Luck Plays No Part in Diplomacy

[Your Humble Narrator]

Jmo, I may have given you the wrong impression about how I act on my belief that luck plays a part in Diplomacy. Because I never know when a coin flip would be as effective as would be trusting my intuition and my ability to influence opponents, I never just give up on trying to outperform the coin. In the example that I provided, I was assuming after the fact that Italy and Austria were sufficiently capable players as to have negated any edge I introduced with my skill--I know that I don't actually know if that's true, but because (I believe) there is a reasonable chance that it's true, I was just treating it like a certainty, I guess in the interest of sportsmanship. I was grasping at trying to explain my perspective when I talked about the impossibility of quantitatively measuring Diplomacy Skill. I'm not advocating that anyone give up on trying to outperform the coin (unless, maybe, you're truly convinced that you're outclassed in a particular game for one reason or another), and I agree with you that for the purposes of deciding how to move in any given turn, it's counterproductive at best to ignore the myriad ways that you might nudge a player one way or the other on a binary decision. Where we differ is not in how we think the game should be played. You have a better record than I do because you're better at beating the coin than I am, not because I allow my belief about luck playing a role in Diplomacy to deter me from trying to beat the coin.

[jmo1121109]

@YHN, thanks for the clarification. That makes a lot more sense then what it had sounded like you might have been arguing for. Sorry for any misunderstanding on my part. My point does still stand though, some of the things like ongoing SoW can be great even for experienced players to get better any/all parts of the game.

[Your Humble Narrator]

I've been following along with SoW from the start. You and the other mentors do a great job.

[Your Humble Narrator]

And no need to apologize. I think I outright misstated my perspective at least once. Glad to have cleared things up.

[RoganJosh]

@jmo

Are you just gonna ignore the two full press game examples I already posted in this thread? That's pathetic.

[RoganJosh]

No, my objection is completely serious, I find your entire premise of a 50/50 in classic press game to be complete and utter rubbish. And no game gets to a 17-17 with the people still fighting in classic press.

Here's a 50/50 guess in classic press
http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=163988

Here's a 17-17 game in classic press that went on for one more season before G accepted a draw prematurely (had he kept playing he would have won)
http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=236425

Both of these were posted in this thread before your message.

[Octavious]

Always a fun topic.

Of course luck plays a role, and a rather large one. The most finely crafted piece of persuasive argument is utterly useless if the chap you send it to has just had a major argument with his significant other and has better things to do than read it. The first messages we send leave us without a clue as to the personalities who will receive them and how they might take them. We start the game with a random assortment of neighbours and your game as Turkey will vary wildly depending on whether the chap in the Italian seat sees you as his mortal enemy, or as any other nation that he might work with.

You can play a half arsed game and win, you can play out of your skin and lose. The Fates weave their threads and the spectrum of what is possible shifts dramatically.

[RoganJosh]

Axiom 1: No two players are of exactly the same skill.
Axiom 2: For each opponent, there is a nonzero chance that they will try to outguess me rather than flip a coin.

I completely missed this entry and it makes an interesting point.

It's the second axiom that is questionable. If the worse player knows that they are the worse player, then deciding to outguess rather than to flip a coin is to deliberately lower their own winning chances. So, you are assuming that for any player there is a nonzero chance that they will not do their best.

(Sure, some player will not use RNG's by principle...)

But you are touching upon an interesting aspect of the whole dynamics. In practice, if you know that you are the better player, then you might have nothing to gain from using a random number generator. We saw this before in the exchange about whether jmo or jmo's opponents should have used an RNG.

[Wusti]

Always a fun topic.

Of course luck plays a role, and a rather large one. The most finely crafted piece of persuasive argument is utterly useless if the chap you send it to has just had a major argument with his significant other and has better things to do than read it. The first messages we send leave us without a clue as to the personalities who will receive them and how they might take them. We start the game with a random assortment of neighbours and your game as Turkey will vary wildly depending on whether the chap in the Italian seat sees you as his mortal enemy, or as any other nation that he might work with.

You can play a half arsed game and win, you can play out of your skin and lose. The Fates weave their threads and the spectrum of what is possible shifts dramatically.

Oh my god... its like you haven't even read what he had to say or any other post in this thread.

Swordsman is right on each and every count, and no amount of bringing in red herrings will make him wrong.

Your inability to predict something does not make it "luck". Jesus fucking christ.

I remember several recent games where I completely flipped out so called "top tier" players by intentionally playing a what they would call irrational moves. I made totally ridiculous calls in at least 2 games an stomped a solo in another.

I cultivate an erratic and purposely so game style in such games specifically to counter their tournament style play. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't - but its a hell of a lot more fun than playing by the meta.

I still consider myself a student of the game, and losing some doesn't actually bother me, as long as I learn from it.

But I tell you one thing - I wouldn't learn shit from my losses if I looked at every 50/50 call and called it luck. Having to make a choice IS NOT LUCK!

The stubborn insistence on claiming luck is a real and present factor is hilariously ridiculous, and I for one don't blame swordsman at all for getting frustrated with your willing self-delusion.

[Your Humble Narrator]

> I remember several recent games where I completely flipped out so called "top tier" players by intentionally playing a what they would call irrational moves. I made totally ridiculous calls in at least 2 games an stomped a solo in another

Well, they weren’t irrational moves then. They weren’t ridiculous calls. I don’t think anyone is going to call a move you decide to make because you don’t expect your opponent to predict it an irrational move.

[jmo1121109]

No, my objection is completely serious, I find your entire premise of a 50/50 in classic press game to be complete and utter rubbish. And no game gets to a 17-17 with the people still fighting in classic press.

Here's a 50/50 guess in classic press
http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=163988

Here's a 17-17 game in classic press that went on for one more season before G accepted a draw prematurely (had he kept playing he would have won)
http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=236425

Both of these were posted in this thread before your message.

Thanks for reposting them together. I had only gotten to catch up on the most current page of posts.

For http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=163988 which part do you consider a 50/50 guess? And why do you believe that press played no impact in that especially when you see that France and England coordinated in their choice? Once I hear your reply to make sure we're not discussing different parts of that game I'll reply in detail.

For http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=236425 Aurelin made a mistake they now regret by not just solo'ing the game. I don't see how this comes anywhere close to a 50/50?

[Octavious]

The stubborn insistence on claiming luck is a real and present factor is hilariously ridiculous, and I for one don't blame swordsman at all for getting frustrated with your willing self-delusion.

I confess that I couldn't hope to be a bigger expert on self delusion than your good self, Wusti :)

Nevertheless my opinion remains the same. There are a great number of factors over which you have no or minimal control. If these happen to fall your way you will have a far easier time of it than if they fall against you. That, in my view, is clearly luck.

If you claim these factors don't exist, you are mistaken

If you claim that the positive or negative impact of these factors somehow don't count as luck under your definition then you are free to do so, but I'd argue that whatever definition you are using is so limited as to be useless.

[RoganJosh]

And no game gets to a 17-17 with the people still fighting in classic press.

For http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=236425 Aurelin made a mistake they now regret by not just solo'ing the game. I don't see how this comes anywhere close to a 50/50?

Yes, this is a bad example. The game reaches 17-17 in Autumn 14. From that point on, it is a game with no diplomacy or strategy involved. It's is purely tactics. But there are more options than only two, and their relative strengths are not 50/50. You can compute payoff matrices, but I don't think anyone would actually do it in this case.

I included it the second post only because it is an example of a full press game that continued one season after reaching 17-17, and it should have continued further.

The second example is better, I'll put it in a separate post.

[e.m.c^42]

It is worth noting that swordsman did define "luck" in a very specific context and connotation, to which meaning he would operate on for the rest of the articles. I suspect he targeted this as response to what he saw as a phenomenon in certain groups of players who think the same way as defined.

However, not all the quotes he pulled from people were written with that meaning in mind, methinks. This is probably causing some issues, since OP interpreted the statement different from what it was meant in. It's likely some were using it more loosely, but it's obvious(?) enough that there at least exists people who think it's a straight, literal, machine-generated random result equivalent to certain plays, to which I also disagree.

Personally, would say "luck" in this circumstance is anything that tips the likelihood of outcomes favorable to your own side. To become "luckier" is to increase those probabilities, regardless of source or reason. I somewhat disagree that most people use the meaning swordsman gave when talking about diplomacy.

[Squigs44]

The stubborn insistence on claiming luck is a real and present factor is hilariously ridiculous, and I for one don't blame swordsman at all for getting frustrated with your willing self-delusion.

I confess that I couldn't hope to be a bigger expert on self delusion than your good self, Wusti :)

Nevertheless my opinion remains the same. There are a great number of factors over which you have no or minimal control. If these happen to fall your way you will have a far easier time of it than if they fall against you. That, in my view, is clearly luck.

If you claim these factors don't exist, you are mistaken

If you claim that the positive or negative impact of these factors somehow don't count as luck under your definition then you are free to do so, but I'd argue that whatever definition you are using is so limited as to be useless.

So if I'm playing online chess and my opponent is so distracted by his real life that he plays very poorly, I got lucky, and therefore chess has luck? I actually feel that your definition is too broad to be useful in any sense.

[e.m.c^42]

(now watch me fencesit in the following posts, lmao - will also be using "luck" as defined in my previous post, and will clarify if it's OP's definition)

I agree with the point that it is highly, highly unlikely there will ever a specific moveset that is dependent purely on RNG, unless the site gets some upgrades and we get certain bots to play versus each other. The reason being, no moves will ever exist in a vacuum. Even for the example, Spring '01 gunboat - the probability of movesets exist in the context of the current site gunboat meta. (For live games, even more so - since it's a smaller pool of players).

[swordsman3003]

The stubborn insistence on claiming luck is a real and present factor is hilariously ridiculous, and I for one don't blame swordsman at all for getting frustrated with your willing self-delusion.

Nevertheless my opinion remains the same. There are a great number of factors over which you have no or minimal control. [. . . ]If you claim that the positive or negative impact of these factors somehow don't count as luck under your definition then you are free to do so, but I'd argue that whatever definition you are using is so limited as to be useless.

1. According to your definition, “Luck Plays A Part In Go” — do you agree, or disagree? E.g, your opponent could have a heart attack (so you win by default), or have missed a night’s rest due to family issues (so they play like crap), therefore “Luck Plays A Part In Go.” I believe you must agree, because you listed factors that are not particular to Diplomacy; your “luck” factors apply to all human experience in general. But I keep getting accused of “mischaracterizing” others’ statements, so please clarify for me what games, if any, you do not think involve luck.

2. I argue that the definition you are using is so expansive as to be devoid of content, and therefore misleading when applied to a specific board game:

If “luck” encompasses all possible things that could happen in the universe outside of a player’s control (e.g., players becoming incapacitated or dying during a match)……then every thing under the sun depends on “luck” and it’s a misleading statement to point out that Diplomacy in particular is somehow based on this understanding of “luck.”
[. . .]
In the context of board games, it does not make sense to claim that a given board game involves a lot of luck on the grounds that there is a wide range of behavior among players, or that players make mistakes, or that players may drop out of a match, or that some players are better than others. Of course your opponents are free to do whatever they want to do; it’s a game for cryin’ out loud. If your belief is that your opponents’ freedom of action counts as “luck” then you’re defining “luck” as congruent with playing a game against another person. In your mind, what games don’t involve luck? Sudoku? Coloring Books?
[. . .]
To describe your rivals’ autonomy as “luck” dilutes the meaning of an easy-to-understand word. Describing happenstance from outside the game as “luck” empties the word of meaning altogether.
[. . .]
If I were to say “Luck plays a major role in Diplomacy,” I would mislead them into thinking that Diplomacy is played like Risk, Backgammon, Yahtzee, or Monopoly. They would definitely not think that I am referring to how Diplomacy players widely vary in their ability and play style, or that online Diplomacy players sometimes miss their turns. To justify the claim that “luck” is a major factor in Diplomacy by defining “luck” as anything players are capable of doing or thinking, or anything that’s possible to occur in real life outside the game itself, makes the statement true at the expense of its intelligibility (and meaning).
[. . .]
If you say that Diplomacy depends on luck because you’re coming from the position that the totality of human experience depends on luck, then your claim is true on a purely semantic level and lacking in everyday meaning. This makes the claim a misleading truth. It’s like if I told you “I don’t have to work weekends”—the implication being that I am employed during the week—when in fact I am retired. If I don’t have to work weekends because I don’t have to work at all, specifying the weekends is misleading as a matter of common language.

Read more here if you like.

[e.m.c^42]

Using my context (and understanding of the word), would disagree with the premises of the phrase that luck plays no part for the entire game. The entire game is centered around it - a la increasing your chances of victory. Whether it is random or not, or under your influence or not, it's still luck - see analogy below. The entire point of the game is to manipulate that, with much skillz or the lack thereof. There is skill at obtaining luck, and having luck, and there's a world of difference in between.

To use an analogy, joining a game (and if gunboat, the '01 moves) is equivalent to getting your "probability of winning!", "probability of drawing!", and "probability of losing!" stats rolled. Outside factors that influence gameplay are possible events with buffs or debuffs, and critically, how you respond is skill. The entire rest of the game is effort spent to increase and decrease said stats in certain ways.

The only possible exception, I guess, would be if one is certain of the fact that their opponent is using a RNG generator to choose a move, and you decide to counter that using the same method. If it succeeds, and they fail, it'd be "having luck". Similarly for outside factors that have an effect, later in the game. Anything else is skill, and it would be utterly demeaning to both oneself and others to call it anything else.

[e.m.c^42]

However, luck in general (both for my definition or the original given one :D), does play a role in diplomacy - like OP said, the country allotments do have some sway.

Where I disagree with OP is that who the players end up being, and outside factors that influence the game, also hold sway - the former two of which is decided when one joins a game.

This part is probably the only part of the game that is actually, somewhat determined by RNG. For example, if you end up joining a game of alts working together or metagamers, then yes, that is bad luck. The likelihood of any outcomes in your favor of victory is nil. Similarly, there is probably a large difference, as a middling player, between joining a game with very skilled players, and joining a newbie game. Having a draw holdout player lose connection and NMR, therefore letting the draw happen - having good fortune.

The thing about outside factors is - it's only an outside factor if it ends up affecting the game. It would be inane to disregard it as something that won't change your probabilities. Sure, perhaps it can be called something that isn't the word "luck", but it exists as an influence.

But for most cases, the act of joining a game is the only act of actual "RNG luck" in the entire game. (This is probably also the definition and argument of "luck" swordsman has been using.)
(Are you proud of me Squigs? I'm trying to use your mafia argument template, with kool formatting :D)

[diplomat554]

The stubborn insistence on claiming luck is a real and present factor is hilariously ridiculous, and I for one don't blame swordsman at all for getting frustrated with your willing self-delusion.

I confess that I couldn't hope to be a bigger expert on self delusion than your good self, Wusti :)

Nevertheless my opinion remains the same. There are a great number of factors over which you have no or minimal control. If these happen to fall your way you will have a far easier time of it than if they fall against you. That, in my view, is clearly luck.

If you claim these factors don't exist, you are mistaken

If you claim that the positive or negative impact of these factors somehow don't count as luck under your definition then you are free to do so, but I'd argue that whatever definition you are using is so limited as to be useless.

So if I'm playing online chess and my opponent is so distracted by his real life that he plays very poorly, I got lucky, and therefore chess has luck? I actually feel that your definition is too broad to be useful in any sense.

Yes, you can say you got lucky in chess. In fact, top players regularly do. The flip side of accepting what you could have done better in defeats is accepting what your opponent could have done better in victories, in both Diplomacy and chess. Attributing opponents' mistakes to your skill rather than forces outside your control is sometimes reasonable, but clearly not always. Now, that doesn't say much about the game itself, but I do believe that is the context in which most decent Diplomacy players use the phrase, and it's surprising to me that this isn't already the consensus in this conversation. I don't think defining luck in a way that means it's present everywhere means that you can't discuss to what degree a game is determined by it. So the statement "chess has luck" may be technically correct but entirely meaningless, because everything "has luck" in that sense. Diplomacy differs from chess because of (1) concurrent moves meaning your best move is determined by the opponent's decision, leading to the debate over whether "50-50" situations should be thought of probabilistically; and (2) limited influence over 3rd parties' actions outside the battles you are fighting. Since you can do both these things better or worse, but even the best players can get defeated by circumstances outside their control in both instances, IMO that's enough to draw a meaningful distinction between those two games. Luck plays a bigger role in Diplomacy than in chess, but obviously less than in Risk. That doesn't mean that better players don't overcome that variance and perform better consistently over time, and therefore improving your skills in these areas increases your chances of winning.