Numeracy and Fairness (was Worldscale again and again)

From: jamesjhawkins <James.Hawkins_at_...>
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 11:07:50 -0000

Here's a fuzzier way to approach the question of worldscale, lifted from a book about Deep Blue: (There're a couple of questions at the end, to which I'd like opinionated answers.)

Take the worst chess player in the world. Call their skill level zero.

Now take the player who is just good enough to beat the worst player every time. Call this skill level one.

Etc. level N is a player just good enough that they always beat a player at level N - 1.

(The bods who're interested apply this to all kinds of games, taking the level number of the best player in the world as an indication of how difficult the game is. IIRC the best chess player in the world is around level 30, and the best go player in the world around 40.)

This analysis could be applied to the HW system quite easily if we can answer the following questions:

How much higher target number means you "always" win a Simple Contest?

How difficult is (for exmaple) hand-to-hand combat, running etc?

I don't consider that this is about Simulationism, I think it is about Numeracy and maybe Fairness.

Cheers all,

sjjh