Handicaps (was: measuring)

Cutting to the chase:

Indy wrote:
> If you are knowingly handicapping yourself you probably should expect
to
> lose more than others for not. That's like being involved in a boxing
> match but tying one arm behind your back and expecting your opponent
to
> do the same....and if they don't, odds are they'll likely win (unless
> you're real REAL good!). 

Yes, that's exactly what I want! Perhaps the choice of words is not a
good
one (English is not my first language), but "handicaps" as rules are
meant
to level the playing field.

This is what handicapping is supposed to do -- it's the bad handicaps
that
just reverse the imbalance.

Assume I wanted to race with my friend, the carpenter. I have a car, he
doesn't even know how to drive one. Not much of a game there. I could
run
and he could take his bike -- but that wouldn't be much fun either.

So we agree to a rule/handicap "no wheeled vehicles", both run and we
have
a relatively even race.

A more FT example: Just assume requiring Official(tm) miniatures (as
some
tournaments already do...) -- would that not favor the guy with the
bigger
purse?

So you *all* agree not to require official minis. But saying Stan has to
buy 'em while Kenny can play with bottle caps 'cuz he's so poor... not
my
cup'o'tea.

> I don't see handicaps as a rule; I see 'em as a choice.

Erm... you're doing it yourself. By agreeing to go with pre-measurement
allowed as a rule, a person with superior eyeballing skill *is*
handicapping himself.

-- 
maxxon@swob.dna.fi (Mikko Kurki-Suonio) 	  | A pig who doesn't
fly
GSM +358 50 5596411 Tel +358 9 8092681		  | is just an ordinary
pig
Länsimetsä 3B1 02300 ESPOO FINLAND   Hate me? Try |	      - Porco
Rosso
http://www.swob.dna.fi/~maxxon/      hateme.html  |