Is a game more skillful if cheating is extremely effective or if it is not effective at all?

Is a game more skillful if cheating is extremely effective or if it is not effective at all?

Other urls found in this thread:

goonsaloon.pro/intj/
twitter.com/AnonBabble

here's a bold claim

if an AI can be programmed to play the game and play it well, there's no skill involved.

That doesn't make any sense

chess computers beat your ass

stop posting you underage literal fucking retard

I don't get what you're talking about. Cheating implies that it's not normally allowed, so it shouldn't have anything to do with playing the game competitively.

Define skill.

the dumbest shit I've ever read

that's the dumbest fucking question i've heard all week

How old are you? 15?

This is fucking embarassing.

Skill is the time you take plus the effort you put out equaling the results of your time and effort.

and if all that can be replicated by a robot, then the skill of those gamers are really subject to ridicule.

>chess beats humans therefore this breaks my logic down
Maybe chess isn't about skill but thinking moves ahead, something that a robot can do easily but a human needs time and effort to even get to a couple moves ahead of the opponent.

this has to be bait. I refuse to believe someone is actually stupid enough to think this.

i don't see you faggots coming up with anything to counteract my claim.

a robot can beat you in your game, therefore the skill you put into the game isn't skill at all, but following routines you make in your own brain.

>implying forethought isn't the skill being tested by chess

Give that question another try.

it's a characteristic of stupid people to think others being stupid without giving a second thought.

this whole board is showing their stupidity.

>i don't see you faggots coming up with anything to counteract my claim.


CHESS COMPUTERS you fucking 15 year old sub-100 IQ faggot

The lack of reasonable response to this made me consider if it's actually true.

forethought is a skill but the only skill you need to build up but it's easy for a human to get thrown off. a computer has thousands of potential moves planned out. a human can only predict 2 to 5 moves reliably.

>i am right
>the whole board facepalming at my childish stupidity is wrong

>Maybe chess isn't about skill but thinking moves ahead, something that a robot can do easily but a human needs time and effort to even get to a couple moves ahead of the opponent.

Amazing, you have the philosophical proficiency of an average 10-year old.

>a human can only predict 2 to 5 moves reliably.

a human from papua-newguinea maybe
nigger you are fucking stupid, a chess computer can't reliably predict your every turn, he just has an answer for every situation.

this is Sup Forums and reasonable responses only come from Sup Forums

>you haven't proved me wrong
>you use strawmanning and assume i'm underage but i'm Tingle.

children these days are just the dumbest creatures. can't even entertain a silly idea. DURR IT'S DUMB DURR CHILD. pathetic.

>a chess computer can't reliably predict your every turn, he just has an answer for every situation.

and this is somehow... different?

>Implying Sup Forums hasn't become Sup Forums 2.0 at this point

Yes, very different from the thing you said. You said the chess computer excels in prediction, but he doesn't - that's not what sets a human and a chess computer apart

How fucking retarded are you?

that's Sup Forums.

you really don't have an inkling of logic gates. in order for a computer to accurately assess a game a computer needs to use the logic gates is knows to come up with moves in advance. this gives the computer several valid plays and will play the move that it thinks is best. it's the computers version of prediction, and stop calling IT a he.

That doesn't even refute my argument. Look what he was saying. He was claiming the difference between a chess computer and a human chess player is the number of moves they can "reliably" predict, which is absolute fucking bullshit

this is how the best chess computer operates. it makes more reliable predictions than a human can even calculate. you need a rainman like savant who's only interest in chess to even come close to that robot.

and my point is, overall, if a robot can do it, your skill is trivial at best because like all jobs a robot can come and replace you from your hobby. we're seeing a change from people playing games to people watching games, and now people watching robots play games. this is what's goin'.

To clarify perhaps I'll give a couple of examples.

CS:GO - If you cheat to the fullest extent in CS:GO it is impossible to beat you unless cheats are also used to counter yours. As in you kill people instantly with perfect aim and shoot them through walls.

League of Legends - Cheating would be majorly beneficial. (knowing where the enemy is at all times, etc.) but there is still a chance that even with cheats you could lose.

So, which game requires more skill by these parameters? Or is skill not determined by this at all and something entirely different?

>it makes more reliable predictions than a human can even calculate.

you must be literally retarded if you think that's why a chess computer excels at chess.
A chess computer can't predict your moves, he just has an answer to every situation. You're stupid.

>My argument is literally semantical.

you're focused on the meaning of prediction in terms of how a computer sees things. this isn't an argument as much you want to call it something else that you don't have a word ready for.

You're so fucking stupid. It's really obvious that it depends on what the cheat does. If you have a cheat that lets you one shot everything of course you're gonna win, no matter what.

Are you really basing the skill in games considering cheats? what the fuck is wrong with you? Not only that, that chess argument back there also shows how dumb you are. Please leave.

>even with cheats you could lose.
League is different because even the best players can still lose games at low ELO due to how the game isn't entirely within your control.

>using "you're dumb" as you're whole argument

you are toxic to this board.

you're dumb

You're misunderstanding. I'm not talking about cheats that alter the way a game is played. I'm talking about cheats that give you perfect mechanical skills and limitless knowledge. Essentially making you the perfect player in those ways. However, while in CS:GO these things make you unbeatable in League of Legends there are factors such as game knowledge and positioning that are more important than knowing where the player is or having your mouse always make the perfect movements. The question is which of these games is more skillful on that basis alone?
>League is different because even the best players can still lose games at low ELO due to how the game isn't entirely within your control.
This gets to the root of the issue. Does this very concept mean League of Legends takes more skill or less skill?

not an argument. if you're going to call somebody out on bullshit. cite facts and not libtarded insults.

shit like this is what gave Trump is power.

Depends on the nature of the game.

Chess takes a lot of skill in terms of anticipating opponents responses and calculating optimal moves, it's just that advances in hardware and programming have rendered it trivial for a sufficiently capable computer/program to do so.

Any game where reaction time is a factor is rendered trivial by a sufficiently "hard" computer, too, because it can be programmed to aim for your character directly and even if it only does so within line of sight it can do so with impossible accuracy and precision.

>libtarded
OBSESSED

And I'm not even the guy you're talking to.

I'm sorry if you think using Libtard as an insult means anything more than that. Libtards = Stupid brainlets.

Dirty jap range banned you from Sup Forums? Come to goonsaloon.pro/intj/ where we don't ban anyone. bXw5fWN3

I've already told you why your question is stupid
you just don't get it. wanna know why?

cause you're dumb

If you're not trying to communicate in a politically charged way just say retard?

League has a robot that got famous by wandering around dumb-like but proved to be an expert at baiting. the more i see robots kick pro's ass, the less i believe "pros" are actually that.

These are not OP,

not an argument nigger.

An argument takes the statement somebody makes and breaks it down to the full absurdity it shows. you just name call.

You're the real dumb one here.

Again, it depends on what the cheat does. You could have an invincibility cheat in LoL and no skill would matter. Also knowledge =/= skill.

For the 100th time. This thread is stupid, the question is dumb, and the poster a moron.

ugh

welcome to 2018, where if you're not in one political camp you're automatically a Nazi. we can't have non-political charged conversations anymore, Obummer made sure of that.

I'm talking about robots in games not cheating. i don't give a crap about the cheating aspect of this thread at all.

You're fundamentally misunderstanding what I'm asking and you're not even attempting to understand. No use humoring you anymore.

>Knowledge doesn't equal skill
>Skill increases knowledge

you have no idea what you're on about.

I don't think it really matters in that case. Needing to learn a lot about a specific game to be good at it doesn't make it more or less skillful.

Mechanical skill says otherwise. Humans have an upper limit while computers can pretty much be perfect. You can now proceed to argue about the semantics.

why would I argue something which you said is fundamentally correct. but again my point is if a computer can do it perfect, why bother at all?

you really think your thread is a matter of deep debate? dude, the question itself is stupid. How the fuck do you want to compare different games with different ways of cheating, with different cheats applied on, in order to find out which game requires more skill...

you even ask for arguments on a subject that's obvious for anyone with an iq higher than 40.

and your other comments show how retarded you are. I'm out.

>If you're not the best at something, why bother at all?
There are tiers of competition. It takes a long time to develop the muscle memory for many games

That isn't me you autist. Leave, retard.

Robots can't excel in human phyical competitions but it can in the thinking variety of games. going into the other subject of cheating. how would anybody know if a robot was aiding a player in solving a game of chess. if a person was able to get signals from a robot and nobody were to find out, would that person be the best chess player in the world? obviously not, but the benefits of cheating is clearly the prize of winning, so there will always be robots and cheaters to trivialize real skill to the point of why even care about games of wit.

>Robots can't excel in human phyical competitions
Only because the technology isn't there yet

Is skill determined by how advanced our robots are?

no but i believe it will at some point. but even then i don't think robots will be allowed to compete, since they're circuitry and metal or plastic plates and their limits are already determined by the engineers who built them.

skill isn't determined by it, it's simply becomes irrelevant.

But they'll be allowed to compete in video games?

Video games is literally a program of code. a computer will be able to run a routine to run that program. even if it's not allowed, who could even stop it from entering?

Yo, this thread SUCKS

shoo brainlet shoo

In person tournaments with all hardware provided by the host

>he dosn't know there are lol bots

well that is one expensive way to do it. barring any USB ports is another safeguard.

It's already done because people were loading cheats into the computer with their mice

i never knew mice could do that but then again literally anything has at least 64mb of memory these days.

>he never maphacked in any moba or rts

Yea there's a chance you can lose if you don't ghost for your team, avoid every losing fight, and purposely walk blindly into their team...

u fukin blo kid

Skill doesn't work like that. Skill isn't just a single parameter that is equal across all games as different games need different skills for a person to be good at that game. First person shooters prioritize reflex and senses while amp awareness and timing, although still important, take the backseat, while ASSFAGGOTS would prioritize timing, group synergy, map awareness and ability/resource management. While it's easier to make a cheat that influences Counter-Strike like an aimbot which would mimic godlike reflexes, that doesn't mean that the game has any less deph than League of Legends or DoTA, just that a type of skill in that game can be mimicked by a computer to perfection.

In the end, comparisons between games only work if they are within the same genre and within the same constraints in relation to gameplay as every game with unique features will need mastering different types of "skills" in varying degrees. Even then, using cheats to gauge that difference is futile considering that anything can be trivialized in a non-physical activity if the computer involved can run enough situations to win.

tl;dr: Neither, because cheating itself trivializes any kind of skill involved, independent of how directly effective it is