Quote:Wrt smileys, it's often difficult to discern a writer's tone in an off-the-cuff internet communication, hence some people use smileys simply to avoid the possibility of any misunderstanding. I think this can be a good thing, if applied intelligently.
The alternative, unstated, hypothesis, that Americans are a bunch of #@$s, is thus impossible to infer from the data, and awaits further tests
Well, it is quite possible that Americans are indeed a bunch of #@$s, but I doubt that many Americans would come here if that topic were very frequently being discussed. I admit that we are playing a rather obnoxious role in world affairs just now, but ours is not the only nationality about which pejorative generalizations are possible.
As for John Cox's speculation that the presence of substantial cash awards in U.S. tournaments creates an incentive for cheating, and a corresponding hyper-sensititivity to its possibility, I am quite doubtful. There are actually very few events here offering cash prizes that could be considered glittering, so this could hardly account for a national predisposition. Further, it is speculation that only cash, and not glory, could serve as an incentive for unethical conduct. Most chess players that I know want to win very, very badly, even if there is no very big prize at stake. Finally the theory does not explain why cheating does not arise in all chess events offering very substantial rewards, not only American ones.
One assumption that seems implicit in Cox's treatment of this question is that, of course, strong players would never cheat. I can see no possible basis for that. They probably would not cheat against a weaker player, but even then, I could imagine a case where a very difficult, theoretical position has been reached, with which the weaker player appears to be highly familiar, and with which the IM or GM is not. I can imagine that there might exist the tempation to excuse oneself and go consult one's sources. But leaving that aside, I can see no possible basis for assuming that a strong player might not decide to cheat against another strong player.
Indeed, it seems to me that part of the indignation that many people have over Topalov's complaint in Elista (for example; the Taylor case is analogous, however) is that the mere suggestion was made that Kramnik might have been cheating. But to prevent impropriety is precisely why we have many of the rules of chess and associated rules governing chess matches. If it were understood that, of course, everyone is a veddy sporting Eeenglish gentleman and a d---d fine trout fisherman, we could toss out the rules and play all our matches on a friendly basis, couldn't we? But since we understand that human nature is what it is, and the corresponding need for rules of this kind, we should never object when a player -- whether Topalov or some kid from New Jersey -- excercises his right of complaint under any given rule. It absolutely undermines the rule of law to reply to a player's complaint with, "What, look! This dog says that the Great Stromboli is cheating!!!"
Someone higher up this thread says that it is disengenuous to say that if a complaint under the rules might seem to suggest that someone is cheating, it is not an accusation of cheating. But the rules exist precisely to create a formal distinction between these two things. It is because we have the rules that we would not countenance anyone's jumping up and shouting, "You're cheating!" All he needs to do, instead, is to make a formal complaint under a given rule. And this same formality is what should make it possible for the players to continue respectful relations, regardless of the outcome of any given complaint. If we erase this distinction, we open the door to recrimination and, essentially, anarchy in chess. Or still worse, a system where players who happen to be strong can do whatever they like.
Pages: 
Taylor's so-called Kafkaesque Experience (Read 35214 times)
