| |
BGonline.org Forums
STic vs FT--Answer to "How fast"
Posted By: Phil Simborg In Response To: STic vs FT (Stick)
Date: Tuesday, 2 January 2018, at 8:54 p.m.
Of course it is only conjecture and my opinion, and of course it depends on the individual, but assuming that someone was a relative beginner when he/she started, and assuming "greatness" means playing as well as a top 32 Giant, here are my guesses:
First, I am making an assumption that 20 years ago a top 32 Giant played under what we now call 5.5 PR and the very best players played from 4.5 to 5 PR.
Today I would say at top 32 Giant would have to be under 4.5 PR and we know that the best are playing around 3 PR.
20 Years ago I would have said that from beginner to Giant, for a really talented player working hard at it could become a Giant in about 5 years. And that would be someone who pretty much ignored school, work, and family (like a Stick or MCG) and was truly dedicated to deliberate practice. And, I have never known a really great backgammon player that wasn't very smart to begin with.
Today, I think 2-3 years is possible.
In recent years I have seen many of my and other BLC students go from over 8 PR to close to 5 PR in 2 years. (One or two did it in about a year.)
A couple of them have been pushing the 4PR line within another year or two, and of course, we know that going under 4PR takes at least a few more years for just about anyone.
I believe we know WHY people are getting better faster now: XG is a big part of it. But we do have better tools (formula, concepts, references, rules-of-thumb); more good books; more good articles; and more good teachers, (much of which is a by-product of XG).
Will these timelines continue to shrink? Of course they will, but not as fast as they have in the past 20 years, because regardless of the resources, it simply takes playing experience as well as deliberate practice to learn and absorb the tools and reference positions and be able to apply them properly.
One thing that skews the comparison to now and the past: the Giants of the past played a very high percentage of their matches against mediocre players, while the Giants of today are pretty much playing opponents who are not that much worse than they are. I believe that this is one of the reasons why the Giants of the past did not play at lower PR's...they didn't need to and because they were often playing far worse opponents, they were correct to adjust their games accordingly in ways they would not do today. So I actually give more credit to the greats of the past, even if their PR's tend to be much higher than the greats of today.
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.