|
BGonline.org Forums
Proposed quantitative definition of skill
Posted By: Steve Mellen In Response To: Proposed quantitative definition of skill (Timothy Chow)
Date: Tuesday, 19 June 2012, at 7:49 p.m.
So we have skill, which is basically you playing the game as close to perfectly as you can. Then we have luck, which is basically the element of random chance. And then we have a third category, which I might colloquially describe as "your opponent fortuitously screwing up," which maybe doesn't fall neatly into the luck/skill dichotomy.
To me, the third category is just another form of skill. To others, it is a form of luck ("I was really lucky he didn't see that mate in two"). Tim's definition, by getting rid of the assumption that luck + skill = 1, seems to leave it as its own category. It's certainly an interesting way of looking at things.
I do not believe this definition is helpful in the legal arena, not only because it will go over the judge's head, but also because the best legal argument is to contend that "anything which is not random chance is skill." It doesn't help the case to instead assign your opponent's blunders to a third category that isn't captured within the luck/skill framework.
I will continue to bang the drum and claim that your opponent's blunders are an element of skill, even though they are outside your control. There are elements of luck in tennis, but you wouldn't say "tennis is partially a game of luck, because sometimes your opponent double-faults."
|
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.