(Why did you post this to rec.games.chess.politics?
It has nothing to do with FIDE or USCF politics.)
zox625@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>If we agree that owning a 2-cube has the same theoretical
>meaning at owning a 4-cube or 16-cube (or whatever level)
Are we allowed to factor in human psychology, or are we
assuming a perfectly rational player? To a real human,
there is an intangable value to seeing which way the
game goes, and a variable cost to making a bet that
approaches his net worth.
Even assuming a perfectly rational player, he has a finite
net worth, and thus a point comes where he *must* resign
rather than accept the double even though he has a 90% plus
chance of winning, because he cannot cover the bet.
That being said, none of the above assumptions leads to an
infinite number. A bet that is twice what he can afford to
cover is the same as a bet that is four or eight times what
he can afford to cover -- none are attanable states. Thus
the doubling cube itself does not make backgammon infinitely
long / unsolvable.
--
misc.business.product-dev: a Usenet newsgroup
about the Business of Product Development.
-- Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/>
