A third variable is inventiveness. While such may occur through practice, practice does not guarantee inventiveness. I would argue that it is ultimately the i

A third variable is inventiveness. While such may occur through practice, practice does not guarantee inventiveness. I would argue that it is ultimately the inventive and tenacious choices made during a game leading to a win which people actually enjoy. Such choices can be conditioned by practice and talent, but ultimately are not reducible to such. Here is a personal anecdote to illustrate my point. I was part of a bowling league for a season. I sucked at bowling, and had trouble breaking 70. Throughout the season my teammates patiently critiqued my style and gave me advice until I gradually learned to line up the ball with the arrows and bowl straight. It was very tedious and boring, but I improved per Scott's observation. At the end my high game broke 120. Then I stopped bowling for about 2 years. On a whim, some friends and I bowled a game. This time I decided to discard everything I learned and just make up my own style, which was more fun. During that game I invented my own technique of curving the ball. However, instead of the gradual, painful process of "practice" and slow accumulation of points I dramatically improved my game, beating my friends despite my lack of practice and rusted skill. After about 6 visits to a bowling lane over the course of another 2 years I regularly score in the 130s and 140s. Additionally, bowling is now very enjoyable and the game is intuitive. The difference between the two techniques is quite dramatic. When I switch back to straight bowling my score drops again and I have difficulty climbing above 100. However, I am more consistent with straight bowling. Curve bowling has a much higher variance in score (from a recent game): X, 00, X, /, X00. So, I combine the two techniques and arrive at an augmentation of Scott's view: practiced skill plus innovation/intuition.