Very interesting thoughts, and accurate I'd say. Maybe interesting to note that a statement like "the outcome of a game is 50% random" as quoted in the article makes no sense. We can only refer to the proportion of *variance* *between* game results if we want to stick a % on it, and even then there can't be a universal value for it because it depends on the population of games it refers to (i. e. the context). This is a bit pedantic for sure, but it's a misconception that has led to wild misunderstandings in my field of study, psychology. See https://filab.biologie.uni-freiburg.de/news/erblichkeit_intelligenz
Very interesting thoughts, and accurate I'd say. Maybe interesting to note that a statement like "the outcome of a game is 50% random" as quoted in the article makes no sense. We can only refer to the proportion of *variance* *between* game results if we want to stick a % on it, and even then there can't be a universal value for it because it depends on the population of games it refers to (i. e. the context). This is a bit pedantic for sure, but it's a misconception that has led to wild misunderstandings in my field of study, psychology. See https://filab.biologie.uni-freiburg.de/news/erblichkeit_intelligenz