Pure Skill Boardgames ?

I've been playing 1 on 1 games with a friend, and he keeps complaining that I always win on luck, the faggot does not get I'm playing considering the randomness and he isn't so he gets salty all the time. Chess is not a thing for him, so I wanna find something else without luck (that isn't Go or that Viking game) so I could wreck his ass in it as well and show him he sucks.

>Xiangqi
>Shogi
>Hive
>Onitama
>Santorini (with or without the variable powers)
>5-in-a-row (read up standard rules)

Or just stop being friends with him

Chess is a game of skill...

Git good.
Tell your friend git gooder.

>Chess
>Luck

Pick one

Terra Mystica, although I don't really know how well it works as a 2p game.

What games have you been playing?

Not OP. Learn about reading comprehension. English is my second language and it's clear he isn't saying chess is luck based

> implying element of randomness = luck
> he doesn't know that using statistics to your advantage is a skill
your friend might be a salty scrublord

Learn streetfighter and piledrive him 300 games in a row

It's not luck if you can do it 300 times in a row

Backgemon
Star Realms
Wizard Kings
King of Tokyo
Exploding Kittens
Senet
GoT Card Game
Liar's Dice
Some Spanish Dice Game (You guess what dice faces are most likely to drop)


>teach starfighter to a non gamer
>beat the shit out of him

I know it is a game of skill, what the fuck dude.

>streetfighter*
fml

The board game Go is the best option in my opinion.

Rock paper scissors, but a number of games from wich you could read his reactions and extrapolate a considerable statistic
Maybe best of 15 games should do.
This is, of course, if you are truly skilled not only on considering randomness but to also reading other players reactions.
If RPS is too much, try poker.

Statistics are irrelevant on small sample sizes, if dice screw you they screw you.
What you do isn't "hm accordingly to statistics if I roll this chunk of dice I have 67.5% of success let's go" but maneuver the game in a place where bad rolls don't screw you as bad and/or you can choose to avoid doing bad rolls in the first place.
>t. Blood Bowl player

>any of these
>game of skill
Your friend is right, you're playing luck-based dice chucking trash

>Xiangqi
Chess: Boring Edition
>Shogi
Chess: Goes on Forever Because Pieces Can Respawn Edition
>Hive
Go first, win: The Game
>Onitama
Chess: The Kiddie Pool
>Santorini (with or without the variable powers)
Basic bitch abstract with Tacked on cards and expensive pieces
>5-in-a-row (read up standard rules)
Literally solved game

>Hive
>Go first, win: The Game
Stopped reading there because you're obviously retarded

>shit: the post
Kys asap

I'm curious, can Carcassonne be considered a game of skill? Most people write it off as a light family/filler game, which I think is unfair. And if you look at the results, the same people won the world tourney several times, highest ranked players at boardgamearena show stably place high in online championships.
For clarity, I would a game to be skill-based if a sensibly better player can win 90% of time

He will always keep complaining, the randomness has fuck all to do with it. It's the sort of person he is. If you make a big deal out of being able to beat him every single game you play he is not going to play games with you for much longer.

isn't luck a skill though? I'm not saying Carcassonne is a game of luck

>For clarity, I would a game to be skill-based if a sensibly better player can win 90% of time
I mean, top starcraft players struggle to win higher than 65% of their matches against other progamers (in october only 4 players currently have over 65% win record in sponsored broodwar matches). Flash is definitely better than Sky, but this month he is 17-10 (63%) against him, is this enough for starcraft to be a skill based game? You would struggle to say that it isn't. Win record is not necessarily a good metric for skill based, especially in games with imperfect information (which carcassone is, even if the only unknown is tile randomisation).

By "sensibly better" I meant somewhat perceivable, observable difference in skill, not top players facing off against other top players. For example, if you could divine all players of any particular game into 5 tiers:
>A - complete beginner
>B - regular casual player
>C - regular player that actively seeks to get better
>D - experienced player that dedicated lots of time to practice
>E - people who train and research the game on a daily basis
Then the difference in skill should be apparent between players divided by at least 1 tier, like B vs D or E, but not B vs C