Skill

I just finished watching Wimbledon. Good movie, by the way...

It strikes me how competitors of great skill attribute their success or failure in their matches to chance, to strokes of luck or fate. It's something foreign to most of us--if I botch a serve in tennis, I reckon that I'm not any good at it, quite accurately, and move on.

It's not the same with high-level athletes. They're playing at the highest level of their game; their skill is unquestioned. If it's a good match-up, the outcome doesn't come down to who has more skill--it's not even an issue.
What, then, is the essence of competition? Two players walk onto a field, both desiring to win. Both have incredible drive and determination, or they wouldn't be at their level in the first place. Both have all the training they require. Both have all the equipment they need.
If all variables are the same, which side of a coin will come up when you throw it? Heads, or tails?

How do we explain victory? What marks defeat? Is it the glare of the sun? Is it strategy or tactic, or does chance have an equal hand? Does it all, after all, come down to the roll of the dice?

It's interesting to me as a roleplayer or as a wargamer. Perhaps basing an attack, a defense, a feat on the roll of the dice is more accurate than I'd ever imagined. For combatants with greatly unmatched skill, of course, the result is decided before the dice are cast--the only question is how bad the defeat, how complete the victory. But for combatants with equal or nearly equal skill, who is to say which fighter will win the day? What happens when the irresistible force meets the unmovable object? Perhaps a roll of the dice is in order.

And so chance approximates real life. Life can be simulated with random algorithms. The tapestry of life is fractally made...

What does this teach us?

Don't fight battles you can't afford to lose. Whenever you can, stack the odds in your favor. Always have an escape plan ready in case fate turns against you. Control as many variables as you can--turn them to your advantage, or better, to your opponent's disadvantage. Seize the stroke of luck and turn it to your advantage.
This is shrewdness. This is the guerrila in the woods, fighting for his life with any weapon, at any cost. This is the way to win battles.

Fairness, on the other hand, teaches us to even the odds. Promote harmony in all things. Remove all advantages, abolish all disadvantages. Eschew random happenstance and fight on equal footing. Let skill meet skill alone, face to face, and let skill prove its honor.
This is fairness. This is the knight in the ring, tossing off sword for fallen sword, striving for an honorable victory above all else, no matter what the price. This is the way to win character.

The question becomes this: how can we integrate both ideals, equity and cunning, into our worldview? Will we embrace one more than the other? Should we even bother to try and reconcile them?
Can we hold both opposing ideals simultaneously and maintain a consistent worldview?

That's the question.