@Schlosstrunk said in #16:
> I don't berserk, opponent doesn't: expected points = 1.00
> I don't berserk, opponent berserks: expected points = 1.45
> I berserk, opponent doesn't: expected points = 1.10
> I berserk, opponent berserks: expected points 1.00 (and not 2.00)
How did you get these numbers? A berserk win is worth 3 points (disregarding streaks), so if I have an expected score of 0.275 when I berserk and my opponent doesn't, then even in the best case where draws don't happen, the expected number of points would be 0.825. And when both berserk, under the assumption that we remain equally strong in the faster time control, since I get 3 points for a win, the expected points would be higher (1.5 in the setting where there are no draws - which would be better than when I don't berserk!).
As you alluded to, of course, the value of berserking can't be judged on the basis of a single game - it is really a tournament strategy.
> I don't berserk, opponent doesn't: expected points = 1.00
> I don't berserk, opponent berserks: expected points = 1.45
> I berserk, opponent doesn't: expected points = 1.10
> I berserk, opponent berserks: expected points 1.00 (and not 2.00)
How did you get these numbers? A berserk win is worth 3 points (disregarding streaks), so if I have an expected score of 0.275 when I berserk and my opponent doesn't, then even in the best case where draws don't happen, the expected number of points would be 0.825. And when both berserk, under the assumption that we remain equally strong in the faster time control, since I get 3 points for a win, the expected points would be higher (1.5 in the setting where there are no draws - which would be better than when I don't berserk!).
As you alluded to, of course, the value of berserking can't be judged on the basis of a single game - it is really a tournament strategy.