juanma206 wrote:Because from my perspective, luck is what makes this game a game. And also the fact that we're human and no matter how skilled we are, we can make mistakes.
My point is, if everything was due to skill and no mistakes or luck, then 100% of the time, the "most skilled" person would win. Would you play in a game where you are GUARANTEED to either win against a worse person or lose against a better person?
From my perspective, setting outposts before the game even start isn't fair to the game. While you can try to minimize the luck factor, human error and luck must still play a part in all games.
Well, in chess, even though there is no luck involved, grandmasters still lose and win and draw to the same oppoent even though they may play those games one after the other.
There is something else called Internally Generated Unpredictability (IGU) which describes the randomness of human thought, a component of what we refer to as 'skill'. That is what you mean by 'human error and luck' (I hope). Also, people are not computers. We know how to improve from our mistakes. Only the most advanced AI these days (like google deepmind) know how to do that).
Oh and then there's also one very fundamental thing you overlooked: When we don't know who is 'more skilled', we cannot guarantee who will win. So of course we would like to find out who is 'more skilled' and so we wish to minimise EGU at least the first time we play each other.