my position, in your conception of the world.  I do NOT mean the 'natural' world when I say 'world'.  By world, I simply mean, in the early Wittgenstein's words, but in his later sense, that the world is all that is the case.  The world is what makes all true claims true.  If Hitler was cruel, then the world is what makes that true.  Hitler was part of the world, cruelty was and is a part of the world, and if we all died today, it would still be true that, in the past, Hitler was cruel.  OF course, there are people who might disagree (ie, Neonazis), but these people are wrong and kooky.  they don't just have a merely different subjective point of view--they hold a view that is patently false.  There is nothing more to appeal to, at some point, then the world.  As Wittgenstein says, justification must come to an end somewhere--and as I add to his claim--for otherwise, there'd be an infinite regress of demanding justification.  Like a child asking, "why?" and then "Why" and then "Why?"...at some point, you just say, because it is true, 'that's just the way things are'.  That's the world. 

Suppose somebody says, "I have the subjective opinion that JFK was killed by the Cubans as part of an assassination plot, you have the subjective opinion that he was not killed by the Cubans as part of an assassination plot, we merely disagree because it's a matter of opinion, there is no 'objective criterion' of what constitutes an assassination plot, and you have your view, I have mine, and so there is really no fact about the world that makes one opinion true and the other false, because this is not a fact in the natural world (ie, the kind you'd get from an 'objective' natural science).  So there is no fact one way or the other on who killed JFK."  Is that your position?  Mine is that there is nothing but confusion in that entire claim, that the situation is actually much more simple that that, and to avoid confusions we should avoiding using the terms 'objective' and 'subjective'.  Here's what I believe--JFK was killed, somebody shot him, probably Oswald, acting alone, but I don't know.  But somebody killed him, and it's either true or false that he was killed as part of a Cuban assassination plot--maybe the Cubans hired Oswald, maybe not.  Maybe Oswald didn't do it but was the fall guy, who knows.  But I believe Oswald did it and acted alone.  I might have a false belief. 

Notice how I can clearly articulate what I believe without introducing all the confusions and problems about meaning that you run into when you introduce 'objectivity' and 'subjectivity' ? 

So the burden is on you--what is objectivity and subjectivity?  Don't appeal to a dictionary, but use the common sense examples to clarify what you mean.  From what you do say, it would seem that hardly anything we ever say is true, that there is only opinion, and that EVERYTHING is 'subjective'.  That is the logical conclusion of your claims, the landing pad of the slipperly slope.  My argumentative strategy is to let you try to clarify what you mean and show how what you mean leads to confusions, contradictions, infinite regress, etc. 

So, to answer your last question, what is my 'point', I guess it is this--the world is what makes our beliefs true or false.  The world is not merely the natural world that natural science studies.  Natural science uses language too, those words have meaning, the meanings of those words are not crystal clear nor are they totally opaque.  The words and claims can be true or false or nonsensical. The world makes those claims true or false, and that's how our ordinary non-natural science language works as well. 

"Bobby Fischer was the greatest chess player of all time"...this claim might be true, false or nonsensical.  People can disagree...but what they are disagreeing about is a possible fact in the world.  If they were NOT disagreeing about a possible fact in the world, then what are they disagreeing about?  The meaning of words?  But then that's all up in the air and 'subjective' too...there is either a grounding of the meaning of words in the WORLD, or there is no grounding at all.

Well, you certainly gave a thorough response to that small question . And yet, I'm still not really sure where you're getting at.

"Yet, for all that, there is much confusion in what objectivity and subjectivity is."

Well, one idea one could try is, if necessary, look up the words to clear up this confusion

"Hitler was a cruel dictator"...I believe that is true, somebody else might believe that is false.  The world, independent of my beliefs or your beliefs, determines whether that claim is true or false. "

Well, actually, it probably isn't true or false -- we haven't made an objective criteria for what defines "cruel"; rather, we just develop a feeling for what is cruel. Even if you took the definition of cruel, you would just find words making up the definition that mean different things to different people. Words like "good" or "bad": what's good to one, is bad to another. Now, again, this is rather consistent with the definition of subjective, because it is subject to the person.

Moreover, "the world," from which I assume you mean "the natural world," is independant of our made up language (just like time! Whether this concept of time was made up or not would have nothing to do with what happens, when it rains, etc; the only thing it does is help us humans keep track of stuff), so I don't see how it could determine an answer to the question of whether Hitler was "cruel" or not. What he did, he did, and we know, to a large extent, what he did. To answer if this is "cruel" or not is all about interpretation: we interpret the events we have seen; "the world" doesn't interpret anything. And that's why not every answer you hear will be the same. Who is to say that either answer is reality? Perhaps we could say that whether it is "true" or "false" is simply all in our heads?

"But whether and how many women he sexually harrassed is independent of our epistemic position, in other words, independent of what we believe or know or have access to."

Ok, but what is your point?

Let's be a little more specific: Why exactly don't you like me saying that the appropriate value of a win in chess is a matter of opinion and thus subjective? An opinion doesn't have to be a belief; it can merely be a view, an attitude, an outlook; a way of looking at something. This view can be of a question that has no right or wrong answer -- like this one. And wasn't that your argument this whole time? That there is no intrinsic, and thus, incontrovertibly correct value?

Elubus writes:

"I agree. And doesn't that mean that what is considered the "appropriate" value of a win or draw, as well as the scoring system that arises from that consideration, are matters of opinion? If so, I don't feel I'm misusing the word subjective there."

What is a "matter of opinion"?  What is "subjective" or "subjectivity"?  It's not about you misusing the word "subjective" as much as it is that the word itself is caught up in about 400 years of confusion (no thanks to Descartes).  It's a word that does nothing but cause trouble.  The same goes with expressions such as "matter of opinion" or "matter of taste" or "matter of judgment".  Subjectivity is as confused as objectivity.  The two confused concepts arose together in pre-Enlightenment thought and their reification became the hallmarks of enlightment thinking.  Now don't get me wrong--I like the Enlightenment as much as the next guy, and Galileo and Descartes did the world a great service, especially in their introduction of rational thought and modern science.  Yet, for all that, there is much confusion in what objectivity and subjectivity is.  This topic would take a few hours to adequately discuss.  I simply invite you to think about some things...

Try to say (and think) about issues with regard to truth and falsity, not 'subjectivity' or 'objectivity'.  Nothing is 'subjectively' true or false.  If you believe something is true, then that is your opinion, that is your belief.  The content of that belief, however, is made true or false by the world.  Either it succeeds or fails in describing a fact.  A belief or proposition is true or false, period.  An opinion is simply a belief.  If two people have different 'opinions', then they have different beliefs.  What the belief is about, however, is a possible state of affairs in the world.  As Rumsfeld correctly stated, "You are entitled to your own opinions, you are not entitled to your own facts." 

People often confuse 'subjectivity' with a certain epistemic position that people are often in--namely, the position of not being able to know or verify the truth of a proposition.  That is a *merely* epistemic issue, however, ie, an issue concerning how we can know something is true or false.  The ontological issue, as distinct from the epistemic, concerns the possible fact at stake--whether there is a fact of the matter that is being discussed or debated.  It's a possible fact that Herman Cain sexually harrassed 4 women.  It's possible he only sexually harrassed 3.  I don't know how many women he sexually harrassed.  You might not know either.  We can disagree on that, and, more deeply, we can disagree on what actually constitutes sexual harrassment.  But whether and how many women he sexually harrassed is independent of our epistemic position, in other words, independent of what we believe or know or have access to.

If you disagree with somebody about art, history, who the best chess player in the world is, or what a fair rating system in chess is, you are (usually) disagree on the way the world is, on what is so, what is the case, what the facts are.  "Hitler was a cruel dictator"...I believe that is true, somebody else might believe that is false.  The world, independent of my beliefs or your beliefs, determines whether that claim is true or false. 

Again--look at how we can discuss all these issues without even using the terms objective and subjective.  So rather than going through 400 years of history that culminates in our contemporary sloppiness in using the terms 'objective' and 'subjective' (and preposterous phrases such as 'matter of taste'), just say what you want to say without using those contaminated, confused words.  I think you'll find that you can say what you want to say even more clearly to yourself and others by avoiding those words.  That's all I propose.

To your first paragraph:

Of course it is true that there are plenty of factors to look at, but I highly doubt that you can ascertain who would be the best player depending on any hypothetical scoring system, which is the point I made in my last post. There could be a world champion who was only world champion because of the specific scoring system used that perhaps didn't punish losses as much. My goal here is not to speculate; it's to show how there is something here we can't really know.

"Chess would become akin to olympic diving.  But again, whatever scoring system used would be arbitrary and incidental, not essential, to the game of chess itself."

I agree. And doesn't that mean that what is considered the "appropriate" value of a win or draw, as well as the scoring system that arises from that consideration, are matters of opinion? If so, I don't feel I'm misusing the word subjective there.

It's hard, though, to blame people who have been playing this game perhaps their whole life, with the idea that draws were considered to be of this particular value (half as much as a win; now it could be a third of one), to develop a style in which they can take just the right amount of risk to get the ideal number of points. Now, all of a sudden, you need to balance that risk just a tad differently, since a draw is not quite as favorable of a result that it used to be; having tons of draws will cause more potential trouble than it would have before. This value of one half may not have been intrinsic to the game, but it was well established. Imagine if en passant was suddenly taken out of the game. Wouldn't it be annoying to have to adjust to, just because some chess authority just felt like doing it? This may not be as significant as even a minor rule change, but the compulsion to make adjustments don't seem nonexistent (although they might be negligible; such is not quite clear to me yet)

"Ultimately, I think you are falling into some common (mis)conceptions when you discuss what is 'subjective', or a matter of 'opinion' or 'taste'.  It's not the place here to go deep into that, but ultimately, that is the pattern of where we disagree (and, pardon my presumption of correctness--but where I think you're confused)."

I don't doubt that there might be holes in my argument, but this message is too vague for me to really know what specific misconceptions you are referring to. Could you clear that up perhaps?

Elubus,

If there is a fact of the matter at stake, then what that fact is is not 'subjective'.  If there is not fact at stake, then a belief can, at best, be false, and is most likely just confused--a pseudo-belief.  Taste in music introduces a whole other category of confusions that will not help illuminate the current debate, but introduce a new, different one.  It is true that we can and do debate on who was the 'best' player of any generation.  Obviously, we don't just go by scoring system, but looking at a number of factors, individual games, games against other top players, etc.  Some player out there might be the best at playing 20 simul blindfolded.  Obviously, that's distinct from being the best at 3 0 blitz.  In any case, that is an epistemic and not ontological question--ie, a matter of how we can know in any given instance who is the best of a generation rather than an ontological issue of whether or not there is a fact of the matter that somebody was the best at any given time.

Spectators can gain aesthetic value in chess, but that's also distinct from the issue of whether wins, in general, are worth more 2 draws, or 3 draws, etc.  That is not about particular wins and draws, but the value of a win or draw in general.  Heck, you can have a scoring system where fans, or a group of judges, assign points on a scale of 1-10 for each game and simply rate each player's performance for the game.  Chess would become akin to olympic diving.  But again, whatever scoring system used would be arbitrary and incidental, not essential, to the game of chess itself.

Ultimately, I think you are falling into some common (mis)conceptions when you discuss what is 'subjective', or a matter of 'opinion' or 'taste'.  It's not the place here to go deep into that, but ultimately, that is the pattern of where we disagree (and, pardon my presumption of correctness--but where I think you're confused).

"Sure,  a system could value draws at .75 and wins at 1.  So what? The best player is the player who would win under a variety of scoring systems.  Since a Kasparov was so much better than his contempories, it's easy to see how he'd reign supreme over the rest of them."

It might not be so simple if, in a given group, you are not 50 points better than everyone, though. Like I said, what if Petrosian would have been the best 1 .75 0 player but perhaps not the best 1 .5 0 player? Depending on the player, the determination of the "best player" might prove very sensitive. You say the best player is the one who could do the best under a variety of scoring systems, but for such a long time, there simply wasn't such a variety. So we don't know if the "best players" would have changed if in say the 1900s 5 different scoring systems featured use. We don't know who was the best adaptive player (which, again, by your definition would translate into the best overall player) because the system was predictable throughout a player's career.

"In other words, it is not INTRINSIC to the game of chess that a win is twice as valuable as a draw, or three times as valuable, or whatever."

I agree. But I also feel that we can have our own subjective value of wins, draws and losses, too. Again, it's not right or wrong, just subject to you. You can think wins are really good, and deserve 5 points. I can feel unimpressed by wins when I see them, and think they are not much better than draws, and say .75 is what I would give them if I had the choice. But both opinions don't seem nonsensical, just different. Some subtle music might touch my soul; others might say the music is boring. Neither description need be intrinsic to the piece of music; it's all about how others feel about it and how its sounds are interpreted. And just as there is taste in music, there is taste in food, of course! Are oranges tasty by definition? Of course not! But some people find them so!

"Concerning 'sharp' play--i still see no reason to believe that simply choosing to play more 'sharply' is an easy and automatic way for a GM to get more wins.  Just use basic game theory.  The opposing GM will adjust his style accordingly, and perhaps provoke recklessness in the other GMs game.  Doesn't really matter though.  GMs are not going to be fooled easily, and if you can fool a GM by playing 'sharp', so much the worse for the GM who loses to unsound moves or to a GM who can't keep up with perfect 'sharp' games.  Again, you make it sound like it's super-easy for one GM to beat another simply by choosing to play recklessly or more 'sharply' (I'm not suggesting the two are the same).  Winning is hard, period.  There are many ways to win at chess, a variety of styles, and blunders can happen if you go for a win or go for a draw.  it's irrelevant.  The idea that patzers love decisive games and a 3 1 0 system caters to patzers who want blood, and the 'blood' will come in the form of shitty chess is just ridiculous.  GMs will play solid chess regardless of the scoring system.  They are GMs!"

How exactly sharper play is incorporated will not be easy, by any means. But less complex positions statistically get more draws than openings like the dutch, so if the right balance can be made so that you get more wins and more losses, without being reckless, sure a change in style alone has potential to profit. I think in general, the winner of a 3-1-0 system would probably be the same winner of the 1 .5 0 system. But not always.

Granted though, your analogy to surfaces on tennis was a good one (or maybe it's just because I'm a tennis fan ). Nadal is nearly unbeatable on clay, but what are you gonna do... just try to beat him on a hard surface, I guess (although, after struggling on hard courts for a while, now he does extremely well on them; bravo to him). The different surfaces do give variety, and encourage different strategies. But of course, a surface and scoring system are not exactly of the same nature, despite the connections. I get the feeling though that it's not as hard to suddenly change strategy in tennis as it is in chess, simply because chess strategy is more complex in general.

"The opinion that a win is over or under valued..."

Well, what do you mean over or under valued? That it's ethically wrong, or unfair to make a value "this much?" Because that's not what I mean when I'm talking about the right to have an opinion; I mean more like "To have an opinion on approximately how much value for each result would make the most sense to me; there is no right or wrong value, it's just what makes sense to me." The way I see it, it's not much different than liking a particular music group or tv show. "This music sounds good; this music sounds bad." As people, we often use these phrases; the type of music we are referring to varies quite a lot

The best player in a game of chess is the player who can force the result he or she wants.

Elubus writes:

"I don't see why one can't be of the opinion that a win is over or under valued. It's an opinion. There is no right or wrong answer, but it's not invalid to feel that a win should be worth a certain amount, as should a draw"

An opinion is a belief.  Beliefs can be true or false or nonsensical (perhaps these would be 'pseudo-beliefs').  The opinion that Lincoln was the first president of the United States is false.  The opinion that a win is over or under valued, in and of itself, apart from a scoring system, is nonsensical because there is no value to a win or draw apart from a scoring system.  In other words, it is not INTRINSIC to the game of chess that a win is twice as valuable as a draw, or three times as valuable, or whatever.  The content of the belief itself only derives meaning by reference to an implicit scoring system, which is the problem under discussion.  Again, circularity in reasoning results.

Sure,  a system could value draws at .75 and wins at 1.  So what? The best player is the player who would win under a variety of scoring systems.  Since a Kasparov was so much better than his contempories, it's easy to see how he'd reign supreme over the rest of them.  But if more chess tournaments had different scoring systems, time controls, etc, then it's possible that there is no one best chess player.  Analogously, in tennis, some players might be better on grass, or clay or hardcourt.  there's room for gray area there.  Which is really all the more reason for variety in time controls, scoring system, rules such as Sofia (not to say I endorse them...just endorsing variety). 

Concerning 'sharp' play--i still see no reason to believe that simply choosing to play more 'sharply' is an easy and automatic way for a GM to get more wins.  Just use basic game theory.  The opposing GM will adjust his style accordingly, and perhaps provoke recklessness in the other GMs game.  Doesn't really matter though.  GMs are not going to be fooled easily, and if you can fool a GM by playing 'sharp', so much the worse for the GM who loses to unsound moves or to a GM who can't keep up with perfect 'sharp' games.  Again, you make it sound like it's super-easy for one GM to beat another simply by choosing to play recklessly or more 'sharply' (I'm not suggesting the two are the same).  Winning is hard, period.  There are many ways to win at chess, a variety of styles, and blunders can happen if you go for a win or go for a draw.  it's irrelevant.  The idea that patzers love decisive games and a 3 1 0 system caters to patzers who want blood, and the 'blood' will come in the form of shitty chess is just ridiculous.  GMs will play solid chess regardless of the scoring system.  They are GMs!

Also, in a 1 .75 0 system, we can imagine many situations where two GMs will agree to draws after move 1, simply because it would help the both of them.  It would be a silly incentive to not play the game. 

I don't see why one can't be of the opinion that a win is over or under valued. It's an opinion. There is no right or wrong answer, but it's not invalid to feel that a win should be worth a certain amount, as should a draw.

Under a system which has a higher win to draw ratio in terms of points, indeed, some may be encouraged to play more sharply. The reason is that you'll get more gain for the wins (which due to the risky nature of play, will probably increase as a result), and less pain for losses (which would probably also increase ), since it wouldn't be much better to get the draw anyway.

You say the best player will still win under any system. But what defines the best player? Who knows, if there was a 1, .75, .0 system maybe players like Petrosian would be considered best because they may do best under that system. Change the system, then maybe Kasparov is the best. But who then is the best overall?

I personally would love to see such a Rybka game. Of course I'm not going to sit down and watch it, but I would find such a game to be very interesting. Even better, make it Rybka vs Houdini! (of course, we don't have the technology to see the results of such a game as of yet)

friendjonny writes:

" It just comes down to whether or not you want to encourage perfect play or whether or not you want to encourage "sharp" play. I for one want perfect play to be encouraged. This is why I'm against over valuing wins."

What you say makes no sense.  Encouraging 'sharp' play has nothing to do with perfect play.  Perfect play can be sharp, at times, or not sharp.  Depends on the position.  Wanting perfect play to be encouraged means that you should probably find most exciting a game of Rybka playing itself in unlimited time controls.  is that what you really want?  That's what you are logically compelled to wanting based on what you say.

If a GM plays perfectly,  he'd win whenever the opponent makes even the slightest mistake.  Again, you make it sound like it's easy to simply play unsound chess, sac a piece recklessly, and still win against a 2700 level GM.  A GM playing perfectly against another GM who plays crazy sacs will win or draw.  So it is completely irrelevant to the question of whether you endorse the 3 1 0 system that you prefer 'perfect' play.  

When you write "over valuing wins" you are not saying something false in so much as you are saying nonsense.  It makes no sense to "over" value a win, if you agree, as you seem to, that the scoring system used is arbitrary.  you can only 'over' or 'under' value a win or a draw in comparison to a NON-arbitrary scoring system.  But since there is no non-arbitrary system, as you admit, then there cannot possibly be a system that 'over' or 'under' values wins.

Yeah, the point isn't whether or not 3-1-0 scoring is fair or not. Of course any scoring system is technically fair. It just comes down to whether or not you want to encourage perfect play or whether or not you want to encourage "sharp" play. I for one want perfect play to be encouraged. This is why I'm against over valuing wins. This is why I'm against the use of shorter time controls to decide the results of classical matches (the most recent world championship cycle was a disaster, not because of the draws, but because of how some of the matches were decided). Hoorah for perfect play!

Hmm... what to make of that

Well, Space Oddity, you probably would not make a good FIDE President  (although I don't know how much authority they have ) . Anyway, as I said, the problem is more that a system had to change, than the system itself. Personally, I would be mad if they added a new piece into the game as an official rule. It would be fair, but that doesn't mean you have to agree that it's the most appropriate thing to do.

So is that all you're arguing? That it's fair? Ok. But we are allowed to disagree with its appropriateness, if not fairness, right? Hopefully this place is a democracy

elubus,

people who say that we never really 'touch' are actually making a mistake on what ordinary language is, what words mean, and the nature between words and reality.  The fact that natural science can illuminate all sorts of things, does not mean that the ordinary use of the word 'touch' is being misapplied.  this is not a matter of what's 'practical', however, but a question on what's true or false, and, as I suggest above.  The natural science standard of 'touching' is different from that of ordinary language, and in fact borrows from it, so it cannot undermine it.  This is a tricky point.  In a court of law, you can't say, "well, I never punched the guy, because to punch, i have to make contact of my fist against his face, and according to physics, my fist can never touch is face to make contact.  So there was never contact and no punching."  That's a flawed argument based on a misunderstanding of the meaning of the words. 

The argument I proposed, and my manner of defending it, does not depend on the relation between natural science language and ordinary language.  Chess is a purely formal, logical game with a physical instantiation (in wood, plastic, played in space-time, etc), but the purely formal game and the purely mathematical scoring systems that we construct to reward winners, has nothing to do with natural science as well, and there is no problem in how we use language to understand chess.

I do not think that whether murder is wrong is 'subjective' and do not think the problem of what system to use is 'subjective' either.  I do think it is *necessarily arbitrary*, but that is distinct from problems of subjectivity.  There is murder as a LEGAL issue which is distinct from murder as a MORAL issue.  But that also has nothing to do with the scoring system debate.

Concerning the effects different scoring systems have on different styles--sure, some players will be disadvantaged, and other players will be advantaged by the change.  But a Kaspy or Rybka would still end up winning.  So what?

Same thing can be said about time controls.  Longer time controls favor some players, but not others.  Room temperature--I'm sure some players favor warmer temperatures than others.  so what?

The causal factors for why a system was established is distinct from its *justification*.  The cause could be that the tournament director was a drunk idiot, by the justification could be that the tournament organizers want to incentive decisive games for corporate sponsors who want to attract more attention to give players more money, to attract better players, to get more attention, to attract more consumers to their corporations.  But all that is irrelevant as justification for one system being INHERENTLY better than another (as opposed to being merely better for acheiving the goal of increasing profits).

So my arguments on this issue have nothing to do with any person preference I have, or might not have, concerning the value and excitement I perceive in wins and draws.  Who I am and what I like or dislike is irrelevant to the soundess of the arguments I've proposed.  They stand or fall on their own.