From: jnishina@nyx.cs.du.edu (John Nishinaga)
Subject: Re: Being a Master?
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 21:46:27 GMT


skillian@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Seth James Killian) writes (in partial):
 
>jnishina@nyx.cs.du.edu (John Nishinaga) writes:
>
>>operbwt@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu (Barry Trottier) writes (in partial):
>>
>>>What makes one a master at SF2 or SF2CE?
>>>
>>>Could you masters out there please explain!
>>
>>Alas, a master by *MY* definition is a person who consistantly plays
>>"perfect" games.  "Perfect" games are those where the player does everything
>>he is supposed to do and times everything correctly.  Thus, all counters are
>>done at the proper distance, all potential throws are always done, and
>>patience is a virtue.  The determining factors between two masters is
>>usually who is quicker and luckier.
>>
>>It's very difficult to be master of a single character, much less a total
>>master of the game.  I personally screw up (mis-time) too often to be labled
>>as a master, even though I do know the most, if not all the counters for my
>>characters.  (Simply knowing what to do isn't enough -- you need to have to
>>good timing/reflexes.)
>
>        I must disagree here.  While doing everything you are supposed to and
>        knowing all the counters along with an excellent sense of timing are
>        certainly a part of it, we have a _lot_ of these types at UIUC.  You
>        can watch them play a "perfect" round, they will not have made any
>        mistakes that you could name, but they will lose.  Case in point:
>        Master Sagat's tend to be the ones who do all their moves seemingly
>        perfectly, they do not throw FB foolishly, they have excellent
>        timing, and the "deep" TU as well as mastery over any other technique
>        you could concievably test for.  I can beat these guys with Ryu, who
>        IMO, is at a character disadvantage in this match up.  How?  I think
>        there is a certain quality of utter unpredictability which is
>        essential to win consistently.  A lot of Guile's are perfect pattern
>        Guile's (this is not so much to say that they play a set pattern,
>        they are just unimaginative) they land combo's perfectly, they know
>        all the spacings and priorites, yet sometimes you may see somebody
>        walk in and trash them.  What did he do?  It is very difficult to put
>        your finger on, but I think it is just a sort of "craziness".  You
>        should see some of the places like this.  You go in, and everyone is
>        nearing perfect executin of every technique, matches are always
>        close, and a couple of them are just slightly better than the others.
>        I have an easy time with these types in general, for no reason I
>        could ever hope to put into words.  This has not been very coherent,
>        I just thought I had to say that total mastery of techniques and
>        perfect timing alone do not a master make.
 
Then, what does?  Does the style make a master, or does the master make the
style?  As far as I'm concerned, being a master is not being able to beat
everybody, but being fluent with that character.
 
I guess in your terms, a "true" master would be the person who also has the
perfect style, whatever that would be.  Yes, the "perfect style" is what I'd
like to see be discussed here.  After all, how many *&#!^ing combo's can you
talk about?
 
To get the ball rolling...  what is the best style for Ryu vs. Ryu?  Should it
be constistancy or randomness?  A mixture of both?  What situations does it
depend on?  What, if any, risks are you supposed to take, and when?  Let's see
if any of you "masters" know the answer to that.  (Be verbose!)
--
John Nishinaga - jnishina@nyx.cs.du.edu
Newsgroups: alt.games.sf2