61
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 26 Apr 2024
61 points (93.0% liked)
Casual Conversation
1566 readers
199 users here now
Share a story, ask a question, or start a conversation about (almost) anything you desire. Maybe you'll make some friends in the process.
RULES
- Be respectful: no harassment, hate speech, bigotry, and/or trolling
- Keep the conversation nice and light hearted
- Encourage conversation in your post
- Avoid controversial topics such as politics or societal debates
- Keep it clean and SFW: No illegal content or anything gross and inappropriate
- No solicitation such as ads, promotional content, spam, surveys etc.
- Respect privacy: Don’t ask for or share any personal information
Casual conversation communities:
Related discussion-focused communities
- !actual_discussion@lemmy.ca
- !askmenover30@lemm.ee
- !dads@feddit.uk
- !letstalkaboutgames@feddit.uk
- !movies@lemm.ee
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
It doesn't state it would just be one game, nor that you would have to win, just that you had to be better, which is easy to demonstrate with a program that measures the error level as backgammon is a game of skill with a large chance factor and not a game of chance.
Or in other words, a game of chance.
Just like ~~Russian roulette~~ poker
Edit: adjusted to a better comparison
Apart from the fact some enlightenment on the subject is only a simple query away, you can also test yourself whether there is skill is involved. Just download a free backgammon program like gnu backgammon and play the computer on the easiest setting a couple of times. You will get destroyed. Also, if it were about luck, you would have a completely random world champion every year instead of recurring winners. Not that you would care because you chose not to educate yourself and make an asinine comment anyway on a subject you clearly know nothing about.
I know it is not based on luck but luck does play a factor. Good players do lose to worse players and actually more often than in games like chess. Its exactly like poker. Sure its a game of statistics and calculated risks but its no risk if it can't fail. My point is, i wouldn't place a 1mil bet on my opponent not getting doubles more often than me over one game, or me messing up over 2 games. Let alone assume that no one else would be good at it.
Arguing that you are the best overall player without having to win a game or prove it in any way is just a weird way of trying to win this discussion.
The question doesn't state anything about a game or amount of games, just that you will be compared. Of course there is variance, but that's not what is being measured. All I'm saying is that if you take 99 random people and me, I'm fairly sure that I would be the best backgammon player.
Ok sure. You can have it. Won't argue