7 ms·

> Most decisions that don't involve some unknown are relatively easy. Apparently you don't play go. I play games for entertainment, not to mimic reality. Gam

by brent 18y ago

> Most decisions that don't involve some unknown are relatively easy. Apparently you don't play go. I play games for entertainment, not to mimic reality. Games with chance as a significant component aren't necessarily more entertaining than games requiring significant skill.

mattmaroon 18y ago
I would say the general population disagrees with you, which is why are games of chance a multi-billion dollar industry and only a few people can make a good living playing chess.
- brent 18y ago
  Well, other skill based "games" include the majority (or all?) of professional sports. If there were chance introduced at key points in the game (like drawing cards or flipping coins) I don't think anyone would watch baseball, football, or soccer. Also, board games involving skill (e.g. chess and go) have stood the test of time over many chance games.
  - eru 18y ago
    From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penalty_shootout_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penalty_shootout_(football)#History "Where a replay or playoff was not possible, ties were previously decided by drawing of lots. Examples include Italy's win over the USSR in the semi-final of the 1968 European Championship."
  - mattmaroon 18y ago
    Chance is a huge element in sports. Otherwise nobody would watch them. You're separating luck and skill as if games can't have both, and in the process entirely missing my point.
    - brent 18y ago
      Clearly there is a spectrum, I'm not missing your point. In this spectrum though, chess/go/sport are at one end and gambling is at the other. Poker is in the middle.
      - mattmaroon 18y ago
        Sport is probably closer to the middle than you think, especially where a team is involved. If you don't think an athlete can get unlucky, ask anyone on the Falcons. One teammate does something stupid and your team is out of contention for years. Teams are generally businesses too, and just like most other businesses have a huge random element.

by brent 18y ago

mattmaroon 18y ago

I would say the general population disagrees with you, which is why are games of chance a multi-billion dollar industry and only a few people can make a good living playing chess.

brent 18y ago
Well, other skill based "games" include the majority (or all?) of professional sports. If there were chance introduced at key points in the game (like drawing cards or flipping coins) I don't think anyone would watch baseball, football, or soccer. Also, board games involving skill (e.g. chess and go) have stood the test of time over many chance games.
- eru 18y ago
  From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penalty_shootout_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penalty_shootout_(football)#History "Where a replay or playoff was not possible, ties were previously decided by drawing of lots. Examples include Italy's win over the USSR in the semi-final of the 1968 European Championship."
- mattmaroon 18y ago
  Chance is a huge element in sports. Otherwise nobody would watch them. You're separating luck and skill as if games can't have both, and in the process entirely missing my point.
  - brent 18y ago
    Clearly there is a spectrum, I'm not missing your point. In this spectrum though, chess/go/sport are at one end and gambling is at the other. Poker is in the middle.
    - mattmaroon 18y ago
      Sport is probably closer to the middle than you think, especially where a team is involved. If you don't think an athlete can get unlucky, ask anyone on the Falcons. One teammate does something stupid and your team is out of contention for years. Teams are generally businesses too, and just like most other businesses have a huge random element.