Quote Originally Posted by FreeKingStefan View Post
Being a pioneer of strategy is way different than beings weeks/months/years behind the curve in terms of knowledge.
It's not a whole lot different - the main difference is that learning is easier since you can copy from your opponents who use that knowledge against you. Learning by imitation is, after all, one of the most intuitive ways of learning - applied instinctively from early childhood onward.

Either way, it is, on principle, faulty to assume that a person who doesn't get told how to play "proper" is going to keep making the same mistakes, or else nobody would ever have been able to learn, as everyone would still be making the same mistakes. The "pioneers of strategy" as you would call them are simply a proof of concept - learning can happen without teaching. Is it slower? Likely. But if the person in question wants to accelerate the process, they can ask more experienced people. The option isn't out after all - chances are, explanations are a lot better outside the battlefield anyway, because the person explaining doesn't have to focus on the ongoing game at the same time and has more time to type.

That said: It's a weak argument. People should pick stronger ones, it's not like there's a lack of them.