|
If it's possible enough to overcome bad luck with good decision making, then that's good enough. But if a bad hand dooms you from the start, I feel it's going to reduce the role tactics play in deciding the victor.
Of course, I completely agree and that's my point. There is no innately 'best' move in chess. There's a best move when considered in the context of a strategy - i.e. a sequence of moves and predicted opposing moves. You don't need an element of chance there, because your opponent is unpredictable.
If the system ends up one that you can lose even when you do everything right and the opponent doesn't, then I'd consider this a bad thing. Adding in an element of chance can bring about that sort of outcome. If the element of chance is insignificant enough to be overcome then the system won't lose much and the small difference chance can make would 'spice it up' as it were. If however the element of chance isn't possible to overcome or is hugely detrimental, you'll end up with a toss-up rather than a real fight in most circumstances.
I never disagreed with that statement. I was simply trying to add to it and say that the presence of more than one target doesn't necessarily mean that there isn't going to be a 'best' target.
That's still heavily dependant on the system, of course. I'm guessing some systems don't provide you with any real way to defend yourself other than running. In most cases team fights will be more complex than 1vs1 fights, but there's no guarantee that every system is going to become more tactical the moment there is more than two players involved in a fight.
|