🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <50@cartan.Berkeley.EDU> desj@brahms (David desJardins) writes:
>In article <1715@emory.UUCP> riddle@emory.UUCP (Larry Riddle) writes:
>>[...]  However, if one player has a small advantage over the other in
>>serving efficacy, then this advantage gets magnified when considering
>>the entire set.  Which scoring system produces the least magnification?
>>Interestingly, the 9 point and the No-Ad systems are "best" in this

I'm not sure I agree with this. As anybody who's played seriously (!) knows,
there are a LOT of factors contributing to a victory than points. Tennis is
probably the most psychological game in the world, for example. A championship-
caliber player can be two sets behind and muster up the self-control and drive
to pull up and ahead and go on to win (jeez, I wish I could do that). A
lesser player tends to be psychologically cowed into concession. Uhoh.....I
made a mistake here... actually, I'm disagreeing with the guy who suggested
the system with the *greatest* magnification. At any rate two identical
scoring situations can (among many, many, other things) have drastically 
different results in terms of how the game progresses, thus rendering
statistical, pragmatic analyses somewhat inconclusive.

Ron Morgan

(whackTHUMPwhackTHUMPwhackTHUMP)

-- 
osmigo1, UTexas Computation Center, Austin, Texas 78712
ARPA:  osmigo1@ngp.UTEXAS.EDU
UUCP:  ihnp4!ut-ngp!osmigo1  allegra!ut-ngp!osmigo1  gatech!ut-ngp!osmigo1
       seismo!ut-sally!ut-ngp!osmigo1  harvard!ut-sally!ut-ngp!osmigo1