[blml] Disclosure f2f

[Brian]

On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 10:09:10 +0900
Robert Geller <geller at nifty.com> wrote:

>  
> >> >*** What aspect of F2F is necessary for improving?
> >> >
> >> >Raija
> >> 
> >> Playing against strong players under supervised conditions.
> >
> >All right, Bob, I'll ask the obvious question. Why supervised
> >conditions? You'll find more than enough strong players online, are
> >you really suggesting that they'll all cheat if there's no
> >supervision? 
> 
> You'll find strong players playing practice matches online.  
> Obviously there's little or no incentive to resort to
> less than fully ethical tactics in a practice match.  

I find that a very sad statement, Bob. Yes, I know everyone has their
price, but mine (the only example available to me), is a damned sight
higher than winning a bridge tournament. Even so, let's take your own
opinions as fact for a minute. If strong players are playing honestly
online because there is no incentive to do otherwise in a practice
match, then surely that contradicts your original claim that supervised
conditions are necessary for players to improve. You can't have it both
ways. 

> But you won't find any serious tourneys involving major
> competitions being played online (for obvious reasons).

Programming has been my living for the last 20+ years. I'm well aware
of the ways that you CAN cheat, if you want to do so. I can even think
of one or two that wouldn't occur to the vast majority of people. 

> (There are of course oneline vugraph broadcasts of major f2f events,
> but that's a separate matter.).
> 
> I don't play online myself, but from reading electronic bulletin
> boards, cheating by low level players seems to be a major concern.
> The authorities seem to be doing the best they can to police it
> using hand records.  But until this problem can be solved (if
> it ever can) it's
> unlikely any country or zone will hold a national or zonal
> championship online.   If you know of any that have been
> held please let me know. 
> 

Yes, cheating is a concern, just the same as it is in F2F bridge. And
yes, it's easier to cheat in online bridge. But I'd be wary of believing
everything you read on mailing lists and newsgroups. My experience is
that there are a few VERY vociferous witch-hunters out there (and I
could mention names) who seem to believe that everyone who can cheat
will do so. Except for themselves and their friends, of course. (John
Mayne, if he's reading this, will have a good idea who I mean). 

No, I'm not aware of any national or above championships being held
online. I think it will be a long time before that will happen, even
if online bridge could be made totally secure. BBO does have their
"money bridge" feature, where two of you play for money with robots
(GIB) as partners. That seems a scenario in which it's at least
difficult to cheat. I have no interest in playing some primitive
bidding system with a robot as my partner, and I think a substantial
number of online players would share that view. 

> Ordinary players are unlikely to be invited to practice against
> Meckwell or the like in their online exhibition matches.

Sure, if they've got a set game for practice, you aren't going to get
to play. Set games are that, by definition. If you work your way up to
be good enough, you'll get games against better and better players. It
just won't happen overnight, or anywhere close to it. 

> If you want to play Meckwell, pay your 20 bucks or whatever
> and enter an f2f event they'll be playing in.
> 

Right, and seven boards against them (let's assume you pick a team
event, and get lucky) is going to teach you what, exactly? I'm not
arguing with you that playing against better players is the way to
improve, not for a moment. I *am* maintaining that you have far more
chance to do that online, even if it takes you a *LOT* longer until
you get games against the really top level. If you think the odd few
boards against an expert pair really confers that much benefit, you can
always look at the online mini-tournaments, there are certainly enough
of them. 

> In order to really bring out one's best, a competition
> has to be for somethng meaningful.  Like honor (a national
> or zonal or world championship), money (cash prizes),
> or at least an ersatz substitute like masterpoints.  

The only two online bridge sites on which I've played (BBO and
OKBridge) both offer, or used to offer, tournaments with
ACBL masterpoints. Not much use to those in other countries, of
course. And OK, I accept that you belong to that group of players who
need an incentive to "really do their best". Maybe that's true of
*really* good players. I have no claims to be an expert, just a decent
club player, but I know that I don't play any differently online than I
did in the F2F tournaments that I entered in the UK. 

> If
> online competitions involved one or more of these then
> the competitors would be just as serious as they are
> in major f2f events.  But in the absence of one or
> more of these motivators, it's just a pleasant way to spend time.

See above re master points (personally, I never saw the value of them
anyway, other than to the NBO). And I think you're guilty of assuming
that your own motivations apply to everyone. Some of us are happy
playing a "serious" session and coming out of it feeling that it's been
an intellectual exercise, and happy that we did the best that we could.
I don't need some number against my name on an NBO database to justify
those feelings. 

> I'm not saying it's without value in improving one's game,
> but it's the difference between an exhibition game in baseball,
> or an NFL preseason game or a friendly match in soccer versus
> a competition that counts in the league standings.
> 

We will have to agree to disagree.

If you go on to a site and look for three pickup players to start a
game, then you might be right. If you have a regular partner, and
play in set games against other regular partnerships, then the
competition can be just as hard as if it was a tournament, particularly
if the players concerned all have competitive natures. 


Brian. 

--