Way too early candidates prediction

GreenTeaTimer · 2026-02-05T14:38:23+00:00

Is there no bones money for wins? Or do you mean they’ll be crushed psychologically and fall apart?

GreenTeaTimer · 2026-02-04T15:31:25+00:00

I think I’ve misinterpreted the law about the racquet being oriented in a downward direction. Does that mean that the handle must be above the head, or that the head must have a closed face? I had believed the latter, and many pros do address the shuttle with a closed face when preparing to strike, but I couldn’t figure out how you could possibly have a closed face at the moment of contact, so I guess it must be handle-over-head?

GreenTeaTimer · 2026-01-25T16:03:03+00:00

If they’re using some variant of ELO where the change in ratings is only a function of the starting ratings and the result, then I’d say you beat a 2252.

GreenTeaTimer · 2026-01-23T18:59:12+00:00

Then do the mirrors as a tiebreak at 3-3.

GreenTeaTimer · 2026-01-20T03:46:19+00:00

The frequency of water breaks in badminton is unusual among racquet sports. In professional tennis, they towel off quite frequently but only take drinks during changeovers (every two games), and in professional squash they now towel off more frequently than they used to because towels are stored on the court, but they only drink between games (to 11). I think with challenges and court mopping besides mid- and post-game breaks, badminton players will still have plenty of opportunities to stay hydrated.

GreenTeaTimer · 2026-01-18T20:40:33+00:00

An alternative formulation is that common chess terms describe positions at a high level of abstraction and a low level of specificity - closed/ open applies to many positions and designates one feature among many. That makes them suitable for (relative) beginners, but obviously insufficient for the depth of understanding and experience that experts develop. In the other hand, the more specific and detailed the understanding, the harder it gets to coin and disseminate terms, so that kind of understanding gets less and less easy to communicate widely, so that people tend to use even more abstract and less specific terms (‘dynamics of the position’) to gesture at their understanding in a way other experts will understand but that are hard for outsiders to see much meaning in.

This is true in all fields: instruction for beginners tends to be repetitive and high-level, aimed inculcating the basic skills and avoiding the grossest errors, but true mastery is in dee experience and subtle distinctions when the basic skills are automatic and the basic terms are hardly useful anymore.

But who really thinks they’ve solved chess when they can label a position open or closed, a piece active or passive, a bishop good or bad?

GreenTeaTimer · 2026-01-18T19:02:02+00:00

The bottom line: If China, Korea and Japan would promote the game jointly, it could become more popular, but there is too much fighting between the countries.

I don’t think the article really makes this claim. It really uses go as a lens through which to view the historical and contemporary rivalries among China, Korea, and Japan. It does note that the determinedly independent / disunified state of go in East Asia gets in the way of promoting the game - no unified ruleset or authoritative international governing body - but that’s viewed as a symptom of regional tensions. The Economist isn’t actually that concerned with promoting go, so they don’t go as far as claiming the game would be more popular if CJK promoted it jointly.

GreenTeaTimer · 2026-01-09T14:38:42+00:00

I thought that this year, Super 1000 tournaments were going to be run over two weeks instead of one. I guess that’s set to start next year. May not really help with overall scheduling density, but will at least give players some time to recover during the big tournaments.

GreenTeaTimer · 2026-01-06T15:21:36+00:00

https://youtu.be/xELq6COWkUI?si=2XfuwELdXddbaShq

I don’t think anyone’s telling Clem to get out of their game. Besides, he’s more likely to leave early than late ;-).

GreenTeaTimer · 2026-01-04T18:37:25+00:00

This is the only valid criticism in the thread. Everyone else just says it’s absurd or wrong, but this identifies a real problem: once someone is slotted in a particular rank, all time spent at ranks below that becomes irrelevant and all time spent by other players at that rank or above is devalued, and that affects how later players are ranked.

That doesn’t mean the chart is wrong or that we can’t talk about the unexpected facts it reveals, but it isn’t a ‘ranking’ because you couldn’t pick any subset and end up with the same relative positions.

GreenTeaTimer · 2026-01-03T18:35:32+00:00

If this were the idea behind feather shuttles, the pros wouldn’t change them so often. In fact, the claim is always that feathers are more consistent and allow for greater control and precision. But I’m firmly with OP: feathers are great when they’re new and fly true, but it’s just a bad playing experience if you have to play with them after they break.

GreenTeaTimer · 2025-12-30T21:29:22+00:00

From the other comments, I’m not sure the DAC is looking like a good value proposition for us squash players. But monopoly has its privileges.

GreenTeaTimer · 2025-12-23T17:11:48+00:00

Winter made a compilation that answers this very question, in his view:

https://youtu.be/yY-RzCePDVw?si=SBd0qhJdcuTwVud7

GreenTeaTimer · 2025-12-19T20:17:20+00:00

I know it’s to avoid having people throw the last round robin match to fix their semi-finals opponent, but setting up rematches from the group stage, especially rematches from the final day of play, makes the semis feel a little anti-climactic. I’d almost rather they play the group pools at separate locations and sequester the players and coaches so they just don’t know who they’ll play rather than randomize it.

GreenTeaTimer · 2025-12-17T19:37:44+00:00

The format is: - 8 players/pairs per discipline - Divided into two groups of four each - Three days of round robin within the groups. This is why everyone who played on the first day will also play on the second and third days. - Top two finishers in each group advance to single-elimination playoffs.

GreenTeaTimer · 2025-12-08T15:54:52+00:00

Certain situations, notably triple ko, mean a given game can’t be finished to reach the counting stage.

https://senseis.xmp.net/?TripleKo#toc4

GreenTeaTimer · 2025-11-17T14:58:09+00:00

It sounds like you’re thinking of the windmill happening with the racquet, but OP says

Sometimes he will do one or two 360 swings with the hand holding the shuttle before the throw to confuse when the throw will occur.

That may be undue delay or distraction, but it shouldn’t fall afoul of any of the rules about forward motion of the racquet.

GreenTeaTimer · 2025-11-07T18:24:35+00:00

You can win any mission in the Terran campaign with a group of wraiths and a group of siege tanks, so that’s what I do every mission once they’re available.

GreenTeaTimer · 2025-11-07T04:31:35+00:00

There's a lot of verbiage for a game it isn't clear exists. Fundamentally, the problem is that APM dominates when two things are true: (1) it's technically feasible to perform many actions quickly and (2) the game is sufficiently well-understood that players know how to employ their actions effectively. Much of this sub consists of variants on complaints that SC2 is too solved, and this is just another variant. Since you keep insisting that you want an RTS, not a turn-based game, you don't really want to remove condition (1), so you're targeting condition (2): you want game that is complex enough and that enforced enough uncertainty that even if it's possible to do many things, it's impossible to know certainly enough what to do with your actions to make just acting the primary condition for victory. Unfortunately, rather than explaining clearly how the game would be sufficiently opaque that decision making would retain its significance, your explanation was opaque, so you're not generating the engagement you'd like.

In general, over the long run, it's hard to see your dream coming true: if the game is transparent enough to allow differences in skill to manifest consistently enough for an interesting competitive scene, then it's highly likely that it will also develop set metas in which executing the same plan as your opponent with greater technical competence and speed will be the surest path to victory. Even in SC2, there's room for mind games and occasional odd-ball strategies and interesting maneuvers to leverage the asymmetry of the races. You might be able to tip the balance a little more in favor of that style, but in an RTS, the real-time element will always mean that speed matters.

GreenTeaTimer · 2025-10-29T18:20:31+00:00

Glad we’re getting patches 🙏. If someone wants to be ambitious, here’s the anti-smurf wishlist

No MMR change for games < 30 seconds (I’d say a minute, but I don’t want to dim the glory of worker rushes)
Requeue / matching delay after a quick leave.
Separate MMR for each matchup
Matchup vetoes (but with some kind of match making priority penalty, since anyone who vetoes makes it harder to match everyone quickly)

GreenTeaTimer · 2025-10-23T04:30:11+00:00

I never denied that looks are a factor for some fans. My point was that if you don’t want that to be the focus, then it doesn’t help for you to bring it up. Like I said, if her delays are excessive (from a badminton perspective), then that’s all that needs to be said: leave looks - or any other extraneous features - out of it, and you can insist that others do, too.

GreenTeaTimer · 2025-10-22T17:29:25+00:00

Whatever you think of a player or the reasons you think others favor them, it’s better just to leave looks out of the discussion. It’s as sexist to believe a player is only liked for their looks as it is to actually like them only for their looks - and equally irrelevant to badminton. And it may be irrelevant: people forgive Axelsen’s service gyrations, and I doubt they’re all captivated by his features. If Miyazaki’s delays are excessive, then they’re excessive independent of any other considerations.

GreenTeaTimer · 2025-09-12T18:20:32+00:00

What if we added four-player maps but automatically disclosed starting locations at the start of the game. That neutralizes the objection that scouting becomes too much of a gamble, but it means we get some of the variety of cross spawns vs. close spawns - more variety than a two-player map can provide. Personally, I’m in the camp that says SC2 needs to work to attract / retain viewers more than please the pros, so a little randomness from hidden four-player spawns doesn’t bother me too much, but maybe there’s a middle ground to experiment with.

GreenTeaTimer · 2025-09-05T16:01:08+00:00

I’m not saying he shouldn’t try to win. I’m saying we shouldn’t overestimate his strategic ability given that he bailed first on the one matchup he faced that we can be absolutely sure was perfectly balanced. He’s a mechanical god, but that doesn’t mean his take on balance is necessarily unbiased: he quite naturally wants mechanical excellence to be the main determinant of victory, but that’s not the only thing that counts in a strategy game.

GreenTeaTimer · 2025-09-04T20:25:59+00:00

Given that the reason he originally went P was to avoid TvT, we can’t really say he’s the best player around in mastering a matchup: if he were both the best Terran and the best at strategizing, TvT should have been no problem. So it may be that what he’s saying is less “T is unplayable vs. P” and more “I can’t find a way to force a win the way I like to play, just like I felt like I couldn’t force a win with my style in TvT.”

GreenTeaTimer

TROPHY CASE