>>16457166>Player interaction. You cannot have competition without this.Clearly you can. A sprint is a competitive activity even if the runners all have their own lanes and do not interact with each other in any way.
>You described as all simultaneous choices as luckI described them as random elements.
>like if everyone just randomly generated their next decision, which is true absolutely nowhere. If you did not randomly generate your move in a simultaneous decision scenario, you would be incredibly predictable. It is in fact a losing strategy, like "good old dependable rock."
>People are not random unless they're awful at the game.That is the complete and utter opposite of the truth. Good players randomize their decisions in order to be unpredictable. They take into account that their opponents may also randomize their decisions, and they play to reap the best expected value. This is game theory type stuff.
>For chess, you still lack information about your opponent's next move options. You cannot move a piece predicting he will move a piece laterBut you can... you have complete information from which to base your decisions. There's no randomness.
