| |
BGonline.org Forums
Follow the bots' advice # 1 RO # 2
Posted By: Timothy Chow In Response To: Follow the bots' advice # 1 RO # 2 (Stick)
Date: Tuesday, 20 May 2014, at 2:38 p.m.
Stick wrote:
Like many things I think when I see weird things in posts it doesn't really matter but why wouldn't I just set up a 16 point match with one player being 3a?
That is in fact what I would do if I were setting it up myself. However, since gudgen made a mistake the first time, I figured that mentioning a 16-point match might cause confusion.
Other examples of random things that don't really matter but I think somehow they do are not listing the moves in the correct order (like the bot does) eg: 11/7* 24/23 instead of 24/23 11/7*
There is no correct order. Get over it.
or saying "I would make the 4pt" when you really mean "I would make the 21pt".
This can be confusing sometimes. At other times, it is convenient to use "4pt" to refer to the 21pt. For example, Nack's rule of thumb that "either 5pt beats either 4pt" doesn't have the same ring to it if you say, "either the 20pt or the 5pt beats either the 21pt or the 4pt." Referring to backgames as "22-24 backgames" or holding games as "21pt holding games" as you sometimes like to do is, I think, more confusing than helpful. For most people, it's more immediately obvious which point is the 4pt than which point is the 21pt, and it's also obvious that if I'm playing a "1-3" backgame, I'm not sitting on my own 1pt and 3pt waiting for a shot, so there's no danger of confusion. On top of that, the usage is well-established, which would be an argument in favor of it even if it didn't make logical sense. Who, for example, is going to follow Paul Weaver and refuse to post "rollouts" but only "rollout results" or to refer to "match equity tables" as "match probability tables"?
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.