I thought this deserved a thread of its own, because it demonstrates
the kind of mentality involved. Stick wants me to put up about $200
or so to play a best of 101 nine point matches, plus small stakes per
match, presumably. This is in the context of my present opinion, that
is, he (and others) think that I am not as good a BG player as M.
Petch because he had a lower error rate, despite the actual results of
a best of 7 (fifteen pt. matches). Until all can agree on a
demonstration of the accuracy of this claim, there can be no
resolution, which is why I've asked how many 9 pt. matches would have
to be played against MP in order for me to demonstrate that I am
superior. So far (I may not have read the latest post) nobody has
been willing to choose a number, not even 1001. If this is the case,
then what they are saying is that BG claims can never be demonstrated
empirically, and that everyone must accept GNUBG's (or similar
software's) *****sment. This I find beyond ludicrous, and I'm willing
to "put my money where my mouth is."
Now, as to Stick's offer, there are obvious problems, and if he is as
great a BG player as he thinks, it's bewildering that he's not smart
enough to know these things:
1. If he plays much better than I do, there is no point to his offer,
as I've said in the past that my strategy/techniques are not
necessarily going to work against those who play on a "world class
level" or thereabouts.
2. The amount of money we play for is irrelevant to him, if his main
concern is demonstrating something about BG. As I've said, I think I
play my best in 9 pt. matches for a Euro, so according to Stick's way
of thinking, this would be the best format, but he insists that it is
too little a sum. Thus, Stick has mixed motives here, and that
invalidates this proposal (see below).
3. In the past, I've pointed out that I play nearly evenly against
GNUBG in 5 to 7 pt. matches. Obviously, over the long haul, GNUBG
should win more, but luck is a very big factor. This has been pointed
out by Stick and others, and so what would a best of 101 demonstrate?
If I won against Stick, it's "luck" once again (assuming his error
rate is better). I said I'd play MP a huge number of 9 pt. matches,
over the course of a year or longer, if we could all agree on the
elimination of luck. Stick won't do this because he wants to play for
"big money."
4. Lastly, and most generally, I've said at times that I thought I was
a near "world class player," meaning that I was in the next tier.
Obviously (to those with normal minds), I could be wrong (or I could
be better than I thought). I've pointed out to Stick and others that
BG today is not worth my time to become any better than I am now. If
BG changes (online or OTB), then I'd reconsider, and I might spend
more time on the game. These opinions are not relevant to the key
question, which is how many 9 pt. matches are needed to demonstrate
that one player is better than another, even though the winner has a
higher GNUBG error rate (in this case, about 50 points)? Thus, my
sense is that minds are getting clouded by factors that are clearly
unrelated to this question, and so responses that do not address it
(in this thread) should be viewed as nonsense that they are. If Stick
is provided a great deal of entertainment value, "more power to him,"
but if he states "ROTFLMAO," and does not answer this question, he is
at least demonstrating his inability to focus on a simple,
straightforward question that a BG player of his ilk should be
enthusiastic about answering with depth and clarity.
|
