> the sense of observation or the putting in place of a strategic sequence
The court can ask him to defeat 10 other people in that game consistently to prove that ? But then he could argue the others were also skilled ?
Whether or not the specific examples constitutes cheating is up for negotiation by the participants.
What?
Can you imagine saying to any reasonable person, “do you want to create a safe place for the mutual exploration of systems?” And having them reply, “oh yeah, I would like to play a game.”
Drama in music comes from an anticipated causality from A->B and either the fulfillment or denial of that causality. Romantic-era music strives for maximum drama by injecting as many fulfillment/denial moments as possible, with denials that are stretched to the limit of the implicit rules of the cultural context / musical system.
Minimalist music does something entirely different, by first breaking the expectation of resolution, and then becoming the flame that we stare into; it begins within a known system and then subverts it through stasis.
Can you imagine saying to any reasonable person, "do you want to skip all the boring parts and get to the final note?" Or, "yeah, ok, I don't want to see or even know what happens in the movie, just tell me what the final shot is."
In games, the drama of the "game part" is in exploring the edges of a system, with the added engagement of partial agency towards "resolution" (in a musical sense).
I still can't imagine any reasonable person thinking the "point" of a game is to win. Winning is the objective, not the point. Whether or not employing agency from outside the system is appropriate for a game is up for negotiation among the players, but without some level of adherence to an agreed system, it ceases to be a multiplayer game and becomes a game of solitaire where the rules are whatever the cheater decides.
I can appreciate that there is drama in that, and perhaps the drama of avoiding being caught is more satisfying than the drama of performing "the perfect game" for some people. In that situation, though, I think I'd still describe games as "a safe place for the mutual exploration of systems."
After skimming your comment, I’ve decided you’re intentionally splitting hairs to create a difference between point and objective.
Ask yourself: What is the point of going to the grocery store? What is the objective of going to the grocery store?
Would that line apply when playing your young child in a game?
[0]: https://priceonomics.com/the-world-of-competitive-rock-paper...
edit: wait something looks odd at http://www.worldrps.com/ , is it really an internationally recognized competition ?
One chilly night in the fall of 2004, I chanced to find myself upon the streets of Toronto. I represented one half of the august top-rated debate team from a small upstate NY liberal arts school ([cough] named after a man shot by Aaron Burr), recovering from a day in which we had arrived at a debate tournament and discovered, 11 minutes before the commencement of Round 1, that we would be competing using a format heretofore unknown to us. A lot of hemming and hawing ensued, before we ultimately turned to face the task awaiting us, and swaggered to the podium to stare down the fate bearing down on us like a hawk on a rabbit. The night was not kind to us, and by 11PM, we had succeeded in drowning our sorrows in a heretofore unimagined selection of Labatt's higher-gravity options available at the corner pub.
Which is when we were wholly taken aback to encounter none other than Syracuse University's internationally ranked (!!) team of rock-paper-scissors players, fresh off their top-32 finish in that year's invitation-only (!!!) tournament. I admit I was skeptical as to the provenance of their accolades, but a quick glance at the large medallions hanging off two team members' necks was enough to assuage any doubts; these were our fellow Upstate New Yorkers, and they had come to win RoShamBo rounds and chew bubblegum, and they were all out of bubblegum.
Naturally, we did what any self-respecting half-in-the-bag Americans would do upon meeting so-called champions of the rock-paper-scissors arena on the streets of a foreign nation, and challenged them to a duel on the spot. We proceeded to go a spectacular 0-24 against our fellow countrymen, before realizing that maybe there's more to the metagame than we had previously considered. It's only now, 15 years later, upon reading this description of the algorithm, that I have come to understand the instrument of our demise.
Yet, all the RPS algorithm starts from the same premise.
The counter-intuitive reason why there can be winning strategy to RPS is that people try to devise winning strategies. Once you deviate from purely randomly choosing RPS, your adversary can try to analyze your past moves to create a model of your strategy and used that model to defeat you.
As for us poor humans, we're really bad at choosing randomly, so the best RPS players are very good at picking up what type of players you are.
PS: and in any population of players in a tournament, the mere presence of a few that want to have a non-random strategy will win over those without strategy. The strategy-less will just have a random streak of wins and losses no matter who they are facing. Of those with a strategy, the one with the best analysis of their opponent will win.
So no one has used math to back up their claims of skill, but one anecdote says "there's totally skill involved"...
I think what we want to look at is how much luck/skill percent is there. If tennis was luck overpowering skill, it wouldn't be an international sport in my opinion.
So rock paper scissors is 90% luck + 10% skill. A kid can potentially beat a professional rock player. Same is not the case for tennis.
I'd put rock paper scissors more into the poker category, but actually there's less of a luck-component in rps, because there's no drawing of random cards. You're only playing your opponent, and unless your opponent hast figured out a way to be completely random, you can "read" them if you're good enough. But that's very hard and impossible to do perfectly, so we call it luck.
Tennis is mostly a matter of the body, rps or poker are games of the mind.
Tennis would also have some part of mind games right ? The more I think about it, obviously it definitely is a matter of body excellence, but if you can always predict where your opponent going to hit, wouldn't that be a sure win (considering the players equal in matter of body)?
I don't see any "reaction time" available in RPS (considering equal in matter of body), and no way to predict the choice of the other one (as you stated) so similar to coin toss (you can't influence the choice of the opponent).
Poker also gives you some amount of time to "react" to what others did. So I am still seeing RPS heavily biased towards luck.
> I don't see any "reaction time" available in RPS (considering equal in matter of body), and no way to predict the choice of the other one (as you stated) so similar to coin toss (you can't influence the choice of the opponent).
But you do have ways to predict the choice of your opponent. You "just" need to understand how they think. If you chose rock and they chose scissors, what will they choose next? Are they the type that figures "he will choose rock again, I'm going to pick paper", or are they thinking "he will try to mix it up and pic scissors because he thinks I'm going to react to rock by using paper, I'll take rock"?
If you played against a computer that just used a perfect random number generator, I'd agree with you. But you're playing a human, and they're terrible at being random.
It would be absolutely a game of luck if you played one game against one person without knowing who they are. But since, similar to Poker, you can learn over multiple rounds, the luck quickly fades. And apparently, if you're playing the odds, many people will start with certain choices, and they don't pick each choice at the same rate. There are quite a few articles (and books) out there, and they often mention the World Rock Paper Scissors Society, which also holds international tournaments.
the entire accepted premise of a coin flip is fair probability; yoou've subverted the game otherwise and should probably start working at a carnival.
With a fair coin and enough practice, you can: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8248810/
Normally if the coin landed heads-up in your palm, it would then be tails-up on your other wrist. But with a little practice it was easy to sneak in a half-flip during that last maneuver, so heads-up in your palm would also be heads-up on your wrist.
If you did all this fast enough, the other person wouldn't notice that you got a peek at the coin as it landed in your palm, so you could decide whether to do the expected final flip or the sneaky one.
I got away with this for quite some time before anyone figured out what I was doing!
You see this sequence:
> Shadow took a quarter from his pocket, tails up. He flicked it up in the air, knocking it against his finger as it left his hand to give it a wobble that made it look as if it were turning, caught it, slapped it down on the back of his hand.
> "Call," he said.
> "Why?" asked Wednesday.
> "I don't want to work for anyone with worse luck than me. Call."
> "Heads," said Mr. Wednesday.
> "Sorry," said Shadow, revealing the coin without even bothering to glance at it. "It was tails. I rigged the toss."
> "Rigged games are the easiest ones to beat," said Wednesday, wagging a square finger at Shadow. "Take another look at the quarter."
> Shadow glanced down at it. The head was face-up.
> "I must have fumbled the toss," he said, puzzled.
> "You do yourself a disservice," said Wednesday, and he grinned. "I'm just a lucky, lucky guy."
There is a detailed analysis in 10.3 "How to cheat at coin and die tossing" of E.T. Jaynes's Probability Theory.