Think about this: you've probably driven a car to get from Point A to Point B before. If you existed in a society where people were constantly making mistakes, in the sense of crashing their cars several orders of magnitude more often, driving a car to get from Point A to Point B is no longer a good strategy. But it usually is a good, if not the best, move you can make right now, because people aren't making mistakes that frequently.
Here's another example: marriage (long-term relationships). Perhaps not all extra-marital affairs are mistakes, but a significant proportion of them are. If too many people are making these mistakes, leading to messy divorces, it's no longer worth it to even consider dating in the first place.
Why is it not fair? I was just stating how it goes. It's pretty well documented that the best players have the best defense, unless it's a game like UMVC3. The players at higher ranks tend to be better at playing defense and they just let their opponents kill themselves. They don't get blown up by wake up supers, dps, jump ins, etc. Okay players might be good at doing combos, but their game sense isn't great and they will frequently put themselves in positions to have the tables turned on them. They also don't focus on punishing mistakes and capitalizing on their defense. If you have good game sense, you can actually beat people really well with pretty mediocre execution.
Even if you play multiple matches, these okay players will lose a surprising amount to the players who play randomly and are smashy noobs.
I recently played a game with higher-level players. One player was incredibly passive; their bonus would get broken every turn, and rather than doing anything to defend it (and they had enough troops to defend it), they pulled their troops into the middle of the bonus and let everyone else take turns breaking their bonus. This could work fine in a lower-level lobby—eventually the other players might get bored and start hitting each other—but not with better players. Good players realize a couple things about them:
1. They won't retaliate, so I can knock off a few of their troops at no risk to myself.
2. They won't do anything, so any fighting among the rest of the players will effectively be a troop subsidy to them.
Since they're unwilling to help anybody, no one wants to give them free troops, and since they've demonstrated an unwillingness to retaliate, there's really no risk with hitting them over and over. So, naturally, they were the next player to be eliminated.
One thing that's nice about Risk is there's very little to the mechanics. There aren't combos to practice or build orders to memorize, mostly just an understanding of what other people want and how to negotiate. Pretty much everyone rated intermediate and above has the mechanics down: how to move troops around to not block each other, how to choke out other players, what moves are game ending for you or another player, and so on. The thing that sets apart intermediates, experts, masters, and grandmasters is almost entirely their ability to work with other players. However, since many (most?) players are "smashy noobs", lots of people rise up the ranks by just assuming everyone else is a smashy noob, and playing extremely passively to compensate. It works, until they end up in a lobby full of masters.
