Devon, I didn't address that because it's the same thing. You're talking about people who are born with much and play casually versus people not born with much but playing with commitment.

Your description of professionalism doesn't seem complete either. Do you believe anything else besides patterned behavior defines what makes up a professional, and you really believe professionals don't deliberately mix up their behavior in order to remain unpredictable?

... the reason behind my earlier statement being...
If becoming adequate at something is all you can do before deferring to luck, then adequate is all someone will become.

Millions of people can drive the ball 300 yards, but none of them can beat Tiger heads up.
Millions of people can play the correct notes, but Beethoven can play better music.
Millions of people can karate-chop something, but Bruce Lee could karate-chop someone's head clean off.

There is artistry and true understanding of a subject that goes far beyond proficiency. To label it as "luck" is a copout, and a sign of laziness and ignorance.

To disprove Argotitan's earlier claim:
"Drano, I'm saying there are situations where multiple rational tactics exist. Logical deduction is not necessarily a one way thing when it comes to competitions.

[....] A principle is justified on its own merit."

Multiple rational tactics may exist for something as simple as a 1-on-1 board game where its a race to 18 dots. Many different tactics can help you achieve that modest goal. Now lets expand this to a real war (not modern industrialized, but old-school with hand-to-hand combat, equal numbers), Thousands more complexities dealing with mobility, geographical considerations, training, leadership, tactics, and the all important heart. If you were commander, could you now support your claim that multiple rational strategies have the EQUAL chance of success ('equal' being the key point of your claim)? Clearly, the victor would be the side which better accounts for and integrates all the complex elements, who knows how to exploit the other side, and knows which elements are greatest considerations to win the battle. Nothing in this case would be equal. Hence, your hastily labeled "principle" ("which stands on its own merit") is absolute hogwash (to borrow a term from RUFFHAUS' book). A principle is something that is true regardless of scale.

You are stretching this simple concept of skill into an argument that borders the philisophical debate of existentialism, determiniteness vs. free will, and all that other crap that people argue about for the sake of arguing. My point of view is simply that you are in charge of your own destiny, and if you try harder than the next person and do what is required to improve your skills of critical thinking, analysis, and synergy, then you in fact can become the best.

Raro, I'm not sure why you're qualifying the difference of actualized potential between people laziness, especially after acknowledging what you said about becoming adequate.

As for real war, I'll just defer to Clausewitz's interpretation of "fog of war" influencing chance. There is a difference between whether or not equal chances of success actually exist versus whether or not there is equal opportunity to survey the chances of success. It is very well possible for someone executing a tactic with lesser chance of success to achieve victory because one's opponent had a more difficult time exploring the chance of success among tactics.

A classic example of this is multiple commanders surveying a battlefield before organizing formations. Some areas of a battlefield might be more difficult to survey from one perspective or another, so it's possible for advantageous terrain (such as a hilltop) to remain undiscovered if it's too difficult to be surveyed (such as being preceded by a swamp).

Argo,
You said:" Devon, you've admitted that skill is partially commitment"
- No I didn't. Stop repeating false statements.

You said: "Devon, I didn't address that because it's the same thing. You're talking about people who are born with much and play casually versus people not born with much but playing with commitment."
- They are not the same thing. The outcome may be the same, but they are very different. A skilled player can increase their effort (commitment) on demand. The committed player cannot increase their skill on demand.

You said: "Your description of professionalism doesn't seem complete either. "
- You must be on drugs. I did not say anything about professionalism.

Oh dear. I just confused you with Drano. lol

"Your description of professionalism doesn't seem complete either."

First Argo, I never defined professional. I don't see why a definition of professional is necessary or relevant.

"Do you believe anything else besides patterned behavior defines what makes up a professional..."

Where did I ever make that assertation? Now you're just pulling things out of thin air...

"...and you really believe professionals don't deliberately mix up their behavior in order to remain unpredictable?"

No. I don't. At least, not randomly. They mix up their behavior based on their knowledge of their opponents' weaknesses. For a MLB pitcher, that might mean that ever though I like to throw my slider down and away, I know the batter can't hit a up and in fastball, so I change my behavior to give me a better opportunity to be victorious.

In Diplomacy, this is equivalent to me knowing that Devonian likes to play defensively (example only people!), so therefore I am more willing to take aggressive risks knowing that it is LESS likely that he is doing the same. Note I'm not saying it's IMPOSSIBLE that he does, but simply that it's less likely, therefore giving me a better chance at victory. Randomness has nothing to do with it.

"Devon, I didn't address that because it's the same thing. You're talking about people who are born with much and play casually versus people not born with much but playing with commitment."

This doesn't even make any sense. Why don't you go back and (with quotes), pick apart my argument. Perhaps it is because you can't?

+I lied, one more post before staying out of this until this clown gives us an example of one game that does not boil down to luck...if he can name NONE, then his entire posting is nothing but trolling, if he truly believes this game boils down to luck, then he must prove a game that does not, otherwise (according to him) ALL games are based on luck so why discuss this here?

anyways, The definition of "Luck"...

"a combination of circumstances, events, etc., operating by chance to bring good or ill to a person."

That simply does not apply to this game, he wants to talk about those odd situations where it's a 50/50 chance of moving correctly. First off, it's a combination of circumstances, getting to this 50/50 point was brought on (or NOT brought on!) by earlier situations that each person had a hand in and through negotiations had very real affect upon how things developed, these situations were not operated by chance = no luck at all.

The dictionary alone tells us this person is WRONG!

and lastly, did I actually hear him say some people are "Born Lucky" you want to say "Luck" is some sort of concrete "thing", if luck is "chance" then by definition, you can't be born lucky either!

I really wish we had a more conventional forum to post on. This is a bit of a mess...

...so let's get some things straightened out.

Luck is something out of your control.

Skill is something in your control.

Yes, players control their decisions when playing games, but their decisions by themselves do not determine outcomes. It's how decisions interact.

Players can commit to rational strategy which is skillful.

Players cannot necessarily anticipate others' simultaneous moves which is lucky.

Yes, players can have patterns, but experts don't because they understand the value of being unpredictable. Pattern-seeking only works against non-experts.

Those who are born before others have more time available to commit towards rational strategizing, so they're lucky in the sense of being older.

Those who are born with instincts or "bigger brains" are lucky since they don't choose to have instincts or bigger brains.

Those who choose to commit towards one competition before the other are lucky since they don't know how other players in society will commit among competitions.

Does this mean players don't deserve credit for their victories? No. People consent to assume the risk of getting lucky.

Even psychologically speaking, this doesn't entirely discount the value of playing for victory because people enjoy feeling like they're in control.

Should commitment be discounted? No. Should what people are born with be discounted? No.

What should be discounted is the ability to predict another's behavior. Experts will randomize to be unpredictable, and beginners will either have committed more towards rational strategizing elsewhere or have not been born with sufficient rational strategization skill. Both of those are lucky.

We play games because they're fun. It's still fun to play. We should just understand the boundaries of fun so we don't get full of ourselves.

In Diplomacy, as in most things, we all tend to overestimate the value of our intrinsic greatness in victories and overestimate the value of luck, chance and fortune in our defeats.

+1 Scuba - so insightful lately!

Argo, those statements are your own opinion, even though you have stated them as fact. I disagree with many of them. I will number them for easier reference later.

1. Luck is something out of your control. - I agree

2. Skill is something in your control. - I agree

3. Yes, players control their decisions when playing games, but their decisions by themselves do not determine outcomes. It's how decisions interact. - I agree

4. Players can commit to rational strategy which is skillful. - Unclear. I don't think I agree

5. Players cannot necessarily anticipate others' simultaneous moves which is lucky. - Unclear. I don't think I agree.

6. Yes, players can have patterns, but experts don't because they understand the value of being unpredictable. Pattern-seeking only works against non-experts. - I disagree

7. Those who are born before others have more time available to commit towards rational strategizing, so they're lucky in the sense of being older. - Irrelevant. How they became more skillful is irrelevant. (as it applies to diplomacy)

8. Those who are born with instincts or "bigger brains" are lucky since they don't choose to have instincts or bigger brains. - Irrelevant. How they became more skillful is irrelevant. (as it applies to diplomacy)

9. Those who choose to commit towards one competition before the other are lucky since they don't know how other players in society will commit among competitions. - Irrelevant. How they became more skillful is irrelevant. (as it applies to diplomacy)

10. Does this mean players don't deserve credit for their victories? No. People consent to assume the risk of getting lucky. - Irrelevant. Does not relate to the original question.

11. Even psychologically speaking, this doesn't entirely discount the value of playing for victory because people enjoy feeling like they're in control. - Irrelevant. Does not relate to the original question.

12. Should commitment be discounted? No. Should what people are born with be discounted? No. - Irrelevant. Does not relate to the original question.

13. What should be discounted is the ability to predict another's behavior. Experts will randomize to be unpredictable, and beginners will either have committed more towards rational strategizing elsewhere or have not been born with sufficient rational strategization skill. Both of those are lucky. - Irrelevant. Does not relate to the original question.

14. We play games because they're fun. It's still fun to play. We should just understand the boundaries of fun so we don't get full of ourselves. - Irrelevant. Does not relate to the original question.

In addition to these, effort or commitment are not defined or adequately addresses.

Devon, there comes a point in all discussions where value depends on the definitions of words. That's why I made that list.

Anyway, I'm surprised you're not sure you agree with statement 4. How do you suppose rational strategy happens if people don't skillfully commit to it?

It is unclear.

We have not defined the term commit or commitment. I think we have different meanings for it.

Also, the term skillful is being used for the first time. Are you trying to define skill? Would statement #4 be the same if it read: "Players can commit to rational strategy, which is skill"?

Well let me put it this way.

I didn't get the impression that you believed skill was something entirely in someone's control because you believe it includes what someone is born with.

The closest idea I know that compares is "predestined calling" as if people are chosen by the grace of God to be skillful. The next closest idea I know is fitness from natural selection, but I'm putting that second since "God" is a social model. People play games in society, not nature (in contrast to animals).

What you're saying about commitment here fits that as well. To me, commitment is about the actualization of potential, but to you... commitment is something that potential craves unto itself. People don't choose to commit to you. Commitment just reveals itself.

Does that make sense?

You said: "I didn't get the impression that you believed skill was something entirely in someone's control because you believe it includes what someone is born with"

- No, that's not what I believe. I think skill is the ability what a person currently has, regardless of how they got it.

If I were to select a specific definition, as it relates to diplomacy, I would use "Diplomatic, strategic, and tactical proficiency that is acquired by any means, or is developed through training or experience."

The amount of skill is measured at a specific point in time. I suppose, if a test could be created, it might even be quantified. How it is acquired is immaterial.

Using an analogy from basketball. Michael Jordan was cut from his freshman high school basketball team. He had little skill AT THAT TIME. However, years later, he was one of the best players in the sport. He had tremendous skill AT THAT TIME. It does not matter how he transformed from little skill to tremendous skill. The fact is that at one time his skill was low, at another it was high.

I don't understand your explanation of commitment.

If I were to select a specific definition of commitment as it relates to diplomacy, I would use: "the state or quality of being dedicated to and using your diplomatic, strategic, and tactical skills to their utmost potential."

Argo claims " there comes a point in all discussions where value depends on the definitions of words."
Yet he fails to accept the definition of "Luck"
His claim fails to meet the dictionary definition, this whole thread is a troll, please Argo give us an example of ONE game that does not boil down to luck, please explain why you can ignore what "Luck" means and give it your own definition that you expect us to swallow?

Devon, how are you defining the value of something if you don't consider how it comes into existence?

I didn't say anything about defining the value of something.

But aside from that, we value all kinds of things without knowing or considering how they came into existence. We give A's to kids in school based on how they tested, not based on where they got the knowledge.

Well yes, we give those who cheat the same grade as those who don't.

I suppose measuring skill would assume accurate testing. But you are getting on a tangent.

To be honest, I don't see a difference between grades given from cheating and grades given from natural endowment since neither comes from commitment.

The proper way to grade people to test them at the level they're endowed with. It's kind of like how in boxing we don't pair lightweights up with heavyweights.

We're never going to agree on this. Because we can't even agree on the definitions.

I don't have a clue what your definition of commitment is, or how it applies to skill.

When you google "commitment", here's the first thing that pops up for me:

com·mit·ment
kəˈmitmənt
noun
noun: commitment; plural noun: commitments
1. the state or quality of being dedicated to a cause, activity, etc..

To me, that sure sounds a heck of a lot like Devonian's definition of commitment. Dedicating yourself to a cause (in this case, playing a game of Dip to your fullest potential and using all of your skill) is the dictionary definition of commitment that applies to Diplomacy.

Drano, I took that definition and modified it to Diplomacy. But, I don't see how argo defines commitment, or how he thinks it applies to skill.

I'm about to give up trying to figure out what he is trying to say. He keeps going on tangents and avoiding answering questions.

nor does he adhere to the definition of Luck ...his entire premise of this post

I'm getting the impression that you guys are just playing language games at this point just to make a point on words having no intrinsic meaning and that they can be screwed with at the will of their users.

The only reason I'm saying this is because on the odd-chance that I'm wrong, you're entitled to know that you're giving a very bad impression.

Otherwise, whatever.

Yep, I'm done.