1176
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Duplicate Dominion, An Idea For Competitive Dominion
« on: July 15, 2011, 08:39:53 pm »
No, I guess we have a misunderstanding here. Bridge can be scored board by board, and so can any game you mentioned, I suppose.
For a single board, I believe Bridge is already the one which involves the least luck factor. Even so, (in duplicate situations) you cannot win every time. There are always decisions which are right for one distribution and wrong for the other. Still, it can only be more luck-dependent in games without dummies. This is simply the reason why I am saying that you cannot beat anyone with reasonable skill to the game 98/100. Now if you talk about a series of boards to form a match, I guess I could probably beat you in a 8-board session 100/100 of the time, given what I can read from your posts here.
Frankly speaking, after reading the rules for all the games you mentioned, I don't see how they are significantly different from one another. And bridge is just the even more scientific, complicated version of all of them. The only reason you would say that you can beat someone who is reasonable at bridge that much in a trick-taking game, I imagine, can only either be that you are only scratching the surface of the trick-taking games (i.e., thinking the average level of play too incompetent), or that you are trying to offend me.
Or maybe just some naive way of comparing the complexity: how much time do you think you need to get to the level you are at for those trick-taking games, when there is a teacher who knows all the techniques and will teach you everything he knows? For the game of bridge, I think it takes at least a year for an average guy to reach my level, if he spends, say, ten hours per week on the game.
For a single board, I believe Bridge is already the one which involves the least luck factor. Even so, (in duplicate situations) you cannot win every time. There are always decisions which are right for one distribution and wrong for the other. Still, it can only be more luck-dependent in games without dummies. This is simply the reason why I am saying that you cannot beat anyone with reasonable skill to the game 98/100. Now if you talk about a series of boards to form a match, I guess I could probably beat you in a 8-board session 100/100 of the time, given what I can read from your posts here.
Frankly speaking, after reading the rules for all the games you mentioned, I don't see how they are significantly different from one another. And bridge is just the even more scientific, complicated version of all of them. The only reason you would say that you can beat someone who is reasonable at bridge that much in a trick-taking game, I imagine, can only either be that you are only scratching the surface of the trick-taking games (i.e., thinking the average level of play too incompetent), or that you are trying to offend me.
Or maybe just some naive way of comparing the complexity: how much time do you think you need to get to the level you are at for those trick-taking games, when there is a teacher who knows all the techniques and will teach you everything he knows? For the game of bridge, I think it takes at least a year for an average guy to reach my level, if he spends, say, ten hours per week on the game.