BGonline.org Forums

Let's Be Consistent -- An Error is an Error

Posted By: Bill Riles
Date: Monday, 20 July 2009, at 7:58 p.m.

I am personally amused by those rationalizing mistakes.

Some advocate that Mochy shouldn't be tagged for a bad cube because he got a bad drop. (It seems most of the rationalization and wished compromise of errors come from, or for, the 'world class' players.) -- And before anyone jumps my case, I don't know Mochy, have never met Mochy, and have not heard Mochy comment on the subject. My impression, based on what I've heard of him, is he personally would not advocate such.

If we wish to have an 'objective' measure of skill then the measuring stick should be the consistent -- for all, at all times.

How many times have any of us played on for a gammon, achieved it, and got tagged for 8-10 cube errors in a row for not cashing for a point? Should those errors be discounted because we achieved our goal of a gammon and were rewarded with two points rather than one? It might be nice, but I don't think so.

If one's objective is to play a perfect error rate -- do so. If another's objective is to play to win the match -- do so. Those objectives at times are compatible, at times they are not.

I've always maintained a bot evaluation/grading/rating (call it what you may) is but indicative of skill and good play. But it is not the Holy Grail. We play a game, we don't practice a science.

It is a game that includes a good deal of skill; however, it also includes, dice, gamesmanship, imagination, innovation, creativity, psychology, emotion and countless other attributes.

As in most sports, there are great players and there are winners. Few are both, many are neither, and some are one or the other.

I futilely strive, as we all do to varying degrees, for playing perfection. To approach perfection doubtlessly enhances the probability of winning. But at the end of the day, would I rather play perfectly or would I rather win the tournament? I'll let you hazard a guess.

Messages In This Thread

• Let's Be Consistent -- An Error is an Error
  Bill Riles -- Monday, 20 July 2009, at 7:58 p.m.
  • Let's Be Consistent -- An Error is an Error
    Coolrey -- Monday, 20 July 2009, at 8:39 p.m.
    • Let's Be Consistent -- An Error is an Error
      Matt Cohn-Geier -- Monday, 20 July 2009, at 8:50 p.m.
      • Let's Be Consistent -- An Error is an Error
        Carter Mattig -- Monday, 20 July 2009, at 9:30 p.m.
    • Let's Be Consistent -- An Error is an Error
      Bill Riles -- Monday, 20 July 2009, at 8:52 p.m.
      • Let's Be Consistent -- An Error is an Error
        Steve Mellen -- Tuesday, 21 July 2009, at 12:32 a.m.
        • Let's Be Consistent -- An Error is an Error
          neilkaz -- Tuesday, 21 July 2009, at 8:49 a.m.
          • Let's Be Consistent -- An Error is an Error
            Marty Storer -- Tuesday, 21 July 2009, at 5:53 p.m.
        • Let's Be Consistent -- An Error is an Error
          phil Simborg -- Tuesday, 21 July 2009, at 12:08 p.m.
          • Let's Be Consistent -- An Error is an Error
            playBunny -- Tuesday, 21 July 2009, at 12:33 p.m.
          • ER scale linear?
            Chuck Bower -- Tuesday, 21 July 2009, at 1:27 p.m.
            • ER scale linear?
              Maik Stiebler -- Tuesday, 21 July 2009, at 7:53 p.m.
    • Let's Be Consistent -- An Error is an Error
      Barry Silliman -- Tuesday, 21 July 2009, at 12:13 a.m.
  • Let's Be Consistent -- An Error is an Error
    Matt Cohn-Geier -- Monday, 20 July 2009, at 8:45 p.m.
    • Let's Be Consistent -- An Error is an Error
      Carter Mattig -- Monday, 20 July 2009, at 9:27 p.m.
  • Let's Be Consistent -- An Error is an Error
    Rich Munitz -- Monday, 20 July 2009, at 9:51 p.m.
  • Let's Be Consistent -- An Error is an Error
    Matt Cohn-Geier -- Monday, 20 July 2009, at 9:53 p.m.
  • Let's Be Consistent -- An Error is an Error
    garyo -- Tuesday, 21 July 2009, at 2:52 p.m.
  • Let's Be Consistent -- An Error is an Error
    Marty Storer -- Tuesday, 21 July 2009, at 5:48 p.m.