|
Re: Thoughts on CoOpertition
There is at least one other ranking system for sporting events that incorporates the relative strength of the opponents. I'm thinking of the international ranking system for chess players. Each match of each tournament is played between two ranked players and results in the alteration of their rankings based on the outcome. Beating a stronger (higher ranked) player will increase your rating but losing to a weaker player will decrease your rating. The amounts of increase and decrease depend upon the difference in ratings of the participants at the time of play. For a grand-master to win a tournament with all other players as experts means less to his/her ranking than winning a tournament with many closely rated players.
I won't explain the system further, but I can assure you that spectators at a chess match of any significance all understand the process of ranking nearly as well as they appreciate the playing being exhibited. You can appreciate the ratio of complexity between the game of chess and the game of breakaway, I think. It has been pointed out in this thread and elsewhere the widespread lack of understanding about the game of Breakaway among the very people trying to play it. The ranking system component of the game is certainly one of the confusing factors for would-be players but not the only one.
I strongly suspect that beakaway as a game has seen its day. In less than a year, I doubt that there will be even one event featuring it as part of the proceedings. To the extent that my prediction may be true, further study and analysis of the game will only be useful in appreciation for the matches already played and recorded. Such study will only be useful in some general sense as it might possibly apply to some future game. Perhaps its short life expectancy is the very reason those who should study the game decline to do so. However, the seeding system may see some further use for a future game or two or many. That makes it worthy of some study about its workings and utility.
Any commentary about likes and dislikes about the seeding system are largely a waste of time and effort. As are statements and posturing about how I will never enter combat with the intent to lose. Ask any novice chess player about the concept of Queen sacrifice to hear about the utility of such pre-game statements. In fact, making pre-game pronouncements about your style of play may even make it easier for your opponent to defeat you. I only have to know how much my opponent treasures his Queen to chase her all over the board, fortifying my position to the detriment of his.
What we really need to do is to convince the team members that they need to understand the game completely to play it well. We could make a "perfect" robot that would surely perform miserably at the hand of incomplete game understanding. Six weeks to make a robot should be accompanied by six weeks of concentrated thought about how the game should and will be played. We can also hope for some preliminary game understanding that will guide the robots' construction. Else, we'd end up with the proverbial one-legged players in an a$$-kicking contest.
|