Tab. I Day IV (e). J and R must be paired together, though they have a common superior.
Tab. I. Day IV (e). M is First-prize-man.
Tab. I. Day V (m). R and f must be paired together, though they have a common superior. J is `odd
man'.
Tab. II. Day V (m). R is now the only man with one superior, and is therefore Second-prize-man.
Tab. I. Day V (e). J and f contend for the Third prize.
If this Tournament were fought by the present method, the 4 Prize men would be C,M,V,f: f would get the
2nd prize, and C and V the 3rd and 4th: i.e. the 5th best man would get the 2nd prize, and the 14th and
11th best the other two.
5. An equitable system for scoring in matches.
In order to make `matches' more equitable, I propose to abolish `sets' and make a `match' consist of `games'.
Thus instead of `best of 11 games = set; best of 5 sets = match' (i.e. he who first wins 6 games wins
a set; he who first wins 3 sets wins a match), where a player may win with as few as 18 games, and
must win with 28, I would substitute `he who first wins 28 games, or who gets 18 games ahead, wins
the match.' I therefore propose as follows: `For a whole-day, he who first wins 28 games, or who gets 18
ahead, wins the match: for a half-day, he who first wins 14 games, or who gets 9 ahead, wins the match.'
TABLE I. (Pairs.)I.(e) | II.(m) | (e) | III.(m) | (e) | IV.(m) | (e) | V.(m) | (e) | A}* | A} | C}* | C} | C} | M} | M}* | R}* | J}* | B} | C}* | G} | M}* | V}* | f} | f} | f} | f} | C}* | E | M}* | V | J}* | J}* | J} | J} | | D} | G}* | R} | f}* | a} | V} | R}* | | | E}* | J} | V}* | A} | L} | R}* | | | | F} | M}* | Y} | J}* | g}* | g} | | | | G}* | P} | a} | G} | R}* | | | | | H} | R}* | f}* | L}* | c} | | | | | J}* | S} | A}* | R}* | | | | | | K} | V}* | E} | S} | | | | | | L} | W} | J}* | Y} | | | | | | M}* | Y}* | P} | a}* | | | | | | N} | a}* | L}* | g}* | | | | | | P}* | c} | Q} | T} | | | | | | Q} | f}* | S}* | c} | | | | | | R}* | g} | W} | | | | | | | S}* | B}* | Z} | | | | | | | T} | D} | c}* | | | | | | | U} | F}* | g}* | | | | | | | V}* | H} | B} | | | | | | | W}* | K} | F} | | | | | | | X} | L}* | T}* | | | | | | | Y}* | N} | d}* | | | | | | | Z} | Q}* | h} | | | | | | | a}* | T}* | | | | | | | | b} | U} | | | | | | | | c}* | X} | | | | | | | | d} | Z}* | | | | | | | | e} | b} | | | | | | | | f}* | d}* | | | | | | | | g}* | e} | | | | | | | | h} | h}* | | | | | | | |
TABLE II. (Superiors.) | I.(e) | II.(m) | (e) | III.(m) | (e) | IV.(m) | (e) | V.(m) | (e) | A | ... | C | ... | J(M) | | | | | | B | A | (C) | g() | | | | | | | C | ... | ... | ... | M | V(f) | | | | | D | C | B(A) | | | | | | | | E | ... | G | A(C) | | | | | | | F | E | (G) | T | | | | | | | G | ... | ... | C | L(M) | | | | | | H | G | F(E) | | | | | | | | J | ... | M | ... | ... | ... | ... | R | ... | Pr.III. | K | J | L(M) | | | | | | | | L | M | ... | ... | ... | g(f) | | | | | M | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | Pr.I. | | | N | P | Q(R) | | | | | | | | P | ... | R | J(M) | | | | | | | Q | R | ... | L(M) | | | | | | | R | ... | ... | M | ... | ... | ... | ... | Pr.II. | | S | ... | V | ... | R(f) | | | | | | T | S | (V) | ... | g | | | | | | U | V | T(S) | | | | | | | | V | ... | ... | ... | f | ... | J(M) | | | | W | ... | Y | S(V) | | | | | | | X | W | Z(Y) | | | | | | | | Y | ... | ... | V | a(f) | | | | | | Z | Y | ... | c(V) | | | | | | | a | ... | ... | f | ... | J(M) | | | | | b | a | d(c) | | | | | | | | c | ... | a | (f) | ... | R | | | | | d | c | (a) | (f) | | | | | | | e | f | h(g) | | | | | | | | f | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | M | R | J | g | ... | f | ... | ... | ... | R(M) | | | | h | g | (f) | d | | | | | | | |
6. Concluding remarks.
Let it not be supposed that, in thus proposing to make these Tournaments a game of pure skill (like
chess) instead of a game of mixed skill and chance (like whist), I am altogether eliminating the element
of luck, and making it possible to predict the prize-winners, so that no one else would care to enter.
The `chances of the board' would still exist in full force: it would not at all follow, because a Player was
reputed best, that he was certain of the 1st prize: a thousand accidents might occur to prevent his playing
best: the 4th best, 5th best, or even a worst Player, need not despair of winning even the 1st prize.
Nor, again, let it be supposed that the present system, which allows an inferior player a chance of the
2nd prize, even though he fails to play above his reputation, is more attractive than one which, in such
a case, gives him no hope. Let us compare the two systems, as to the attractions they hold out to (say)
the 5th best Player in a Tournament of 32, with 3 prizes. The present system says, `If you play up to
your reputation, your chance of a prize is about ¼th; and even if, by great luck and painstaking, you play
2nd or 3rd best, it never rises above a half.' My system says, `It is admitted that, if you only play up to
your reputation, you will get nothing: but, if you play 2nd or 3rd best, you are certain of the proper prize.' Thus,
the one system offers a chance of ¼th, where the other offers nothing; and a chance of a half, where the
other offers certainty, I am inclined to think the second the more attractive of the two.
|
|
|