On July 07 2012 06:03 CosmicSpiral wrote:
[quote]

Win one GSL and suddenly you're the best player in the world. Good logic. I remember when the thread monsters were slobbering all over Jjakji because of one fantastic run. Where did his other championships go?

No, win 4 GSLs and you're the best player. That's the point, just because he doesn't win every single tournament he enters doesn't mean he's suddenly not the best player anymore.

He isn't the best player anykmore because he cannot consistently beat everybody else, which is what the best player does. Honestly it's embarrassing when people just call x or y the best player, do they understand how utterly dominant you must be to be considered for the title? Mvp doesn't possess that dominance anymore.

I don't think this holds. At any one time, someone must be best (by definition), even if we can't clearly tell who. However, it is not given that at any one time someone must necessarily dominate everyone else. Whatever happened to the first-among-equals situation?

That's a false assumption. "Being the best" is a judgment call created by people based on outside evidence, not some intuitive ranking system that naturally exists. If there is no sustainable argument for any single individual then nobody occupies that position. Right now anyone can trash anyone in the KR scene and they are doing it on a regular basis.

But there is an objective ranking system. Let's say a hypothetical N-round robin involving every player played under identical and simultaneous conditions. Of course this is not realisable, but that's not a problem. I put it to you that as N goes to infinity, the winner of such a hypothetical tournament will be stable, e.g. P(this player winning) will approach 1 as N grows.

That doesn't still prove anything since part of labeling someone "the best player" is succeeding despite circumstances.

Prove what? I'm not trying to prove anything.

I also disagree with this labeling. Best simply means best. Not dominant, not succeeding under these or those circumstances, simply best on average, period, end of story.

You said that the hypothetical situation could identify the best player in the world by placing everyone under identical and simultaneous conditions. My objection is that such a situation would only prove who is the best player in the world under those conditions.

You disagree with my assertion yet agree with it immediately afterwards. I don't get it.

Why would you need to qualify "best" according to conditions? I think they are self-evident: room temperature, quiet, equipment and set-up according to personal preference, zero lag, both players awake and alert. Did I forget something? Of course the best player under subzero temperatures and howling blizzard might conceivably be someone else, but I don't think that's very relevant. Instead I would introduce a matchup parameter, if anything.

*shrugs*

You also have to consider the context of the match. Some players thrive under the Bo1 format, others prefer preparation-base tournaments like the GSL, more can grind out compressed tournaments like Antec Attack or MLG. And what about circumstances outside of the match, etc.?

Iyerbeth

England2410 Posts

July 06 2012 21:52 GMT

#3788

On July 07 2012 06:51 Iyerbeth wrote:

Show nested quote +

6HTs move away from army and get EMPd and killed for no losses.

MVP engages the aarmy of NightEnD and gets another massive concave. Kiting Zealots away with one part of the army.
MVP ahread 40 supply.
NightEnD loses 3rd but has taken right side base near natural.