|
Hi guys
Jul 14, 2007 23:38:58 GMT -5
Post by ExDeath on Jul 14, 2007 23:38:58 GMT -5
I play this game sometimes.
|
|
|
Hi guys
Jul 16, 2007 9:27:29 GMT -5
Post by toyotami on Jul 16, 2007 9:27:29 GMT -5
Welcome to the forum. I have a question for you, Taliesin, Slartucker and Yaron. At the level you play, is it only luck that seperates you. If the the 4 of you played 100 games round robin, will it come down to 50/50's and psychology?
|
|
|
Hi guys
Jul 16, 2007 10:21:57 GMT -5
Post by ExDeath on Jul 16, 2007 10:21:57 GMT -5
Sounds like a question rife with flamebait potential, so I'll avoid saying anything too controversial here. Yes, it does come down to 50/50s, but not just guessing correctly so much as analyzing the risks involved with each scenario. The games would never be split because I think the better player always has at least a 66% edge, even if he is only very very slightly better. I think the biggest factor is simply who's at the top of their game, practiced, undistracted, at that particular moment.
When I was #2 behind Taliesin, my game was at a much lower level than it is today (although his hadn't fully evolved either). He studied the game far more heavily than I did. Today, I don't feel that anyone could come back and beat me more than 25% of the time. Why? Because I've been playing, I've been studying other peoples' games daily and following them on my whiteboard; it would take a good deal of time for anyone to reach my level of practice. You need to practice to be good at anything.
The outcomes of high-level games (and btw, I do consider you high-level) are decided by many different things: tempo, timing, risk/reward analysis, psychology, real-life distractions..not luck..there is no such thing as luck in the long-term. But the error in your question is when you say "the level" as if there is only one. Even among the best players, some play at a higher level than others...
|
|
|
Hi guys
Jul 16, 2007 10:33:17 GMT -5
Post by Slartucker on Jul 16, 2007 10:33:17 GMT -5
It definitely isn't only luck. Mostly it's very subtle advantages in the sophistication of our understanding of spellflow that magnify themselves over the course of a game; and alternately though less frequently, greater creativity in devising new weaves. Taliesin is clearly the best of the bunch. I believe the only warlock who ever had consistent success against him was Prioli, and that was both brief and prior to Taliesin's last and strongest appearance on RBW. Certainly Taliesin had an edge against all three of us individually. Yaron and I were always exceedingly closely matched. We frequently mirrored each other's moves and had similar strengths (i.e., absurdly rigorous analyses). In our case it might come down to luck -- but just as easily it might come down to which of us had invented a surprising new weave. ExDeath tended to lose to Yaron back in the day, or so I've heard, and I've taken a few games off him as well; but he seems to have become a more formidable opponent now, maybe due to the white board analysis he's taken up. I'm not sure how he would compare to Yaron and me in a round robin but I suspect it would be very close. So the trash talking currently in my RBW profile is of course just that, trash talking
|
|
|
Hi guys
Jul 16, 2007 10:42:27 GMT -5
Post by ExDeath on Jul 16, 2007 10:42:27 GMT -5
ExDeath tended to lose to Yaron back in the day, or so I've heard You heard wrong. But anyway, my point is that you don't compare Babe Ruth with Barry Bonds. They lived in two different eras. Babe Ruth had the benefit of having weaker pitching to feed off of, while Barry Bonds has the advantages of steroids and longer seasons. You can't ask fantasy questions like "who would beat who if both were in their prime?" because that will never happen.
|
|
|
Hi guys
Jul 16, 2007 10:51:50 GMT -5
Post by Slartucker on Jul 16, 2007 10:51:50 GMT -5
Yes, that's a very good point.
I notice you changed your mind about Taliesin being able to beat you now...
|
|
|
Hi guys
Jul 16, 2007 10:57:40 GMT -5
Post by ExDeath on Jul 16, 2007 10:57:40 GMT -5
No no, I just edited my post for the sake of clarity. What I was trying to say is that for him to beat me, he would first have to take some time to shake his rust off. I edited that out because it didn't seem relevant, but, anyone could beat me consistently if they practice more than I do..it's not about who's inherently more skilled.
|
|
|
Hi guys
Jul 16, 2007 11:08:48 GMT -5
Post by Rycchus on Jul 16, 2007 11:08:48 GMT -5
It's not just practice. I'm sure there are scores of players who you can beat who've played more games than you. Dubber and Alaric are well-known as the players with the most games, but they're not top of the ELO charts, are they?
|
|
|
Hi guys
Jul 16, 2007 11:13:25 GMT -5
Post by ExDeath on Jul 16, 2007 11:13:25 GMT -5
It's not just practice. I'm sure there are scores of players who you can beat who've played more games than you. Dubber and Alaric are well-known as the players with the most games, but they're not top of the ELO charts, are they? Hmmmm...no, I never said it was just practice, but playing games and studying/thinking about the game are two different things too.
|
|
|
Hi guys
Jul 16, 2007 17:29:33 GMT -5
Post by freesoul on Jul 16, 2007 17:29:33 GMT -5
Yeah, i definately don't have the patience to map out plays too much... or spend much time studying or analysing someone's spellflow. Although, when I first started, Tchichi was at the top, and I remember studying his spellflow thouroughly to get the hang of a advanced technique and style. I attribute this to why I boast a winning record against him... otherwise I'm too lazy to try to claw my way to the top rungs
|
|
|
Hi guys
Aug 18, 2007 23:40:23 GMT -5
Post by Dubber on Aug 18, 2007 23:40:23 GMT -5
Hmmmm...no, I never said it was just practice, but playing games and studying/thinking about the game are two different things too. I'll expand on ExDeath's point here, too. Alaric & I don't really practice, we merely play. There was a time, during Taliesin's resurgence, when I actively tried to learn from playing him in more vfs than I can count and thinking about the why behind the choices. As of this writing, ExDeath's profile says "last beaten by Dubber"; I think, however, that he was actually defeated by ExDeath. I was playing my (at least lately) usual reactive game and had a very solid run of good (lucky?) calls against shadow-casts and actual-casts. My weaves left me in great technical positions in ExDeath's analyses and my unorthodox, low probability follow-ups to these calls seemed to gall him. Taliesin & Slartucker (and anyone with a good grasp of game theory and probability) generally can take me apart, and make it look sufficiently advanced that I call it, like magic. The trick is to play lots of games *and* think/study the decision trees involved in making the optimal move against what has already been thrown. I, like Freesoul, am just to intellectually lazy about Warlocks to rejoin the top players union anytime soon. Maybe if work starts to become a drag again or if the League (and related RP) gets going again...
|
|
Derfel
Ronin Warlock
Did I Do That?
Troublemaker
Posts: 283
|
Hi guys
Aug 21, 2007 9:43:54 GMT -5
Post by Derfel on Aug 21, 2007 9:43:54 GMT -5
Babe Ruth had the benefit of having weaker pitching to feed off of, while Barry Bonds has the advantages of steroids and longer seasons. Oh sheesh... now I have to start taking steroids to be able to beat you folks? *sigh*
|
|
|
Hi guys
Aug 27, 2007 14:17:39 GMT -5
Post by ExDeath on Aug 27, 2007 14:17:39 GMT -5
Hmmmm...no, I never said it was just practice, but playing games and studying/thinking about the game are two different things too. As of this writing, ExDeath's profile says "last beaten by Dubber"; I think, however, that he was actually defeated by ExDeath. I was playing my (at least lately) usual reactive game and had a very solid run of good (lucky?) calls against shadow-casts and actual-casts. My weaves left me in great technical positions in ExDeath's analyses and my unorthodox, low probability follow-ups to these calls seemed to gall him. Actually, if I were to name a reason, it's the fact that we were playing ParaFDF and I had only played FDF once before. Never again, either.
|
|
|
Hi guys
Aug 27, 2007 21:05:35 GMT -5
Post by xade on Aug 27, 2007 21:05:35 GMT -5
Free, Dubber, and Toyo (yeah, you.). A testament to how a low tech approach (just using your head for each turn) ain't that bad. Sure, I am prolly never going to be great through this approach, but ..., I have fun playing. One day I've have time to sus it all out properly, but until then, I'll still be entering my moves first thing in the morning rush, still be sneaking in moves quickly at work, and I like to think, still be one of the best of the also-rans...
|
|