On August 13, 2022 at 7:06:39 AM UTC-6, Axel Reichert wrote:
b...@panix.com (Bradley K. Sherman) writes:
| This is the paradox of luck and skill: the more skilled the
| competitors are, the more the outcome is determined by
| luck.
Add-on: If two clueless backgammon players compete,
the outcome is also determined mostly by luck.
If "clueless play" means "random play" (or near-random
play), according to this definition of luck, if two clueless
chess players compete, the outcome is also determined
entirely (or mostly) by luck as well.
Yet, that wouldn't make chess a game of luck because if
the game is analysed without knowing that it was played
by clueless players and tracing backwards from the final
position to the opening move, one may find that there
were many skillful moves made and that the player who
made more of those skillful moves did indeed win.
My point is that how a game is played in certain ways
doesn't change its nature (i.e. a game of skill or luck).
Therefore, because backgammon is played with dice, it's a
game of luck by nature and no particular ways of playing
it will ever turn it into a game of skill.
I have always disagreed with how "luck" was defined and
calculated by gamblegammon players and/or bots. Many
times, I tried to start discussions using more creative and
comprehensive approaches to defining and quantifying
"luck" with very limited results or no success at all. Based
on the above comments, I want to give it one more try...
Regarding backgammon, Bradley's quote would apply to
a bot playing against itself "perfectly". Although I totally
reject bots being perfect, let's assume it to be so for the
sake of the argument here and accept it as the upper limit
of skill, i.e. 100%.
Similarly, what Axel said would establish the lower limit
of skill, i.e. (*near*) 0%.
Thus, it's clear that in terms of absolutes, backgammon is
a game of luck with some relative skill occuring in between.
Skill "happens" in backgammon (or in any other game of
luck) just as luck "happens" in chess (or in any other game
of skill).
Above, I said *near* because even in a randomly played
backgammon game, some amount of skill will "happen".
In other words, even a "clueless" player will win more
than 0% against a "perfect" player.
Thus, the "real" skill begins at some higher level than 0%,
i.e. the "background skill" or "ambient skill" but we have
no idea where it begins. For years and years I suggested
that we make a "random bot" play against a "perfect bot"
to find out what that number is but nobody has shown
any interest. (Why are you all so fearful of knowledge??)
Now, let's go back to Axel's comment and talk a little
about "luck" itself. What if his two players are clueless
about luck also? If a tree falls in a forest and no one is
around to hear, does it still make a noise?
Once I had fun pretending that I was trying to enact a new
law making luck a punishable crime... :)
Surely I would have to take very seriously the definition of
luck and punishments proportionate to its severity. I would
have to consider as many aspects of it as possible, such as:
ignorance, intent, sanity, attempt, failing, repeating, petty,
misdemeanor, felony, premeditated, aggravated, etc.
For example, if a player clueless about luck gets a lucky roll,
the falling dice wouldn't make noise unless observed by an
opponent or a spectator and he wouldn't be guilty. Even if
there were witnesses, he would be unfit for punishment.
A player who is "clued" about bogus "temperature maps" of
bots and who gets a lucky roll without wishing for a specific
roll would only be guilty of petty luck.
A player who gets two doubles in a row is a repeat offender.
Jokers are misdemeanors. Super jokers are felonies.
A player who wishes for a specific roll and gets it, would be
guilty of premediteted luck.
A player who wishes for but doesn't get a specific roll, would
only be guilty of attempted luck.
If a player like Murat, in defying the bot's temperature map,
wishes for a roll that he considers lucky and gets it, he may
be accused of voodoo luck but would "get away with luck".
All this can be summarized as: Backgammon is by nature a
game of luck with undefinable and unmeasurable amounts
of luck and skill occurring in it.
"Luck + skill = 1" is plain bullshit, pretentious false science.
I congratulate you for having read my entire article. I won't
try to dissuade you from framing and hanging it on your wall. ;)
MK
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)