Developing analytical skills does require a working level of intelligence: of course. It does not follow from this that 'skills' = 'intelligence'.
Not quite sure what you expected me to say in this context. If I take out a 'put option' on A2 shares, one party to that contract (say A) will be a winner and the other one (say B) will be a loser: yes?. No party would enter that contract without believing that they would be the winner. And the best way to stack the odds beforehand so that you are that winner is to up your skill level. You might say that whoever comes out the winner will have proved themselves the most skillful, whether that party ends up being 'A' or 'B'.
So I see nothing unusual in that, if I expect to win, then I can claim myself to be the more skillful. No doubt if you were on the opposite side of such a contract you would be thinking that it was you who was the more skillful. Come expiry time of the put option, we would both find out whose opinion was right. You will notice that I used the term 'lesser skilled' , (not 'unskilled' as you suggested) when referring to the other party on the losing side of the contract. If they lose, I don't think it is particularly offensive to call them 'lesser skilled' (in the context of that contract anyway.)
SNOOPY