@Jay and
@Corvus
I misinterpreted, my fault. My response may have been influenced by some prior experience on the forums here in which I sensed some intended condescension.
Okay, to address the points made by Happy-Meal and Corvus:
TFM is definitely a high-variance game. As such, It's difficult to know one's own level with any certainty. We have seen two people recently get to 800, then fall back down in the 700s or lower. Royal Rook recently went from 600 to 490 to 725. This is indicative of a high variance game. Determining which of any two players is better would require much more than 5 or even 10 games of heads-up play between the two players. (Corvus, you correctly alluded to this previously).
I doubt we will ever see a 900 Elo player at TFM, and definitely not 1000, which some games have. There is just too much variance, and too few people at or above 700.
I have moved more toward lower variance games because I get frustrated playing games I feel as though I lost and could not do anything about. This has happened to me in TFM and "Earth", a game I like very much, but which is heavily dependent on the cards, in a similar way to TFM.
TFM has enough skill, and more important, enough high-volume players to result in a large pool of players rated between 500 and 700. This gives players the opportunity to strive for and reach 700 Elo. That is not the case in all games.
For example, Open Face Chinese Poker. The variance in this game is so high, It's almost impossible to reach 300 Elo. It's a thorn in my side because it's the only game of the 13 games I play regularly that I cannot get to 300. This, despite the fact that I firmly believe I am better than anyone on this site at the game, and I have demonstrated mastery of this game on other platforms.
At the other end of the spectrum are zero-luck games such as GP, Pente, Connect6, gomoku. I play 2 of these games and am thus far undefeated in both. On one is going to beat me in those game by puck or RNG. In one of them, Pente, I am very confident I could rise to the number 1 spot, perhaps doing so without being defeated.
I don't feel that TFM has enough complexity or opportunity to make brilliant strategic maneuvers often enough to outplay a bad-luck situation. It's why I don't play the game year in and year out like some of the dedicated veterans do. I admire the patience and tenacity of those who do.
But that's not for me, and It seems Happy-Meal feels the same way. I'd rather spend 6 hours finding the winning sequence in a game of Pente or Connect6 than playing 4 games of TFM.
For me, TFM will always be a favorite - it was pretty much my first dive into the world of fascinating thematic strategy games, which led to my discovering many others which I enjoy very much. But these days I mostly prefer friendly mode games where I am not risking Elo to an unkind RNG-based face-down deck of cards.
If anyone is interested in a deeper dive into the kind of pure strategy/skill game I enjoy, here is a good link:
https://boardgamearena.com/gamereview?table=684521803
Simple game - play 2 stones per turn, get 6 in a row to win.
Any 4-stone formation within 6 spots must be blocked, and an "open 4" must be blocked at both ends.
This as a highly defensive battle, with a lot of moves being made solely to gain position on the perimeter rather than by directly attacking with forcing moves.
On my 8th turn, I was able to finally gain the initiative with E13 and E14 and set up a win-by-continuous-forcing-threat, which my opponent recognized after my 9th turn, essentially conceding by declining to block my 4-stone threat and playing random stones away from the thread. (Not uncommon in stone games that are clearly lost).
TFM, and similar games such as "Earth" or "Race for the Galaxy" or other deck-based engine builders are just not the same, and as such, it's a lot more difficult to quantify exactly what the value of cards are or even whether a move is optimal or correct.
My opinion is that discussion and analysis or TFM would be better served if all parties involved toned down, to some extent, the definitiveness of some of their statements, for the reasons I have given.
In my Connect6 game I posted, I can say with near certainty that my 8th move to E13 and E14 leads to a win, and I can say with 100% certainty that my subsequent move does.
TFM analysis just won't ever be so definitive.
Do I believe that the better player will win a heads-up match of TFM if 200 games are played between the two players? Probably, but there's enough variance that I would not be certain. Whereas, it would take far fewer games for the better [Pente, GO, Connect6, GoMoku] player to win a majority of those games; I would say that a 10-game sample would be likely definitive in demonstrating who the better player is (Or that the players are equally matched in the result of a 5-5 tie).
