Elliott C. Evans writes:
>Sure; OK; if everybody in the tournament agrees that none of them
>wants to actually win the tournament, this would work. I don't see
>it as highly likely, though.
It's in the microcosm that this kind of metagaming actually makes a
difference, I think.
In my fourth game of the Ice-offs, I had 2 wins, and was pretty sure
that double-winners were thin on the ground. In the game was another
double-winner, a single winner, and Josh Drobina (who had no wins)
So...what was, metagame, important, was that the single-winner not
win. As long as he didn't, there was a good chance that I'd make the
finals; if he did, I had to compete on score.
What actually happened was that I played my best game, and got timed
out during the attempt to rescue my iced defenders that I got from a
late deal with Josh D, leaving JD in posession of the field. But a
valid metagame (but to me, not a very fun actual-game) strategy would
have been to attack the single-winner mercillessly, not worrying about
anything aside from staying out of the icehouse and not letting him (?
I think so) win, on the grounds that short of winning myself, that was
the best way of making sure I'd make the finals.
--
Joshua Kronengold (mneme@(io.com, labcats.org)) |\ _,,,--,,_ ,)
--^-- "Did you know, if you increment enough, you /,`.-'`' -, ;-;;'
/\\ get an extra digit?" "I knew," weeps Six. |,4- ) )-,_ ) /\
/-\\\ "We knew. But we had forgotten." '---''(_/--' (_/-'