Re: Luck Plays No Part in Diplomacy
Posted: Fri Aug 02, 2019 12:37 am
Supposedly, luck plays a part in Diplomacy because...
Version 1: Your opponent can out-think you in narrow end-game situations, so you should artificially randomize your moves.
Version 2: Your opponent can't out-think you in narrow end-game situation, so no matter what any player does to decide their moves, the outcome is determined by luck.
Both versions get thumbs-up by (as far as I can tell) the same 3-4 commentators.
First of all, I think this entire line of thinking has been devastating by Jmo's challenge to prove that this has happened even once. Initially, I was buying into the idea that there might be common endgame situations where players have to arbitrarily choose between moves of completely equal value. But because so, so many players come into this thread asserting that such a thing exists without actually being able to dig one up, I now think that this is a canard. I don't care about 1v1s, and I don't care about the theoretical possibility that this might happen; something that, as a matter of practice, doesn't exist is irrelevant to my perspective on this game.
Second, although it is possible to logically combine the two versions in a way that they are both true, nobody seems to be clearly advocating such a point of view. I am just about completely convinced that I am speaking mostly with rationalizers -- people who first convince themselves that Diplomacy involves "luck," and then afterwards come up with reasons and explanations as to why that is so.
Version 1 is an interesting idea and something that has educated me as a player regardless of whether I agree, as a philosophical matter, that this practice makes "luck" part of the game.
Version 2 is anti-smart. (I can't call it unintelligent, because you have to have a certain amount of intelligence to fall for a sophistry like this.) You absolutely can read a person's mind; it's not a magic power. I do it all the time, and it's why I kick ass at this game. If you're good at Diplomacy, you do it too (even if you insist on calling the process "luck").
The fact that Jmo and I, or anybody else who thinks like we do, don't have a 100% win rate proves nothing. It's specious reasoning, and I'm pretty sure any mature person knows that. Even the world's greatest bowlers don't bowl 300 after 300 after 300 after 300, and yet Bowling is a game of pure technique. The fact that the world's best bowler can't create a 300 game every time without fail doesn't prove that the player lacks any special skill. In Diplomacy, unlike Bowling, you have 6 opponents who are trying to stop you. Under these circumstances, Jmo's win rate is staggering, like a bowler who can somewhat-consistently bowl a 300 game.
Version 1: Your opponent can out-think you in narrow end-game situations, so you should artificially randomize your moves.
Version 2: Your opponent can't out-think you in narrow end-game situation, so no matter what any player does to decide their moves, the outcome is determined by luck.
Both versions get thumbs-up by (as far as I can tell) the same 3-4 commentators.
First of all, I think this entire line of thinking has been devastating by Jmo's challenge to prove that this has happened even once. Initially, I was buying into the idea that there might be common endgame situations where players have to arbitrarily choose between moves of completely equal value. But because so, so many players come into this thread asserting that such a thing exists without actually being able to dig one up, I now think that this is a canard. I don't care about 1v1s, and I don't care about the theoretical possibility that this might happen; something that, as a matter of practice, doesn't exist is irrelevant to my perspective on this game.
Second, although it is possible to logically combine the two versions in a way that they are both true, nobody seems to be clearly advocating such a point of view. I am just about completely convinced that I am speaking mostly with rationalizers -- people who first convince themselves that Diplomacy involves "luck," and then afterwards come up with reasons and explanations as to why that is so.
Version 1 is an interesting idea and something that has educated me as a player regardless of whether I agree, as a philosophical matter, that this practice makes "luck" part of the game.
Version 2 is anti-smart. (I can't call it unintelligent, because you have to have a certain amount of intelligence to fall for a sophistry like this.) You absolutely can read a person's mind; it's not a magic power. I do it all the time, and it's why I kick ass at this game. If you're good at Diplomacy, you do it too (even if you insist on calling the process "luck").
The fact that Jmo and I, or anybody else who thinks like we do, don't have a 100% win rate proves nothing. It's specious reasoning, and I'm pretty sure any mature person knows that. Even the world's greatest bowlers don't bowl 300 after 300 after 300 after 300, and yet Bowling is a game of pure technique. The fact that the world's best bowler can't create a 300 game every time without fail doesn't prove that the player lacks any special skill. In Diplomacy, unlike Bowling, you have 6 opponents who are trying to stop you. Under these circumstances, Jmo's win rate is staggering, like a bowler who can somewhat-consistently bowl a 300 game.
