9 replies. Last post: 2012-07-09Reply to this topic Return to forum
I was already a long time planning to suggest this:
When you have a 5 point match in EinStein, 5 games should start simulataneously... you have to play them anyway. At the moment both players scored a point, the 6th match should trigger, and so on.
It would make the 50-points matches a bit more tasteful.
note that in the end a decisive game would only be triggered at the end of the penultimate game, so it remains a real final in close games.
Smart, but maybe just a bit crazy too!
And flawed – who starts the 2nd and subsequent games? That can’t be known until the prior game is complete.
Not flawed at all...
the first games can perfectly be started half by the one player and half by the other. (with the one more for the player that would have started in the ordinary setting ‘home’) and than alternating
It does make a difference in games ending at 50-25 (In which case 49 would have started by the last player and 25 the first, and one by the ‘home’ player)
But in the long run (games that last until the final, it would always end up with a 50-49 start, which ever ruleset your take). In other words, the fact the loser takes the first move in the next game is an easier rule to program, but has no real importance.
I support this.
I consider anything that makes a 50:0 result take 75 frames to decide a flaw.
I don’t see at all why my algorithm would take 75 frames to decide a 50-0, unless you found a way to proof that EinStein is guaranteed second player win. That would be a huge game-theoretical result :-)
I support this.
Well, let’s see how long a 50 point game, human vs. human, takes on average. I’m well into my game against the super-fast Jonny in the invitation (the password protected tournament), for instance. I expect the open tournament to take much longer due to the notorious slow players, but I don’t think it will be 10 years.