Re: Luck Plays No Part in Diplomacy
Posted: Tue Aug 06, 2019 3:46 pm
Skill plays no part in Diplomacy because free will is an illusion. All your victories and defeats are predetermined. Fate is inexorable.
https://www.webdiplomacy.net/contrib/phpBB3/
https://www.webdiplomacy.net/contrib/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1795
But if true, then it proves the case that there is neither luck nor chance in Diplomacy as well.
I had wanted to say something intelligent, but I could not get past three pages of pedantry and didn't want to spout off without knowing the whole thread. It's honestly a pretty fantastic thread (at least for the first three pages), and I would truly say that everyone has presented correct and interesting viewpoints (not even trolling now). I just didn't want to read those same correct and interesting viewpoints being compared to dick sizes for 8 more pages.Wusti wrote: ↑Wed Aug 07, 2019 6:23 amBut if true, then it proves the case that there is neither luck nor chance in Diplomacy as well.
EVERYONE IS CORRECT!
I fully agree. I’m not sure if we agree that a discussion of semantics is a useful conversation; most people use the word “semantics” derisively, but I consider semantics to be a worthwhile field of study (and one I think about and apply almost daily).The Belgian Bulldog wrote: ↑Wed Aug 07, 2019 10:49 pmthree aspects [. . .] show that it is all about semantics : "what is 'luck'?"
but we do not agree about whether this difference (imperfect information) constitutes "luck."The Belgian Bulldog wrote:However, when you compare with chess, you see that there is a certain additional element of luck in diplomacy.
You are, in your own words, defining “luck” as that which a player fails to anticipate or control:The Belgian Bulldog wrote:Players saying they can exclude this entirely overestimate themselves. I have read swordsman's blog on the biggest game of all time and on the ODC : they are both impressive reads, but also swordsman is perhaps most of the time right, but also sometimes wrong, as we all try to be.
What is happening is that you are looking for the gap between what your abilities allow you to accomplish (or what someone else’s abilities allow them to accomplish), and calling that gap “luck.” The better you are, the less “luck” involved — but nobody is perfect, so nobody can eliminate all the luck. I get what you're saying, but I disagree. Well, like, I obviously agree that you think what you think -- I believe you are being honest with me about what "luck" means to you -- but I disagree about the desirability of this line of thinking.The Belgian Bulldog wrote:That does not mean that the element of luck is gone, you (may) only have decreased the 'chance' (or luck) of being confronted with a position that is to your disadvantage but nothing is excluded.
And, The Belgian Bulldog, you flatly contradicted one of the points in my second essay without actually challenging what I said (which is a factor in why I presume you missed the second essay):BrotherBored wrote:A belief that you are “unlucky” will make you feel better, but a belief that you controlled your destiny will make you be better.
[. . .]
Somewhere between your current capabilities and godhood lies the outer limit of what you can do, and you should strive to improve to reach that point… not blame “luck” for your inability to understand and foresee the best moves you could have made.
The Belgian Bulldog wrote:3. What is true, is that your skills in diplomacy obviously do matter in all of the above, but I think the differentiation between skillful vs non-skilful players becomes more clear after having played a number of games. A good player may lose from a bad player in a game due to a number of elements that are outside her/his control. You may have made some wrong guesses in a certain game, but if you know your statistics and know how to read your opponents and how to play the political game, a higher accuracy level and level of success will surely become apparent after having played more games.
(that's only about half of the content of that sub-point, but I holding back on quoting so much text)BrotherBored wrote:4. Treat Every Match as a Test of Your Skill
There are players who adhere to the attitude I am criticizing even if they don’t use the word “luck” to describe how they feel. There’s this claim floating around the community that Diplomacy is a game where it’s really hard to control your destiny, so you can only really prove how good you are through long-term, aggregate results.
What a great story to tell yourself to help you sleep at night.
I’m here to tell you today that the outcome of any given Diplomacy match strongly corresponds to the difference in the skill of the players in that match. Sure, there are “upsets” where a weaker player ekes out a rare result against stronger players. But I think that happens in Diplomacy far less often than almost any board game, or competitive activity in general. Diplomacy is a game where being even slightly better than another player will make a huge difference in your ability to defeat that player. If you are significantly better, the match is yours to lose.
That's my answer. What does luck mean to you?BrotherBored wrote:What is Luck? (Baby Don’t Hurt Me!)
An excuse.
You are right that I hadn't. I have read it now, although I have to say that it does not change what I said earlier.swordsman3003 wrote:From your post, I can tell that you read my first essay on the old Avalon Hill box quote. But I can't tell if you read my second essay
I agree with what you say on semantics, and largely with several examples applied to chess, diplomacy and poker.swordsman3003 wrote:Semantics, in the philosophical/linguistic sense of the word, is the study of meanings. Semantics helps us understand the relationship between words and the concepts meant to be represented by the words.
I disagree.swordsman3003 wrote:So if it’s just words we’re talking about, why does my conclusion rile up so many people? Because they’re hung up on the word luck and they can’t let that go. ...
...But I’m not going to mince words: I consider the over-wide understanding of “luck” (the correspondence of the word to the concept -- the concept of not feeling in control) to be a self-imposed mental handicap.
They do indeed and I will try to explain where I draw that line. You say that a poker game and the randomized card drawing is what constitutes luck in poker. You differentiate from what happens in Diplomacy where other players take decisions, you have to outguess them and you can influence them.swordsman3003 wrote:... Yes, obviously, some people draw that line differently than I do.
I never said this, nor intended to imply this. I was not referring to you at all, and I think my post shows that I never did that.swordsman3003 wrote:I struggle to see how this line of thinking leads me to “overstimate [myself].
See, this is probably where I disagree most. The fact that you consider that luck is involved does not mean that that this is holding you back. I will review every single move I (intend to) make for a number of times, execute that move, and review it several times after. I will put all effort in trying to make things go my way. I will consider how I can increase my chance of success on a single move, a single turn, a single game and over long-term, aggregate results. I will do that, despite the fact that I consider that luck is still involved.swordsman3003 wrote:I personally believe that whatever is motivating you to come forth and define or apply the word luck in such a way is holding you back. I urge you to look inside yourself, consider your feelings, and change your attitude.
I do agree with you that the outcome of any given Diplomacy match strongly corresponds to the difference in skill, but I don't think that is the case more than any competitive activity in general. Again: try chess. But you can even try a game of tennis or several other sport games.swordsman3003 wrote:There’s this claim floating around the community that Diplomacy is a game where it’s really hard to control your destiny, so you can only really prove how good you are through long-term, aggregate results.
What a great story to tell yourself to help you sleep at night.
I’m here to tell you today that the outcome of any given Diplomacy match strongly corresponds to the difference in the skill of the players in that match. Sure, there are “upsets” where a weaker player ekes out a rare result against stronger players. But I think that happens in Diplomacy far less often than almost any board game, or competitive activity in general.
So it's pretty clear that even Swordsman doesn't stand by this idea. Removing anything to do with "chance" or "luck" from your vocabulary when talking about Diplomacy just makes discussing the game impossible, and Swordsman recognizes this.What I really hope to accomplish here is to harass England’s moves. I think England is very likely to move North Sea to Skagerrak, Norway, or Heligoland Bight (maybe even in that order of probability) and then backfill by moving Edinburgh into North Sea. If England doesn’t move North Sea that way, then England will probably do something to harass me from taking Belgium (like supporting Burgundy into Belgium, moving to Holland to attempt to cut my support) so there’s still a chance that my move to North Sea will accomplish something even if North Sea doesn’t move, because I could cut his support order.