"Bernie Cosell" <bernie@fantasyfarm.com> writes: > In the interest of spaking as much creativity [and angst..:o)] as > possible, I think that publishing the hole-leaders reveals too much info > [e.g., John Doe now knows that he's beaten on 1 but the-best on 3,4,5, > and so can focus SOLELY on finding a trick to shave 1, rather than having > to look _everywhere_ to cut strokes]. > > Instead, I think that just publishing the aggregate best-score is the > right amount of info to disclose: It lets the leaders know that there are > *better* solutions to some of their holes than theirs, but not give > ANYONE a hint about where to look to shave the strokes... [actually, > this isn't *quite* true, but to first order it is if it is not updated > too often]. What is currently blowing my mind is that Eugene is only leader on one hole. Wonder what the 'best of breed' score is. -- Piers "It is a truth universally acknowledged that a language in possession of a rich syntax must be in need of a rewrite." -- Jane Austen?Thread Previous | Thread Next