3 ms·

No. They are used because you can decide Best of N players in N-1 games. They are used in sports where the games are long, exhausting (a single player can pla

No. They are used because you can decide Best of N players in N-1 games. They are used in sports where the games are long, exhausting (a single player can play only a few of them in short time) and needs a non-trivial infrastructure (think tennis court vs chess board)

eru 4y ago
You can declare someone to be best of 'Best of N players', but that only really applies strictly if player skill can be ordered linearly and outcome of games is basically a deterministic comparison of skill. However you are right in general that player exhaustion and logistics play a part as well.
- kuboble 4y ago
  I was not precise. I didn't mean that it can determine the best player according to any reasonable metric but that it can determine a tournament winner at all.
  - eru 4y ago
    Oh, yes, definitely. I agree. We just need to keep in mind that the 'tournament winner' is mostly there for entertainment (both of the audience and of the participants), and doesn't necessarily correlate all that well with 'absolute best player overall'.
    - kuboble 4y ago
      I think it's a bit more than just entertainment. By creating a big prize (either money or prestige) you create incentive to win and the new definition of best shows up (the one most likely to win this title). And even in the same sport you can have conflicting goals. E.g. should one try to maximize chance of winning a single prestigious event or get equally good results through the whole season? At the same time I like analyzing the tournaments from the perspective if the best team (according to a criterion that either players or spectators care about) has the highest chance to win. Knockout tournaments have this property usually.
      - eru 4y ago
        > At the same time I like analyzing the tournaments from the perspective if the best team (according to a criterion that either players or spectators care about) has the highest chance to win. And I declare that 'liking' to be 'entertainment'. Might be a pretty broad definition of entertainment.

eru 4y ago

You can declare someone to be best of 'Best of N players', but that only really applies strictly if player skill can be ordered linearly and outcome of games is basically a deterministic comparison of skill. However you are right in general that player exhaustion and logistics play a part as well.

kuboble 4y ago
I was not precise. I didn't mean that it can determine the best player according to any reasonable metric but that it can determine a tournament winner at all.
- eru 4y ago
  Oh, yes, definitely. I agree. We just need to keep in mind that the 'tournament winner' is mostly there for entertainment (both of the audience and of the participants), and doesn't necessarily correlate all that well with 'absolute best player overall'.
  - kuboble 4y ago
    I think it's a bit more than just entertainment. By creating a big prize (either money or prestige) you create incentive to win and the new definition of best shows up (the one most likely to win this title). And even in the same sport you can have conflicting goals. E.g. should one try to maximize chance of winning a single prestigious event or get equally good results through the whole season? At the same time I like analyzing the tournaments from the perspective if the best team (according to a criterion that either players or spectators care about) has the highest chance to win. Knockout tournaments have this property usually.
    - eru 4y ago
      > At the same time I like analyzing the tournaments from the perspective if the best team (according to a criterion that either players or spectators care about) has the highest chance to win. And I declare that 'liking' to be 'entertainment'. Might be a pretty broad definition of entertainment.