"Howard Brazee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > A lot of our smarts is in seeing patterns, simplifying what we are > looking for. Occasionally this kind of shortcut causes us to miss > things, but pattern recognition allows the chess master to ignore dead > ends that poorer players waste time on. > > I see craftsmen and artists using tools that are difficult to master - > but supply and demand doesn't take that into consideration in setting > prices for their goods.
You are simplifying a complex subject and coming to an invalid conclusion, I think. :-). If one were to add one new square to the chessboard every few years and a new piece on occasion, the number of people able to master the game would diminish each time. At some point nobody would actually be able to master the game. One might say that mastery is a relative thing, and those who play best would still be masters, but you would still be reducing the number of individuals actually attempting to master it. I would also point out that if you *removed* a square on occasion, along with a piece, you would start seeing a much greater number of people who can master the game, and likely a greater number of people actually attempting it... thereby making the value of a master much less. Which one is desireable depends entirely on your objective - do you want to get more people using your game boards, or do you want to make it a real achievement to be a master? As far as supply and demand goes, prices are most certainly set by how many people are able to master the skill. If anyone could build nice cabinets because the tools and techniques were relatively simple, carpenters would not be able to charge much at all - as the supply of 'skilled' carpenters would equal or exceed the demand. Conversely, if the tools and techniques are so difficult that only a very few could build something considered reasonable quality, those few would be able to demand extremely high prices that only the very wealthy could afford. Having a child who is a figure skater, I can say that if the requirement to win becomes a quintuple axle there are going to be far fewer individuals able to compete unless the training techniques and tools allow the skills to be learned more easily. As it stands, only the wealthiest (or most fortunate by way of sponsorship) of people can afford to have their children learn the skills to compete in this sport. It is likely one of the most complex and difficult of skills, requiring 15-20 hours or more per week of practice for many years by *kids*, expensive and specialized equipment, and hours of personalized coaching. I daresay that this was almost certainly not required when a double axle was the greatest skill level necessary. The number of people that start has increased because the financial rewards have increased dramatically - but the attrition rate is astounding and few actually acquire the skills necessary to continue competing after the age of 13. One might say that this is a good thing in an environment where you want to limit the participants and only end up with the cream of the crop. But, if you are in an environment where you actually wish to *expand* the use (as IBM might wish, or those who want to have job opportunities might wish), making it more complex seems to be the wrong way to go, if you have the choice. Regards, Dean ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
