| |
BGonline.org Forums
We need to define what we are measuring before collecting statistics
Posted By: David Rockwell In Response To: Factors for Tournament Attendance (2) (Bill Riles)
Date: Tuesday, 6 October 2009, at 12:53 a.m.
In order to set a good criteria for being allowed to play in intermediate, I think there needs to be a concensus on why a player would not be allowed to play. I can think of two reasons. Perhaps someone else will have a third. They are:
1. A player is too strong for intermediate.
2. A player has taken sufficient money out of the intermediate prize pool that it is time for them to step aside and let the other intermediates have a chance.
I think there are important differences between the two criteria. In the last day or so, Richard Munitz mentioned how he became a world class player while he wasn't playing in ABT events. He would have been barred from playing intermediate under criteria #1 (had anyone realized his strength). He could have played intermediate under criteria #2.
On the other end of the spectrum, imagine that there is an intermediate player who isn't strong enough to beat Stick's cat. But, somehow this player cashes frequently enough to fail criteria #2. We have seen some examples like this, even in the Open Division. This player would be allowed to continue playing intermediate under criteria #1. But, he or she would be disallowed under criteria #2.
If you want to measure something, you must first decide what you are trying to measure. I would like to hear some opinions - why should a player be disallowed from playing intermediate?
Here are some thoughts Tak Morioka had on the subject 20 year ago.
http://www.chicagopoint.com/tak23.html
http://www.chicagopoint.com/tak16.html
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.