|
example, from which anyone who knew nothing of the game, and could find no one to explain it practically to him, could form a correct idea of its nature. In half a dozen lines from the beginning of a description, technical terms are used which have not been explained, remarks are made which imply a knowledge on the reader's part of the general object of the game of which he should be supposed to know nothing, and many matters absolutely essential to a right apprehension of the nature of the game are not touched on from beginning
of these confused and imperfect accounts. It seems to be correct, for his computation of the odds for and against the player leads to the same result as Poisson obtained, who knew the game, though he nowhere gives a description of it.
A number of packs is taken (six, Hoyle says), ' and the cards are well mixed. Each common card counts for the number of spots on it, and the court cards are each reckoned as ten. A table is divided into two compartments, one called rouge, the other noir, and a player stakes his money in which he pleases. The proprietor of the bank, who risks against all comers, then lays down cards in one compartment until the number of spots exceeds thirty; as soon as this has happened, he proceeds in the same way with the other compartment.' The number of spots in each compartment is thus, or are so insufficiently described that they might as well have been left altogether unnoticed. It is the same with verbal descriptions. Not one person in a hundred can explain a game of cards respectably, and not one in a thousand can explain a game well. A beginner can pick up a game after awhile, by combining with the imperfect explanations given him the practical illustrations which the cards themselves afford. But there is no reason in the-nature of things why a written or a verbal description of such a game as whist or cribbage should not suffice to make an attentive reader or hearer perfectly understand the nature of the game. From what I have noticed in this matter, I would assert with some confidence that anyone who can explain clearly, yet succinctly, a game at cards, must have the explanatory gift so exceptionally developed that he could most usefully employ it in the explanation of such scientific subjects as he might himself be able to master. I believe, too, that the student of science who desires to explain his subject to the general public, can find no better exercise, and few better tests, than the explanation of some simple game--the explanation to be sufficient for persons knowing nothing of the game.
|
