From: maboyiny@ccvax.as.edu.tw (Bo-Yin Yang)
Subject: Re: Winning isn't everything
Summary: Yes it is, sorry, pal.
Originator: boyiny@kovalevskaya
Reply-To: boyiny@math.mit.edu
Organization: The Cosmic Titan
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 23:55:27 GMT

(Melvin H. Nicholson YBH) writes:

>[Lasker]: "From a lost position there are no wrong moves"
>
>If a person did make a move which hurt my position to the point where I
>had little or no chance of winning, and then is surpised when my forces
>do not blindly attack "the leader" but appear on his border, then
>accuses me a being a "spoilsport" I must disagree.

_If_ you did have some appreciable chance at winning _AND_ you are
demonstratably decreasing this chance by making this attack, then
I say yes, indeed you are being a spoilsport.

>The concensus on board seems to justify the notion that "if it helps
>you to win, it's okay" and the inverse "if it doesn't help you to win,
>it is WRONG.  This is too simplistic.

How so?

>The problem is the sort of player who tries to manipulate this sort of
>rule to his/her own ends.  Examples are a bit hard to provide, 

I don't see why "manipulating" a rule in order to win is wrong.

>but the idea involves a situation where player A, who wants to win, make a
>very devastating attack against player C, leaving B in the lead, A a close
>second, and C a far third.  It is unrealistic to ask C in this situation
>to attack B "becuase he is the lead" or to promote balance and such.

No, it may be inhumane, but perfectly _REASONABLE_, assuming that
C indeed has some chances left and attacking A will result in a
better chance of victory than attacking B.

>C is perfectly justified in attacking A rather than B, ... because A DESERVES
>to be attacked.  This is simply a matter of retribution and justice.

No one _deserves_ to be attacked.  To play any position with
sportspersonship (for lack of a better word) you need to determine if,
given all the information you have on the game, you _just_came_in_ as
a replacement who used to be an interested observer, you'd still have
made the same attack to increase your chances.

It is human to be vengeance-minded, and in small doses it is probably
tolerable, but to throw away any chance at winning (even, say, 1%)
just to extract vengeance is unethical and spoilsport-ing.

>In the example I cited, if player A had turned a close ABC race into
>the situation above, and then counted on C's action as part of A's
>own "winning" strategy, we might (and I actually have) heard something
>like "well I would have won if you had played right."  In that case it
>is the person being suicided against who is the "spoilsport" and not
>the one making the attack.

I have to disagree.  A sport never bear grudges.

I will recount a story from a friend who likes to game: in one game
two players A and B were tightly deadlocked over a vital area, and B
knew that if he ceded any ground there A was likely to immediately
gain a dominating position.  Another player C mounted a surprise attack
against B (backstabbing is the common term) and ate up a lot of the
territory just behind the bone of contention.  To his credit, B _HELD_
his troops where they were and let C took over half of his territory, and
eventually most of the load for holding A at bay.  Eventually with some
(very) good luck B came back and scored a very satisfying _WIN_.

I think that is the correct way to play: be nice (like not taking
advantages of fingermahler or obvious oversights) but be as cutthroat
as possible in playing style (on the board, or whatever).  ALWAYS play
to maximise the chance of winning.

>In short, getting along with the other players is an integral part of
>playing any game

I don't see why; I expect to play the same way with everyone provided that
they are logical players, and I try very hard to avoid unsportspersonlike
people...  If I get backstabbed, I won't bear grudges, and neither should you.