From: George Jost <gjost <at> CA <dot> NEWBRIDGE <dot> COM>
Date: 27 feb 1997
Subject: flaw in Matt Caster's argument (handicaps ...)

I found Matt Caster's argument (summarized later)interesting but I contend
that it is biased by an emphasis on fairness: the best man should win the game.

I think quite to the contrary, that the problem in the system arises from the
other end of the spectrum. Suppose for the sake of argument that I'm
a beginner at the game of Shogi. I can't find any non-begginer player to
play against. So I play other Kiu player's at sufficient handicaps and win.
After a while I become a "dan" player having beaten a few higher Kiu
players who arose in the same manner. I never matched my wits against a
better player. Am I truly a dan or just a man who loves the game but can't
afford to go to Japan???

In Matt's scenario a 1 Kiu player became really good at playing 2 dan players
in handicap games but never played a real even game. I contend that because his
rank is properly bounded from above, eventually things would even out. As a
1 dan he'd get a lesser handicap and eventually he'd play even games.