Breaking a match into smaller sets: Another advantages
Posted By: Bob Koca In Response To: Breaking a match into smaller sets: Another advantages (AP)
Date: Tuesday, 27 August 2013, at 7:48 p.m.
In Response To: Breaking a match into smaller sets: Another advantages (AP)
"The increased complexity of the cube decisions combined with the limited post-Crawford distortion should increase the edge of the stronger player"
I would trust empirical study or possibly bot vs weaker setting of a bot here a lot more than educated guesses. I am not convinced at all that either of your arguments are correct. With the 3 smaller matches I can easily see as true that there likely are more Crawford or post Crawford games played overall, more games which reach DMP which ends further cubes, and more games where the cube decisions depend only on the current win chance and not on gammons or future cube power.
Also for comparison it is not clear what value of x makes an x point match equivalent to best two of three seven point matches and as others have already pointed out even if average time is the same the greater variability of 2 of 3 is also important.
If the goal is to give a tournament format that greater rewards skill given a time constraint is it good to waste information? Losing 2 of 3 is better than losing in straight matches. If the average time approach does favor shorter matches maybe the right idea is for Swiss tourneys to play 7 pointers instead of 9 allowing for more rounds and one more loss before elimination.
Messages In This Thread
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.