szeweningen:
(...) where there is less variables like when equally skilled players are playing.
I think you're mistaking 2 equally skilled players, with 2 perfectly playing sides, those are completely different things.
Are you assuming that i said they are the same thing in that sentence?
I am assuming that equally skilled players make no mistakes, and thus they play perfectly.
I stated the assumption that players make no mistakes, you must have missed it.
All I said is that; it easier to picture luck if you eliminate some variable factors there.
I stated in the beginning that what i was describing is a simplified version of a very complex idea of how to calculate the factors.
Pointing out that there is more complexity then what i mentioned only shows that you haven't read/understood what i was talking about.
so skills and experience, tactics and styles have an effect but they are in no way even close to the size of the luck factor when above average players are playing.
That is absolutely not correct. I'd consider myself and experienced player when it comes to top level games and most of my losses I can attribute to a mistake by me, most of my wins I can attribute to a mistake by my opponent.
I made it clear that my calculations are based on games where players do no mistakes.
it seems you did not read my original posts.
Of-course if you do mistakes then it is your fault that you lost. I am not arguing on that.
I am not arguing on the win factor of all games played either.(some comments claimed that, not me)
One has to note also that if your enemy does a mistake it is luck on your part and vice versa.
So I consider mistakes on either party to be luck in reality but they are not included in the 60% luck factors i mentioned for simplicity sake and for the fact they they are not derived from the game itself.
(also complexity starts to kick in since there are different types of mistakes with different attributes)
Some games go purely on luck, for example I win if I eliminate someone, I lose if he gets first order twice in a row, which gives 75% chance of winning. If I lose a game like that on luck, I'm still satisfied with my performance.
You gave it 75% , I gave that 60%, how is that "absolutely not correct"?
Your satisfaction has nothing to do with the argument.
I'd say thinking like you did, attributing most losses to luck, is the main barried intermediate players face and should really reconsider their own games and whether or not there were improvements at any point.
I never said that most losses are attributed on luck. You are talking statistics which I stated that it does not matter in the current argument.
I said that every game has about 50-60% luck based which is a totally different thing.
It seems you read the comments about my posts and not my posts.
It basically means that if your lucky enough you can win every single game you play even if you are just above average player since skill(etc..) matter less when a player reaches a certain level.
If one plays under the assumption that his enemy will do a mistake then he is a noob, thus I excluded mistakes and their complexity in my calculations. I stated this in my posts.
Long-run win and win should be distinguished and then you can start asking about the luck and skill factor.
Yea, as i stated, I avoided complexity and simplified it as just winning the game.
After all, if you won a single strategic position by luck(eg; first move) then one can argue that you wouldn't have won the game if you didn't get that strategic position.
So instead of entering into such complexity, i simplified it into just winning a game by luck or just by pure skill.
If I enter into such complexity, no one would read the post lol.
Since it would be a mile long.
They already don't read them as they are.
Edited 7/4/2014 03:48:58