13190 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Backgammon, Yatzy, and more!
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
Chess players are often rather superstitiuos:
Kasparov: "I have always felt that some people are fated to become world champions and some people are not, such as Bronstein, Larsen and Korchnoi. If you are destined to, then that's destiny too"
I guess it boils down to if you believe destiny is externally controlled by some unidentified force or if you believe destiny is achieved by a feeling of entitlement.
For example, someone who met their 'soulmate' may call it destiny. This would be an example of believing in some external force influencing things.
However, if someone works hard to obtain a goal and achieve it, they feel entitled to the success and call it destiny.
The U.S. used Manifest Destiny as the reason for displacing millions of Native Americans. This, of course, is based on the entitlement definition of destiny.
I dont belive in fate or destiny, but I belive in luck. If chess is 30% talent and 60% training you still need the last 10% of luck to reach the top.
Seems quite odd that you would not believe in fate or destiny, but would believe in luck. In all cases, a mysterious 3rd party plays a part.
I dont think its to weird. Fate and destiny are predesided events bound to happen in which you have little or no control. Fate dont help you in any way, but can actualy be harmfull. If I was destined to be a chess champ, I would not have to praktice much, sice I was going to become one anyway-
Luck on the other hand is compleatly random and strikes at chance. Meaning that I would have to train everyday to be able to see my lucky break.
What you are describing here, as was stated earlier , is a happy coincidence. To call something luck is to acknowledge there is some outside force playing a part in the events in your life. Therefore, if you believe in luck, which is an outside influence, it would seem strange that you would reject fate and destiny since, they too, require some outside force to be real.
quit telling god what to do
Your definition of luck is most bizarre and completely off the rocker.
This definition is exactly what I said: coincidence.
However, the way most people use it and view it is more like a beliefe in some outside forces. You should remember, a dictionary cannot take these superstitions into consideration when they create a definition. Even if the general public can.
horseshoes, fourleave clovers etc are all know for enchanting luck, walking under ladders and black cats bring bad luck.
"predesided"? Predecided by what or whom? This is complete and utter nonsense.
Two different definitions of luck are being used. One poster seems to treat it synonymously with chance, probability, etc. the other is referring to avoiding black cats to prevent bad luck.
Under Full Definition #1, Merriam-Webster leans toward the definition of luck being an outside force that affects the outcome of chance events. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/luck
There is a saying,"Good players make their own luck",people often said that the snooker player Steve Davis was lucky,he also happenend to be by far the best player of his generation.
I read a story where partipitants from the street where taken into a room to read a newspaper. On one of the pages there were a add that said something like "deliver this when you leave and get 10 dollar". People who in advance had said they felt they had generaly more luck then others delivered the add far more often.
It may not prove luck, but it proves that people who feel lucky find "lucky brakes" or random chances, far more often than others simply becouse they are better att recognicing them.
Is it hard to work the sock with your claws sticking through? ;)
Something with some loose relevance, but still worth posting. From SMBC comics:
Its a nice illusion that hard work and preparation combined with opportunity seem to make some 'luckier' than others.
If I role a 6 Im lucky. If i role a 1 Im unlucky. Both are random, but we call it luck. Its a way of coping with things out of our controll. I fell off the ladder and broke my leg. I could beat myself for not checking the ladder, or say "bad luck" and try to be extra carefull in the future. We need a name for these "good" and "bad" near random events anyway. Why not luck?
Your premise is flawed ;). The dice rolling is indeed random and thus "lucky". Using a ladder is not. Unless an completely unexpected 40mph gust of wind happened to blow you off the ladder or something, then falling off a ladder involves some failure of human(s) and/or equipment.
The schmuck who falls off the ladder and then says "oh well, bad luck" is doomed to have many other cases of "bad luck" due to their fuzzy reasoning...and is thus doing themselves a disservice by writing off their mistakes as "luck"...because then they are not learning anything from them. You're basically copping to this when you add "and try to be extra carefull in the future".
Saying that good chess players make their own "luck" by playing well is one thing, no one is claiming that Euwe moved pieces randomly and was lucky that it turned out well. He was lucky to get a title match though. Capablanca was considered to be the stronger player, and also won a match against Euwe (without losing a game). Kramnik wasn't "lucky" that he won the match against Kasparov, but he was lucky that Shirov's title match fell through after his beating Kramnik, and that Anand declined the match, so the offer eventually went to Kramnik. And maybe he and Leko were lucky that Kasparov and Anand refused to play the Dortmund qualifier in 2002.
I think we describe two different type of people. You describe a type that fall from the ladder say "bad luck" and dont learn anything. I Describe a person falling off and say "I will nedd to watch my footing better in the future, im unlucky."
The same can be used in sporting events. If your team is doing good, there is no need to analyze and questing what you are doing. Its better to just keep on doing the same and answer the whole thing with luck, or "margins" as I've heard football coaches use,
...and I am saying that this person does themselves more good by saying "I will need to watch my footing better (or whatever other action is deemed to be needed) in the future, I made a mistake.". One pretends that capricious fate led to the problem, the other takes responsibility for it. "Watch my footing" is not specific enough. Falling off a ladder that way means you did something wrong...turning around on the ladder, standing on the top step, standing with all your weight on one end of a step, planting the ladder on uneven/soft surface, etc. It can be identified and specifically avoided.
The same can be used in sporting events. If your team is doing good, there is no need to analyze and questing what you are doing. Its better to just keep on doing the same
This is another faulty premise ;)...but I don't want to start another tangent.
yeah!!! I think it's right but, there something odd. do u know, maybe he use book or anything else that all of us did'nt know. that why he always at the top in playing chess...
Methinks that in the ladder example, the "bad luck" was not falling from the ladder but breaking one's leg when only minor injury if any was expected.
Not that it matters much to the argument for sure.
A game dude
by RJP_MNPS 9 minutes ago
8/29/2016 - Outstretched
by drabcoyote 16 minutes ago
Popular song lyrics 🎶 that best describes chess moments 💥
by MeatInjector 18 minutes ago
by jiessie 20 minutes ago
by Navasss 20 minutes ago
how to start game if opposite black start two steps pawn from King
by MeatInjector 22 minutes ago
Wich is the most easy Sizilian Variation with little Theory as Black
by SuirenBoid 42 minutes ago
by ChessSexy21 43 minutes ago
3 ... c6 (& eventual ... d5), is it KID, Grunfeld, or something else?
by Karpark 44 minutes ago
Why not win with Kinght + Bishop?
by nigelnorris 44 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2016 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!