|
BGonline.org Forums
Average number of games per match--more important information
Posted By: phil simborg In Response To: Average number of games per match (Terje Pedersen)
Date: Sunday, 24 April 2016, at 9:58 a.m.
It would be very interesting to see if there is a correlation between skill level and average number of games. Of course it would take a lot of sampling and a lot of study to determine skill level ranges.
My "gut" tells me that better players will play fewer games per match because they are less likely to lose their market and they are more likely to recognize when they are too good to double and will win more gammons. Even if my gut is right, I wonder if the difference is significant.
While this information is interesting, one must question why it is important to know this. A part of me says that any good statistical information has some value, but is it worth the effort?
There is other information that I would find much more useful. Namely, how long does the average match take with and without clocks, and how does that vary depending on skill level. This information would be valuable in the planning of tournament formats and timing and also will provide statistical evidence of the affect of using clocks.
If someone could compile this information, those of us who strongly favor clocks would have a better case.
Some of the doubles matches in Las Vegas were painful to watch, as many doubles matches are, and I believe that ruins the pleasure of the game for the players but certainly for the spectators.
I recorded the doubles finals on my laptop and it took over 1.5 hours for that 7 point match, and the last two games took FOREVER. I was streaming the match and I saw that people were dropping off. How good is this for the popularity of the game? I certainly don't blame the very fine players for taking a lot of time, because there were no restrictions and their opponents were also taking a lot of time, so why shouldn't they? But again, if we want to grow the game it needs to be fun for the players and spectators as well as a test of skill, and time management when there is a clock is itself a skill that makes the game more interesting and challenging.
I would love to see a study of how long doubles matches are with and without clocks, and I believe that would make a strong case for clocks in doubles.
This is not a new debate, and consistently I hear a huge majority of the players favor clocks...some even saying they will tend to stay away from tournaments that don't use them. Yet many tournament directors continue to not require clocks. I wonder why, if a large majority of players want something, it doesn't happen? I wonder what it takes to affect change? It is a mystery to me, but again, some good statistics to back up arguments would help.
|
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.