Texas Chuck wrote:frica wrote:On a more serious note, both Chess and Go have variance too.
The better player doesn't always win, especially if the difference isn't that big.
There is no element of luck or chance though. Obviously even great players sometimes make a mistake. But its "pure competition" much like who runs the fastest, lifts the most.
The games themselves obviously have no inherent element of luck or chance (since they're perfect information games).
Ehhh, (human) players are very far from perfect, and make bad (unforced) mistakes all the time. Even the strongest grandmasters (including Hikaru and Magnus) sometimes resign in positions that are objectively winning.
They don't "sometimes make a mistake", they make mistakes all the time.
Even in computer chess (Which is where I'm most experienced), you see "weird" results all the time. Simply because imperfect entities add variance to the game.
Obviously this variance is nowhere near something like a casual game of Texas Hold 'M. But it's still there.
You could also call 3pt shooting a "pure competition", yet we know Curry* wouldn't win all the time.
Or maybe not even a majority of the time.
*Or whoever would actually be the best 3pt shooter over an infinite sample size.
Or we're talking past eachother.
In which case I'm sorry.
