I would like to see your reasoning for this . Especially round 3 . I think ray oliver vs ant man dd and elektra is pretty one sided for team dd . For the other rounds honestly diggle is far less skilled than the ninjas that DD would beat . Its tough to say DD ' s senses are far better than arrows . <| sep |> Too bad , still a must pull . <| sep |> As is most political humour that is actually funny . Don ' t fully understand why that is , but I did read an article about the lack of rightwing humourists . <| sep |> Chess isn ' t balanced evenly , there isn ' t ' luck ' depending on how you define that word some would call accidentally making a genius move luck , I ' d call it good intuition , I ' d say in order for something to involve luck it has to be out of the players ' control AND something they ' re unable to attempt to predict , which isn ' t a problem in chess , the idea of pure strategic thinking also depends on how you define that , it ' s very much based on knowing the book and memorizing a bunch of shit , so if that doesn ' t count as being purely strategic then no . But here ' s the thing as fun as it is to argue about what makes the perfect strategy game , all that matters is if it fulfills what you want from a strategy game . For me it ' s perfect because it ' s simple , everyone knows how to play it , it ' s easy to set up , has a rich history to learn about , and it allows me to stretch my mind and get that wonderful feeling of knowing I ' m doing something which has a level of complexity I ' ll never be able to wrap my mind around . The game draws a lot at higher levels , but that doesn ' t happen for me . It ' s based around knowing the book , but I can simply not do that and play with others around my skill level . So yeah , for me it ' s perfect , and unless some deity comes down and decides what the objective standards for perfection in strategy gaming are , that ' s all that matters . I ' d also like to note that if things like balance that we typically use to look at competitive games much more of a relevant discussion with the growth of esports are important to you , chess mostly has problems with these because its ' meta ' has evolved FAR past the point that others do , and as such the smaller problems seem more like a big deal . StarCraft and CounterStrike have had like a decade and a half of evolution , and the games themselves haven ' t even been static in that time . chess has had centuries .