Dr Will Hatch two point oh wrote:To me, it's THE point. If someone's strategy would fail 9 times out of 10, I'd never go ahead and call them the "best" player. Certainly not over someone else whose strategy would succeed even just a slightly better 2 times out of 10. And certainly not over someone who wins 9 out of 10. It's too short-sighted.
However, i doubt someone will ever play 10 games of the Mole, Survivor,etc, so it's a moot point.
To me, when we're addressing "best" players, we're usually talking about the strategy and skills they bring to the table, and how they stack up compared to others. Who has something that, even before the game is played, gives them an edge? Something that empirical evidence will bear out as a more successful approach over time? Something not just long-sighted, but containing worthwhile meat for discussion, which "winner = best" does not bring at all.
Looking at a single data point gives no clue as to a player's long-term place in things... well, other than that their approach doesn't suck as much as someone who's approach will never win, no matter how many games are played (e.g. quitters). Even a broken clock is right two times a day.
And if, in your book, "best = most deserving", why do you think changing your question from "which player is best" to "which player is most deserving" is a meaningful rewording?
;)
