| |
BGonline.org Forums
Luck vs. Skill - Is A Rules Change Needed?
Posted By: Matt Cohn-Geier In Response To: Luck vs. Skill - Is A Rules Change Needed? (trichard)
Date: Thursday, 9 October 2008, at 9:27 p.m.
I could be wrong, but I get the impression that in recent years, more tournament matches are decided by luck instead of skill, or to put it another way, luck has become more dominant. The reason is that more players are playing at a very high skill level, thanks to the bots and forums like this.
I suppose this is probably true. If you entered a tournament in the 1970s where you were playing at a 6 and your competition was playing at a 16 you would have a much better chance of winning than if you play at a 2 and your opponent plays a 6.
Since the amount of improvement has a top limit (no errors), and practically speaking, no one is going to consistently play better than an ER of 3.0,
I don't believe this is true. I am getting fairly close to 3.0, although I'm not there yet. From what I've seen of some really exceptional players (Neil/Nack/etc.), I would guess that they play at a 2.0 or below on average, if you were to roll everything out.
matches are being decided by the dice, most particularly by jokers. And since most jokers are the rolling of doubles, I have come to believe that a rules change is in order.
Matches are always decided by the dice. Do you have statistically significant evidence that most jokers are doubles? What about anti-jokers?
Specifically, what if the rules were changed so that doubles would only give you two moves instead of four? Wouldn't this in itself reduce the incidence of jokers and make skill a greater determinant of match outcomes?
I don't see why. Just because you don't have doublet jokers doesn't mean you don't have jokers.
Shouldn't the very best in any competition win more often than we are seeing in backgammon today?
Does this question require an answer? Suppose it were to be "No."
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.