> In the perfect game, you should still be in with a shot of winning even if you’re not as practised as your opponent. The article just casually drops this sta

> In the perfect game, you should still be in with a shot of winning even if you’re not as practised as your opponent. The article just casually drops this statement and then runs with it. I feel it should be examined, though. There should definitely be range in which a not as practiced player can beat a more experienced one, but to have that decided by luck makes the victory unearned. I believe a perfect game should be one with no luck, so if I win my opponent cannot dismiss my victory as "getting lucky". Losing to an opponent who got lucky just feels bad, and for me personally, winning because I got lucky feels empty.