"Bernie Cosell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In the interest of spaking as much creativity [and angst..:o)] as
> possible, I think that publishing the hole-leaders reveals too much info
> [e.g., John Doe now knows that he's beaten on 1 but the-best on 3,4,5,
> and so can focus SOLELY on finding a trick to shave 1, rather than having
> to look _everywhere_ to cut strokes].
>
> Instead, I think that just publishing the aggregate best-score is the
> right amount of info to disclose: It lets the leaders know that there are
> *better* solutions to some of their holes than theirs, but not give
> ANYONE a hint about where to look to shave the strokes... [actually,
> this isn't *quite* true, but to first order it is if it is not updated
> too often].
What is currently blowing my mind is that Eugene is only leader on one
hole. Wonder what the 'best of breed' score is.
--
Piers
"It is a truth universally acknowledged that a language in
possession of a rich syntax must be in need of a rewrite."
-- Jane Austen?
