SCG Article: Lessons in Humility

[lordarcanis]

I know that Smennen isn't the most popular person here, but what did you think of this article?  Anyone outraged?

[Metman]

Gotta link to it?

[RaleighNCTourneys]

Why would anyone be outraged?

[lordarcanis]

http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/13278.html

Outraged?  Sorry, it was a rhetorical question.

[Moxlotus]

I find it ironic that he lost to Tendrils #2 after saying how terrible it is in combo.

[dicemanx]

I find his conclusion questionable. He felt that he wasn't aggressive enough in his play, and he failed to adopt a combo/beatdown role to end certain games. However, in doing so, he would have created windows of opportunity for his opponents that could have been exploited, and for all we know, he could have been punished in retrospect for being too aggressive. This could lead him to the opposite conclusion - that he played too aggressively.

It's a tough game to play perfectly, but sometimes we have to be careful in analysing the outcomes when looking back at our reasons for defeat.

Still, a very good article because of both the depth of analysis, and the search for truth (errors that either led to his defeat or at best minimized his chances of winning) rather than chalking up defeats to bad luck.

[DoubleDrain]

One of the most difficult things about playing MD Gifts is knowing when to sit back on your countermagic and when to go for the kill.  I think Steve did a good job at pointing out that difficulty, especially in his round 3 analysis.

[Vegeta2711]

There was an article? I couldn't get past the irony of the title.

[Lou]

I find his conclusion questionable. He felt that he wasn't aggressive enough in his play, and he failed to adopt a combo/beatdown role to end certain games. However, in doing so, he would have created windows of opportunity for his opponents that could have been exploited, and for all we know, he could have been punished in retrospect for being too aggressive. This could lead him to the opposite conclusion - that he played too aggressively.

It's a tough game to play perfectly, but sometimes we have to be careful in analysing the outcomes when looking back at our reasons for defeat.

Still, a very good article because of both the depth of analysis, and the search for truth (errors that either led to his defeat or at best minimized his chances of winning) rather than chalking up defeats to bad luck.

I think this is right on. I liked the article myself, but like you said Peter, there really is no way in knowing that had he played aggressively would he have created other opportunities for his opponent to take advantage of.

As Travis said, MDG is some hard to play, especially well.

I can't scrutinize my own play as Steve does, but I find it educating when someone does it well, which I think was accomplished here. Anyways, nice report.

[Liam-K]

I find it ironic that he lost to Tendrils #2 after saying how terrible it is in combo.

Maybe this is the wrong thread, but have any long players come to the conclusion that unless it's in your opening hand, you don't tend to mind drawing tendrils?  Saving yourself the mana to tutor, and bluffing a big bomb like a champ and then pulling tendrils out of your hand to laugh at their fow can be pretty gamewinning.  Is 2 really a bad idea, extract/rfg concerns aside?

[Implacable]

I find it ironic that he lost to Tendrils #2 after saying how terrible it is in combo.

Maybe this is the wrong thread, but have any long players come to the conclusion that unless it's in your opening hand, you don't tend to mind drawing tendrils?  Saving yourself the mana to tutor, and bluffing a big bomb like a champ and then pulling tendrils out of your hand to laugh at their fow can be pretty gamewinning.  Is 2 really a bad idea, extract/rfg concerns aside?

I never mind drawing Tendrils at all, and with 2, you basically never draw multiples, so it's no big deal.  Plus, running two makes it more likely that you can get away with a low-mana Will.