Harleqin wrote:I hate this attitude to discussion. It is my opinion, yes, but I am not the only one, it is a well founded opinion, and other opinions do not have better arguments. So, it is not my opinion "only" any more than your opinion that it were my opinion only that it were your opinion only that it were my opinion only. What was your argument again?
My argument was: You are not the tournament director, so your opinion has little weight, as does mine. If the organisers wish for this as a tiebreaker, and the participants are happy, then it is a perfectly acceptable tiebreaker. Other opinions than yours obviously do have better arguments than you accept to their minds, else their opinion would change to yours. People have different priority values. This as a tiebreaker also encourages a lot of good habits, such as trying to count accurately and play the most precise moves possible regardless of whether they are winning or not. I'm not advocating it as better, I would prefer not to have it as a tiebreaker, but if other people prefer its pros to its cons, it is at least a valid tiebreaker.
This is not a discussing designed to reach a "right" answer, as there isn't one. If you don't like the fact that all aspects of this discussion are, in effect, a subjective outlook on competitive priorities, then sure, be annoyed by it, but that doesn't change the fact that this argument is not something that can be objectively won.
Harleqin wrote:With such a tiebreaker in place, a player might decide that 100% losing by 1 point is better than taking a 50/50 risk of winning by one or losing by 40 points. That is absurd.
He might, but the value of the win is more than 1000 tiebreaker points differences, so I suspect in reality this doesn't happen.
Harleqin wrote:Well, who are the Romans here? The problem is that many beginners have this misconception about scoring that maximizing the score were some kind of secondary goal. It is not. You either win, tie, or lose.
The Romans in this case are the tournament participants. If they like the idea, and tracking score / maximising wins / minimising losses appeals to them as part of the attraction of a first Go tournament, then it's their right to do so. A more traditional tiebreaker may not be as exciting for them. There is no right or wrong here, just different depending on what priorities are being sought.
@Sink:Likewise, if you'd rather tiebreak on blitz games, that's fine too - actually, tiebreak matches I think are the ideal tiebreak system if time constraints don't prevent them from being played
