Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Casto
At the moment, the deck is stacked against most teams.
|
I was listening to a podcast recently (Moral Maze - The Morality of Competition IIRC). One point that was put across was connected to providing a 'level playing field' and equal chance for all. I tend to agree with the point that the deck should be stacked against most competitors.
Every entrant into a sport comes from a different position - whether it is a financial power, engineering excellence, genetic ability or many others. The fact that all entrants have a differing chance of success is what makes the competition.
Would 20 robots all programmed identically lead to competition - or would the result then be purely down to chance?
I'm pretty certain I wouldn't want to see a sport where all results were decided based on chance alone - I want to see certain traits rewarded, but an environment where others could overcome a perceived disadvantage and also have results.
But - I also wouldn't want the underdog to always be successful - this isn't a Roy of the Rovers sport. The best (whether that is ability, resource, skill) should be the most successful, just that there should be a possibility for others to improve their own position to make them the best in future...