Iritscen wrote:Well, that's according to how you were defining "best of x", not according to how it works in sports, as I explained earlier. Essentially your suggestion is the same as my "rounds" suggestion. So really we're in agreement.

I just can't bear it no more. There are no different definitions here. An example to illustrate:

Czar Ryoko has fled and Irons and Wrkncacnter are contesting for the CLIQUE throne. As tradition wants it, they will play ten games of chess. The one who wins most, will be the new Czar. (TL's "definition" of "best out of x") It's only fair that both players play white five times. Assuming that they are emotionless CLIQUE bastards, we ignore the moral factor, so the order of the games doesnt matter. Lets say irons is white the first five games, Wrk the latter.

Do you agree that it's fair so far? I hope so, otherwise its hopeless.

They start playing, and turns out irons wins five times as the white player and the sixth time as the black player. Whatever the outcome of the last four games, irons will have won more games than Wrk, so irons will be the new Czar. Therefore, they quit.

And this is your "definition": you keep playing until one player has won more than half of the games. Both definitions are one and the same, only yours is less time consuming.

I hope this can help you understand that the only actual point here is Treellama's point and that there's no way of "agreeing" between the two of you.