| |
BGonline.org Forums
Sportive Cubing
Posted By: Bob Koca In Response To: Sportive Cubing (Phil Simborg)
Date: Friday, 30 November 2012, at 1:29 a.m.
I don't like the proposed no overage change. My reasons for this are given below and are not due to it being new (which has been implied is the reason the vast majority of top players would never accept it).
i) Suppose a player gets down say 1a - 9a. That could happen in one single game. The player will be expected to play it out but how enjoyable is it to have a 1 out of 256 equity?
ii) If there is indeed a comeback from such a deficit it would be a super long match. Are you prepared to make tournaments last longer or play to a smaller match length to accommodate that rule?
iii) I don't accept the idea that it leads to the better player winning more often. The better players know how to take effects of gammons and recubes into account. Cubes at many scores, 3a 5a for example, would lose much of the richness which makes them difficult under the no overage rule.
Also consider a 5 point match in which one player gets out to a 4 - 0 lead. Suppose there is a +100 Elo difference. According to the Jacobs Trice MET the better player has a 52% chance at DMP, 17.5% chance at 5a - 1a Cr, and 86.2% chance at 1a - 5a Cr. With the no overage rule the win chances at 5a -1a would be 3.8% for the better player (rule costs him 13.7% MWC) and 2.5% for the weaker player (costs him 10%). The rule costs the leader quite a bit more and this was for only a modest skill difference. That should easily more than balance the idea that the better player is more likely to reach that 1a 5a score. Note that the ratio 13.7 to 10 is bigger than the skill difference gives at the beginning of the match of that at the beginning of the match of 56% to 44%.
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.