Define better.-
Better at what?

In deterministic games like chess the better player always wins, but in any game with an element of luck sometimes the better player will get unlucky and lose as a result. Luck sometimes does improve certain games though, because it creates a risk vs. reward element and forces you to come up with a contingency plan if your luck fails. So I am going to say no, because otherwise you could not have luck based elements in any game whatsoever.

However with that having been said, the better player should be able to win more often proportionate to their increase in skill, or else there is really no point in playing the game in the first place.

No, and that what makes it fun ^-^
If you know what is going to happen before it happens what's the point in going thro with it?

Originally posted by Pixie:

No, and that what makes it fun ^-^
If you know what is going to happen before it happens what's the point in going thro with it?

Humans are not computers with perfect foresight to see 40 moves in advance, so you can have a deterministic games where the better player always wins and not know exactly how things are going to go. And okay, you go into a game knowing you are going to lose, but hey, you may have learned something and got a little better at the game, so eventually you might be evenly matched with your opponent. In the case where opponents are evenly matched, and the game are not solved, you do not know who is going to win but you get the challenge and satisfaction of a wholly skill based game.

In a ranked game? Yeah.

survival of the fittest? ehh not always and context dependant, somebody who's bad at one thing is good at another etc etc

Originally posted by lol:

survival of the fittest? ehh not always and context dependant, somebody who's bad at one thing is good at another etc etc

I'm not asking if one person should win everything. I'm asking if, in any given game, should the better player always win.

Originally posted by AdahnGorion:

Define better.-
Better at what?

Better at whatever game is being player at the time. Chess. Mario Kart. Fortnite. Counter Strike. Candy Land.

Originally posted by Boogie:

Originally posted by lol:

survival of the fittest? ehh not always and context dependant, somebody who's bad at one thing is good at another etc etc

I'm not asking if one person should win everything. I'm asking if, in any given game, should the better player always win.

the better player in any 'game' real or not, seems to win 100% of the time, so theres your answer i guess

Should bad players be allowed to win? It’s an honest questions.

Luck has always been in the equation, not to mention external factors, like internet connection speeds.

I might not win the first try, the second or even the third, but give me enough attempts at something and eventually ill be unstoppable

Originally posted by Xero_Daxter:

Should bad players be allowed to win? It’s an honest questions.

If bad players ends up winning against you then you spend too much time giving them too many chances. Or held back on purpose just to toy with him just to lose anyway.

Originally posted by Xero_Daxter:

Should bad players be allowed to win? It’s an honest questions.

Why would we disallow them from winning?

Originally posted by lol:

Originally posted by Boogie:

I'm not asking if one person should win everything. I'm asking if, in any given game, should the better player always win.

the better player in any 'game' real or not, seems to win 100% of the time, so theres your answer i guess

Like Mario Kart, Mario Party ?