Changes

The most games of cribbage on the Williams campus in a four-year period were probably played between the [[Fall 2001|Fall fall of 2001]] and the [[Spring 2005|Spring spring of 2005]], during which ran a continuous tournament between two students. A concise history of this semi-epic battle, complete with win-loss statistics, is collected in this article.

There is little need for this article to enumerate the rules of Cribbage. If you do not know how to play, one of the following sites can teach you. The Williams Cribbage championship was played without the Muggins rule; otherwise all rules were standard. Winter Study Tournaments, however, have been played with the muggins rule in effect.

In the [[Fall 2001|Fall fall of 2001]], [[Jonathan Landsman]] '05 and Zachary McArthur '05 were freshmen living together in [[East#East_3|East 3]]. In the first week of school, Jonathan noticed a cribbage board lying on the top shelf of Zach's bookshelf. "You play?" he asked. "Yes," replied Zach. "I'm looking for an opponent." So it began. In Zach's first journal entry of freshman year, on September 3rd, he wrote "Oh and Johnathon down the hall plays cribbage!! What a surprise! He beat me in the 1st game we played."

This year brought a small decline in total number of games played, after a substantial rise from freshman to sophomore year. Scholars explain this by focusing their study on the [[Winter Study]] period of this year, during which Zach and Jonathan attended [[Lessons In Go]]. Some scholars of this era have offered their Theory of Divertment Dilution to explain this phenomenon. It holds that, with Zach and Jonathan now faced with a choice of how to spend their time together, between playing Go and Cribbage, the overall probability that cribbage is played diminishes when total free time is held constant. This theory has met with stiff resistance from scholars of the Second Year, who assert that, if the theory held, there ought to have been a reduction of cribbage play in year two in light of increased Ms. Pacman play.

The wood-burned scoreboard was brought from its place in Currier to be displayed on a post, which was actually an ancient sign promoting Amy and Todd, from the [[College Council]] co-presidential campaign of [[Spring spring 2000]]. The spirit imbuing the wood, the game's excellent placement, and the growing reknown of cribbage all contributed to draw the biggest and most enthusiastic spectatorship yet, at about 20 people. It was a very windy day, and everyone except the pegs huddled around the two players kneeling in the grass, both to share warmth and to protect the game from blowing away.

[[Image:CribbageSmr04.jpg|right|thumbnail|Jonathan (left) and Zach (right) face off in Jonathan's summer penthouse, high in [[Morgan#East|Morgan East]], [[Summer 2004]]. Photo taken by [[Alaya Kuntz '04]].]]

Even Zach and Jonathan would probably have been surprised if they knew in early September 2004 the sheer volume of games they were going to undertake their senior season. Jonathan managed to snag a room in the elite senior year housing of Chadbourne House (pick 84), while Zach was in for another year of survival within the riff raff brick walls of Greylock (pick 110). This was not all for the worst, however, as Greylock and Chadbourne's doors were but a couple of hundred yards apart -- the closest the friends had lived since freshman year. The number of games reflected this proximity, as an incredible 153 games were played in the ~225 days spent on campus from September through May. All told, probably over 50 cribbage-hours were logged by the friends -- looking back, maybe two or three should have been put towards [[PSYC 401]].

As [[Psychology]] majors, Jonathan and Zach were eventually endowed with a knowledge of basic statistical tests, and from the point of learning the chi-squared analysis -- the statistical test with the power to determine which of the two was, statistically, a better player -- frequent such tests would be used to analyze the running tally of wins and losses, usually by the player who was ahead. Interpreting data by a Pearson's chi-square analysis is done using the formula: :<math> \chi^2 = \sum_{i=1}^{n} {(O_i - E_i)^2 \over E_i}</math> where <math>O_i</math> is an observed frequency and <math>E_i</math> is an expected (theoretical) frequency asserted by the null hypothesis. In the case of the 508 games played in the four years of cribbage competition, our expected number of wins for each player is 254. Note that we use the word "expected" here in the cold, impartial sense of the statistician, who generates his expectations on pure probability. In this expectation, therefore, we ignore such obvious cues as, for example, the blondness of one player, the increased height of one player (resulting in a lower brain to total mass ratio), city of birth, etc. We can plug this expected value and the observed number of wins into the equation to determine the <math>\chi^2</math> value for the analysis: :<math>\chi^2 = {(264_z - 254)^2 \over 254}+{(244_j - 254)^2 \over 254}</math>:<math>\chi^2 \approx 0.787401575</math> We now compare this value of <math>\chi^2</math> to a threshold value of <math>\chi^2</math> in our chi-squared distribution of two degress of freedom. In experiments of this kind, it is customary to take a confidence level of at least 95% as evidence that your data demonstrates a significant trend, however to have a confidence of 95% that one player were better than the other in this case we would need a <math>\chi^2</math> value of '''3.84''' or greater. 0.787... is far too low, corresponding more closely to a confidence of about 40%. Though it went against the standards of every academic field, including his own basic training in Psyc statistics, Zach seemed satisfied by this level of confidence. He wrote, ''There was a time senior year when a t-squared analysis ''[sic.]'' on the number of victories each showed that Zach was, statistically, a superior cribbage player to Jonathan. Once that point was reached, Zach felt his point was proven and lowered his level of play, allowing Jonathan to win a few games and regain a bit of dignity, ... at least statistically speaking.'' ==Cribbage moments== ===Play sequences=== *'''A23423A2'''*'''J54345''': 10 pts by one player to 0*'''4443526'''*'''Q23A23Q''': a palindrome!*'''75757''': a zero-point palindrome!*'''3425A67''': same day as previous!*'''34372424''': 0 points*'''446352A3'''*'''3576422'''*'''J5555 JJ2'''*'''77564 354'''*'''3645273 6'''*'''735462A''': 17 pts pegged by Zach*'''J2T32AAA'''*'''3425634''': in-person game*'''7462345'''*'''42T843''': with J at 119 and Z at 120 ===Hands=== *'''A777 A''': Zach, 20 pts*'''78889''': 21 pts in Zach's crib, first hand. biggest post-grad crib*'''AAAA''': by J-Dawg, who then discovered that this is the only hand not helped by any cut*'''QQQQ 5''': Zach, 20 pts*'''5555 7''': by J-Dawg, 20 pts. useless 7 cut by Z*'''2222 9''': by J-Dawg, 20 pts ===Trash talk=== *''I ate Forge wings for dinner beats your hand.''<br>--Z*''Where's your crib? . . . Oh yeah, I stole it.''<br>--Z*''I've had more flushes today than in all of history combined.''<br>--Z:''Diarrhea?''<br>--J*''Man, I don't even ''need'' to look at the score to know I'm beating you.''<br>--J