Let me start by taking the blame for all of this getting aired on the forums. In short, I had the feeling that David Wells felt slighted on the Giants list after a couple posts like this one and this one. He was #134 the last list and #27 this list. I think those on the Giants list take it as a list of the best players and that's not currently what is written into how people should vote. It says on the flintbg site:
He asks them to rank the best players in the world, considering the level of their involvement with backgammon and their tournament skills over the past two years.
David's suggestion of money play is completely different from the Giants list. I could be completely off base, maybe he doesn't feel slighted or that he got the shaft. It's possible he doesn't give one damn where he ends up on the list, but that's not the feeling I have and he can certainly correct me if I'm wrong. So, to show the bg world how big his banana is he unzips and offers up this challenge.
The thing that grinds my marbles are people issuing challenges like this and then since nobody accepts they feel like, and perhaps in the eyes of others in the bg world, that person must be awesome otherwise why wouldn't people play him? For example, CMC posted "If noone accepts your challenge, then I think that speaks volumes about the respect the giants have for your game. And thus you ought to be placed a lot higher on the list than you currently are, IMO." I've mentioned before why I'd have a tough time playing Falafel .. the Falafelfish talk and terms. He wants to be able to bet on any play, which is okay for me but I think is a turn off for other players such as Neil Kaz. I don't think Neil likes to focus so much on his opponent's play and so such a bet with Falafel would hurt him. (again, always feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) I like watching and thinking about my opponent's plays but it would drag the games so much, esp. all the talk in between, that I'd rather not. I'll still make the normal bet on the match with Falafel as we always do, the bet on the PR which we always do, but the *Falafel challenge* I have to pass on.
Now David comes out and posts another challenge and again it chaffs my jigglies that I can't reply "why would I play you when our last session is still unsettled?" So I posted this reply that set things rolling. This was partially because of Memo #4 which you can verify with the time stamp and my signature.
When we started playing the first time we agreed that we would play for $X per point and settle up when we saw each other. I still have the screenshots somewhere as I always try to capture things like this 'just in case'. We played, clearly I was lucky to win as much as I did if our PRs were as close as David said. I saw him at a tournament here, a tournament there, never a word. I shouldn't have to bring it up.
I know some of you say that I could have just asked him about it, emailed him about it, messaged him on Gridgammon...and I could have. It's not worth it to me. It might be hard to understand but I don't want to be around the type of people who would forever dodge something like. (speaking in general) It is worth it to me to find this out and just cut such a person out of my life in a manner of speaking. Two real life examples:
I have two friends, long time friends, both going back to high school. I've loaned them both a couple/few grand at one point or another. They both live far away and we don't see each other but once a year, if that. When I talk to one of them before every conversation is over he brings up the fact that he owes me money and do I need it now and if I do he can figure something out.
The other person has never mentioned it once and it has been years. He has a real job, family, house, etc... but not one word. I don't understand this kind of thing.
Another side bar that I just remembered. One time in high school or maybe early in college I needed to borrow $400 from my mom. I don't remember what for, but she gave it to me of course. It wasn't more than 10 days later that I paid her back and it's one of the most surprised faces I've ever seen. Maybe she thought I'd pay her back but it would be a while or maybe that I would never even pay her back. She's a mom, sure that would have been fine, but the first priority on my list was paying back that debt.
There is a difference between people you know and people you don't when it comes to these situations and lots of other stuff worth rambling about but I have so much to shove into this post I think that's a good enough intro.
(Added later) I remember a bet I made somewhat recently with Jake Jacobs. I think it's the first time we ever made a bet, he will certainly remember that better than I. An early game (double 6s) position came up at 4a 3a where 4a was doubling. I was playing another Giant, can't recall who at the time, and he took. Somehow we got to talking about it and I told Jake and other Giant they were honkey donkeys for thinking that was a take. I bet each of them a bill a piece and Jake told me before I was off to check the bot (paraphrased) "The best way to let me know the results is to hand me a hundred." The next day when I ran into Jake he handed me the benji. This is how these things should work.
Now let's move on to a couple of good things that came out of all this mess.
- Bill Phipps posted! Now that he has a UN & PW perhaps he'll continue to post, maybe even on backgammon related material at some point.
Okay, I said a couple and I only came up with one. I swear at some point I noted something else good that came out of all this. Perhaps I'll run across it again before this post finishes.
Some noteworthy things addressing specifically this thread by Bill Phipps.
Bill is right to point out the difference between a 3.0 and a 2.5 are massive. The same can be said the further down you go. It takes little work to take someone from a 20 PR player to a 15 PR player. It takes who knows what exponential amount of work to go from playing a 3.0 to a 2.5. (or even a 4.5 to a 4.0, etc...) The better you get the fewer (big) holes there are to fill in your game. Once you get so low you've stopped all the major bleeding and improving further is a rough ride. I've always believed it can be done. This is one point where Falafel and I disagree. He said it's impossible and that we will never see anyone average under a 2 PR. I disagreed and told him if there was enough money in it I'd get under a 2 in a couple skips of a heart beat. If you don't believe it can be done, you've already partially defeated yourself from doing it.
I am happy David Rockwell pointed out my Nordic dmp results and some other donkey spoke up that I'm a dmp ninja. I played Bill some matches on Gridgammon for $$$ and I played well. The last thing I would want is for him to have any doubt especially since he paid for my dinner once in Vegas ;) If I am playing dmp for something that matters I expect those to be my PR results, anything else would make me a very sad panda.
One of the problems with promoting yourself as the best you are occasionally asked to prove it. (David Wells)
I don't think I've ever promoted myself as 'the best' unless you count me calling everyone donkeys and nexting every play under the sun. I've went as far as saying I'm among the best in the world and that was to people who don't even play backgammon.
Post by CMC! I, too, hope that one day I'll get around to writing a slew of bg books.
I think it carries a lot of weight when the top giants believe Stick is cheating. They play him a lot and they know his game. (CMC)
I don't play anybody a lot. In the last 6 months on Gridgammon I have played a grand total of 13 matches. Only 2 of them against a top giant, Falafel. I play all day every day but it's against XG. You could ask XG about my game.
I've always wondered if Stick used a bot in his online tennis matches? (Jake)
I do use assistance often when playing live any more. I have been sucking it up so much lately that my partner has to carry me more than usual in my doubles matches.
From another thread.
A funny thing also would be a matchbook. Stick playing live, wroting down his suggestions after every move, post mortem analysis added. This also would be his first book. I would buy it. (higonefive)
Excellent idea. Perhaps I could do it à la Gus Hansen and his book Every Hand Revealed. The tough part with bg is of course I'm on a time crunch, clock or not. I doubt any opponent or TD is going to sit around while I make notes or talk to a recorder between my plays. I would want it to be an important match too, not just some match I play to specifically make into a book.
It seems fairly clear that one of us plays better live than he does on the grid and one of us plays better on the grid than he plays live. (Wells)
I have the same quizzical look as Timothy. David, are you saying you play better live than on Gridgammon so we can expect you to average lower than 2.7 in a live money session? Now I really don't want to play you. (that's sarcastic fun in case anyone misses it)
Another thread from a student.
I give lessons to 4 people who are also on the forums. We often play out positions on the fly or play games/matches. I don't like to set up too many problems in general if I can avoid it. I love a problem to come up au naturel instead of putting it out there so that the student knows it's a problem. A perfect example of one of my play from here positions:
                   |
| ||||
| XGID=aBBBCCC-----------------a-:1:-1:1:21:0:0:3:0:10 | |||||
| Blue to play 21 | |||||
Now if I posted this in a set of problems I bet a lot more people would get it right than if it came up as a random roll. In playing out lots of positions and playing matches against people they see me play, they see me think, make errors and the rare blunder. As far as people go, they probably know how I play better than most people. I'm playing upside down and trying not to waste too much time on my own decisions (when playing against them) but when playing with them thoroughly going through the whats and whys of their decisions. What they can't see is me checking my second computer mwahahahaha. Then I still have to toss in some errors/blunders as they'll attest to as to not overdo it.
Also, as Ben will tell you as he's been to my house I have a laptop right beside my desktop computer!? Coincidence? I think not...
I will end this with one disturbing thing that was pointed out to me otherwise I would have glossed over it. David said this in one of his posts:
"Are you suggesting i was cheating you? Did you think that i was cheating you during the session? If thought i was being cheated i might feel justified in cheating as well. "
Are you really suggesting if you thought you were being cheated you might resort to cheating? That is ... just wrong.
To end this nobody get your hopes up about a Michigan challenge, it will not happen. It is next week and I haven't had time to even wipe my ass lately. The biggest pain of this post is that it took an hour out of my day where I would rather have been playing/studying backgammon then writing about drama. It may happen in the future, it would be good for the game.
Stick ... parlant en francais aux baleines.