A few years ago, a playing-card manufacturer with the experimental cooperation of some open-minded card rooms introduced four-color decks with great fanfare. A couple of weeks later the experiment ended, and the opinions were analyzed. People just weren't ready for blue clubs and green diamonds. Personally, I'd be for any improvement that would facilitate the ability of people to see cards at the other end of the table. (Not self interest, I've been blessed with eyesight in the top 1%). If anything, I think it'd be a great idea to change the shapes of the suits to say, squares, stars, crosses and empty circles. That would make it easiest to differentiate from ten feet away.
Now, imagine a course of history where decks of cards had always been four colors. Would anyone every propose experimenting with making the clubs the same color as spades and diamonds the same color of hearts? No, of course not.
Now, imagine that when you first joined NSA, you learned that rating changes were calculated as K x (win expectancy differential) + .01 (spread) . Would this seem so weird to you? I don't think so.
It seems that many issues that would lend themselves to analysis without regard to the historical path leading up to the time the decision was made are instead analyzed with a bias due to path dependency.
I can imagine someone trying to take this line of thought to an absurd extreme, so I'll trot out my own counterexample where I don't think this reasoning applies (i.e. the issue IS path dependent):
"Imagine a course of history where DA, DEI, DES, VIN, VINS and VON were not acceptable Scrabble words. Would anyone be clamoring for their introduction. No. Of course not." (Well, maybe DA)
I think the difference is that we've already played with these words for many years and removing them will cause pain. Certainly an historical path deterministic issue.
Before saying "Let's leave well enough alone" regarding everything, we should ascertain whether the issue is historical-path dependent and what the ramifications are for upsetting the status quo. I just don't see fine tuning the ratings system as disruptive as removing two-letter words.
Last Modified 9/24/00
Back to Scrabble Correspondence Page
Back to Scrabble Main Page
Back to Jim's Main Page