: Contests of skill will ALWAYS be skewed towards those who start with higher
: relevant skills than those who don't. I don't really see the problem here;
: if Strongside hadn't decided to put his life on hold for the duration of
: this contest, it would have been won by someone ELSE who decided to put
: their life on hold for the duration of this contest. I couldn't put MY
: life on hold for that time period, so I had no chance of winning - that's
: just the way it went.

That is precisely my point. It was no great sacrifice for StrongSide to devote time to playing competitive Halo to win a contest when "playing competitive Halo" is what he does all day anyway. I can't speak as to how public matchmaking compares to a pro's usual training regimen, but the fact remains that his professional-level skills would put him above even the most determined casual gamer.

StrongSide being the only pro in the top ten, let alone winning, tells us nothing empirical in regards to how many other pros entered, if at all, or how anyone specifically spent their time in regards to the contest. And yes, that is how competitions go. Whomever is inherently more skilled at the contest will have an edge. Which is why pros are often expressly forbidden from entering amateur competitions.

Now, a Forge competition was the suggestion of Pkmnrulz240, mostly likely made in jest as a response to Pete, who is known in the community for his Forge expertise. (Obviously.) But Pete made a false equivalence between "pro gamer" and "good at Forge," so MY point is that if the contest had been based on ANYTHING other than what pro gamer's were already good at, the contest would be nominally more fair to the player community as a whole. At least, that was the crux of Morpheus's original comment, as I interpreted it, and I happen to agree.

Pete compared apples and oranges, so I pointed it out. But if they taste the same to you, then there's nothing more for me to say.