From: jbw@ponder.csci.unt.edu (WEST JASON BRUCE)
Subject: Re: Being a Master?
Organization: University of North Texas, Denton
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 09:16:29 GMT

In article <BzA2CF.H7C@news.cso.uiuc.edu> skillian@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Seth James Killian) writes:
>jnishina@nyx.cs.du.edu (John Nishinaga) writes:
>>operbwt@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu (Barry Trottier) writes (in partial):
>>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.
>
>		Seth Killian

   I agree with Seth's definition.  It is not enough to have perfectly
executed moves and "flawless" strategy.  Take, for example, football.
The score is tied, both teams are equal, both coaches are awesome, and
every play is execute perfectly.  It's fourth down at the 50.  
   They run.  Stupid move, they shouldn't have done that. But, it works
and they win.  This is true in all sports.  It is beyond "mixing it up"
 and simply being "unpredictable".  It is doing the "unthinkable", meaning
if you were to list the top 5 things this guy *should* do, you wouldn't
even bother to write it down because "nobody would do that now."  Then
he does it and you lose.  

Ciao...



                                                       - Jason


>
>>--
>>John Nishinaga - jnishina@nyx.cs.du.edu


Newsgroups: alt.games.sf2