| |
BGonline.org Forums
Janowski Rule
Posted By: Chuck Bower In Response To: 2 away 2 away Score -- Idea (Rick Janowski)
Date: Monday, 26 August 2013, at 5:19 p.m.
It occurs to me that this more interesting version of 2 away 2 away (in my opinion) could be incorporated into normal tournament backgammon by simply killing the cube at this score. If either of the players wins one point, the resulting score is treated as a Crawford score.
I had to reread the initial (thread-starter) post because of Phil calling this 2-away,2-away Crawford, which it's not. (Crawford only happens once per match.)
It's easy to say that if someone disagrees with a proposal that they are simply biased against change. Similarly, it's simple to say that if someone is in favor of a new rule then s/he is simply biased toward change. These are both equally faulty conclusions.
It's also common (don't know if it's a cultural thing or human nature) for people to go after a proposal/idea/thought with a negative comb and fail to simultaneously look for (or point out) the positive. Now if someone wants to accuse me of that, then I accept.
I like the idea that this doesn't impact the MET. That alone is positive (or should I call it a non-negative?). My listed concern regarded length of time it takes to complete a match, but primarily (as can be deduced from my rant) an unclocked match. We all know (or should know) that digital clock rules (unlike its predecessor) don't limit the length of a match. But empirically they seem to do a very good job of that the vast majority of the time. Thus I'm willing to risk the outlier of the Janowski Rule holding up the (half- :) bracket enough to rescind my concern for events where clocks are required. Unfortunately, even after the progress Mary has mentioned, we seem to have hit a plateau regarding clock usage in the US. (Or maybe it's just events that I attend -- hope to be shown I'm wrong.)
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.