During the match the players get tired and lose their strength. You have to select a model for the decline of player's strength. My suggestion would be exponential decay. A player with weak body has a larger decay constant, which means that they lose their strength faster.

(a) it remains the case that the reason for insisting that the challenger should win by 2 points in a Fischer format is obscure, whereas in a fixed-length match a tie is an inevitable possibility that has to be dealt with somehow. I.e. <ugh>'s point about 'unnecessary' unfairness still seems valid to me.

(b) I think I asked at some point above whether for a match of given length, one format would be clearly fairer than another. From your numbers, if I'm getting this right, it appears that a fixed-length match will almost always be fairer than a Fischer match of the same expected length, at least for the parameters you examine. (A higher draw percentage has an ambiguous effect on this, as it reduces the fairness of a fixed match of given length, but it also increases the expected length of a Fischer match). So if there is an expected-length constraint, it will always be fairer to use the Fischer system.

<that the challenger should win by 2 points in a Fischer format is obscure, whereas in a fixed-length match a tie is an inevitable possibility> True, in Fischer's format the 9-9 rule seems artificial, sort of like the en-passant rule. Although like the en passant rule it wasn't just plucked out thin air, there is a logic behind it.

Again though, I'm just concerned with comparing the fairness of two formats. It's another question which rule set is more aesthetic--and you shouldn't let that determine which one is more fair. As I showed, for some parameters the Fischer format, with all of its ugliness, is clearly more fair.

<I think I asked at some point above whether for a match of given length, one format would be clearly fairer than another. From your numbers, if I'm getting this right, it appears that a fixed-length match will almost always be fairer than a Fischer match of the same expected length> More or less true. A lot of the Fischer format's fairness derives from the enormous length of the match. <So if there is an expected-length constraint, it will always be fairer to use the Fischer system.> I think you typed that backwards by accident? If your time is limited then Fischer's system is not for you.

<Of course the fairest system of all, in your sense, would be a simple unlimited first-to-n-wins format.> That would be one of them, as it's 100% fair, and so would a fixed length match with a tie-breaker system, or a "first to pull ahead by 2" format, or 100 other formats that don't contain tie-clauses.

Today's song is by Rebekah Del Rio, performing a spanish version of Roy Orbison's "Crying", which is called "Llorando".

http://www.rebekahdelrio.com/audio/...

I skipped a day, so this a two song medley.

This is a bluegrass jam-band called "Leftover Salmon" playing "Alligator" and "When You're a Viper".

This is another novelty song, in fact I think it's supposed to be an education song for kids, but in any case it's really well done. It's called "The Bloodmobile" by They Might be Giants.

Here's a whole bunch of MP3s from my part: http://www.scene.org:8080/~radix/mo...

Here's a genre we've yet to cover ... FUNK! In the world of funk, one man's name stands above all others as the supreme grandmaster of the art: George Clinton. This is "Flashlight" performed by Parliament.

This is a Miles Davis song from the Gil Evans big-band days (the late 1940's) when he was the front-man for the nonet. It's from the famous "Birth of the Cool" album and called "Boplicity."

http://www.valleyjazz.net/Resources...

The line-up on this track:

[Event "?"] [Site "corr IECC M"] [Date "????.??.??"] [Round "2"] [White "Burrell, Edward"] [Black "Fortunato, Michael"] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [ECO "D85"] 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.d4 g6 3.c4 Bg7 4.Nc3 d5 5.cxd5 Nxd5 6.e4 Nxc3 7.bxc3 c5 8.Rb1 O-O 9.Be2 cxd4 10.cxd4 Qa5+ 11.Bd2 Qxa2 12.Qc1 Qe6 13.Qc2 Qc6 14.Qd3 b6 15.Rc1 Qd6 16.O-O Ba6 17.Qe3 Bxe2 18.Qxe2 a6 19.Rfd1 a5 20.Qb5 Rd8 21.e5 Qe6 22.d5 Qf5 23.Bg5 Nd7 24.Bxe7 Re8 25.d6 Nxe5 26.Nxe5 Bxe5 27.Qxb6 Kg7 28.d7 Rxe7 29.d8=Q Rxd8 30.Qxd8 Bf6 31.Qd2 a4 32.Rc4 Qb5 33.Qa2 a3 34.Rc2 Qb4 35.h3 Re1+ 36.Rxe1 Qxe1+ 37.Kh2 Qa1 38.Qc4 Qd1 39.Re2 Bb2 40.Qb5 Qd4 1/2-1/2