| |
BGonline.org Forums
Proposed quantitative definition of skill
Posted By: Bob Koca In Response To: Proposed quantitative definition of skill (Timothy Chow)
Date: Tuesday, 19 June 2012, at 5:47 p.m.
"Now suppose that there is a single person who develops the skill to do this correctly within 10 seconds. That demonstrates super tremendous skill. Yet your measure still shows no skill in the game.
No, this is incorrect. Re-read comment one. The definition of skill depends not only on the game, but on the population of players. If the single person in question is brought into the population, then the skill goes up. If he's left out, then there's no skill.
---
Exactly what are you saying I have incorrect? Assuming there is a large enough population more than 90% of the values would be extremely close to .5 making the interdecile range extremely close to 0.
" If there are some perfectly skilled players who can almost always beat unskilled players, then there's a lot of skill involved, right? "
This may be due to a disconnect between an intuitive and mathematically defined meaning but it seems odd to say that a game requires a great amount of skill when the perfect strategy could be learned in less than ten minutes.
Also the fact that half of the games are a complete luckbox seems like it should be taken into account.
"The choice of population would necessarily depend on the context of the court case. If someone is proposing outlawing venues X, Y, and Z, then the relevant population would be the population of players who frequent X, Y, and Z."
It might follow that backgammon tournaments with divisions do not satisfy the skill criteria but backgammon with only one division does. That doesn't seem right somehow.
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.