Humans use heuristics. The outcome of a game of chess is not entirely dependent on skill. Chess is as lucky as anything else humans do. Debate after that is just semantics, and isn't worth talking about.
Ideally this topic would be about shocking very new players with the idea that a game like chess has an element of luck. Instead it's devolved into this junk.
When we want to delve into precise meanings of words, a generalized dictionary isn’t enough. When discussing luck, we should look for the precision of the mathematicians who specialize in such events. Those mathematicians are called “statisticians”.
I have already posted a definition used by statisticians.
What luck means to statisticians may be very different from what it means to horse-race gamblers, fishermen, farmers, stock market investors, or chess players. It is not a word with a precise scientific meaning as the concept itself is nebulous. Just look at the arguments here about whether it is a "force". A lot of people laugh at this but the original concept behind the term does indeed include supernatural entities such as the Fates or Norns controlling human destiny.
Words that originated to describe a more precisely delineated phenomenon, for example "hypochondria", can have a more exact definition because the word was created to describe that limited condition. But just consider the word "precise" that I just used. Do we need to delve into angstrom units before we can say two items are precisely the same length, or will common usage agree to greater latitude?
There is no ancient English language from which most of our modern words derive. It's mostly German from Anglia and Saxony, but with a lot of the Celtic language spoken in ancient Briton, a healthy dose of Latin (especially grammar), the many Greek-derived words the Romans used, the later Germanic dialects vikings brought in, French-saturated Norman, and words originating in many native languages from cultures the English subjugated. It's hardly surprising that there are a variety of interpretations of many English words.
And everything is relative, as some scientist once theorized. To first-graders, the "big" kids are 10 or 12 years old. To NBA players the "big" guy is the 7-foot 260 lb center. Point of view determines what meaning is most correct for the observer. A friend once took his young son to see a Cubs game when back in the old home town on vacation. They saw someone pulling out of a parking space 1/2 block from Wrigley Field, went up to the box office to find that only standing room was available, but the phone rang and a season-ticket holder told the box office that they could sell his tickets and credit his account so they sat in the second row right by the home on-deck circle. You might say this was just coincidence, but my friend thought it was his lucky day so upon leaving the stadium he purchased an Illinois lottery ticket and won enough money to pay for the family's trip. Statisticians may have a math-based explanation, but to him it was a run of good luck.
You're repeating yourself, endlessly. There's no difference between you and mr Cool except you're more angry than he is. Apart from that, can't tell the difference. Give it a rest.
How am I repeating myself endlessly?
I'm not angry, that seems to be your thing. Try to remember that you initiated this, not I. So perhaps you ought to be the one resting.
By writing the sh1t you're writing?
Is that what passes for a coherent argument in your circles?
People may want to look up a short history of statistics. It originated as a discipline in large part in the Renaissance as a way of working out the odds in card games.
By writing the sh1t you're writing?
Is that what passes for a coherent argument in your circles?
You ain't my circles, btickler. You don't come anywhere near. So yes, if you like.
I'll say this once. Please, do yourself a favour. I don't like to see anyone harming themselves & it doesn't have to be like this. You don't have to be like this. You must see yourself as more intelligent than Coolout or some others. All you have to do is stand back a bit and accept reality. Don't fight it. Be happy.
Lol. So, "if you like" agrees with me that your argument is not coherent, and I don't run in your circles and am nowhere near running in your circles. Thank you, I guess?
You've "said this once" a dozen times already. There's nothing for me to accept, other than your perpetual toxicity.
Don't be a dishonest coward. Post a definition of luck and lets debate it. Patriot already tried and failed, you afraid to be next? I have posted the definitions from cambridge and dictionary.com already to prove I have made nothing up when you claimed I inserted the words actions and abilities. lmao. Now you are claiming the definition of skill i add along with it is changing something when the definition of luck I have posted is word for word from those dictionaries. You are the one making things up...lol All one has to do is look at your fake profile and then look at mine to know who is who.
More cowardly evasions and outright lies. Shameful and dishonest. I never disputed your use of dictionary definitions of luck. I pointed out that there are many other dictionary definitions that many others in this forum have posted that you say are invalid because they don't say exactly what you believe. Those dictionary definitions are every bit as valid as the ones you cite. You can't seem to understand that most words in the English language have multiple meanings and/or shades of interpretation. Your arrogant proclamation that you are more qualified than any one else to decide which are appropriate here due to your superior "sporting sense" is a joke, and your claim to know exactly what the OP meant while other opinions are invalid is worthless.
What I have pointed out in my last few posts is that you have repeatedly used the "can be increased by your own abilities" as part of your definition when this bit of malarkey is your own invention and appears nowhere in any definition of luck anyone has posted. Cite the source of this unsupported claim--tell us where you found this in any dictionary definition of luck. You have freely admitted that this is something you added yourself. You had to do this as otherwise your contention that there can be NO luck in any skill-based sport falls on its face. It is an untenable standard that only you believe in. Prove otherwise.
I'm still waiting for you to post a dictionary definition of luck so we can debate it. What are you afraid of? I think you know that Patriot has already done just that, so did another poster just yesterday, and I have shown how they were omitting parts of it, while failing to define the words within them, which lead to their contradiction of them. Patriot did so purposely and dishonestly, while the other poster did subconsciously, both trying to suit their own false narratives.
You want to step up to the plate now bud? Try to gather the courage to do so. I know you are too afraid to even play chess games on this site, but why post and make claims if you are afraid to debate them?
Like I keep saying this is extremely easy for me, because I'm simply going by the technical definition of the word itself and and if you acknowledge those definitions as your definition, then you are already losing the debate and proving yourself wrong.
It would be pretty easy for you, when you invent your own definitions and pretend they mean something, wouldn't it?
All you have to do is keep saying the same thing and hope someone who doesn't know you comes along, because they might think you're being honest.
But thats the opposite of my point. Again, you live in the world of reverse reality. I'm saying post a dictionary definition, which is what I go on, which is why its so easy for me to debate the topic. I'm the only one, NOT making up my own definition. lol
This is demonstrably false, see my post #906 where I replied to you: "Oh! Wow! Okay, I had no idea that you were freely admitting that you took the definition I used from google, and added a whole sentence at the end of the definition based on what you felt like the definition should be. Yes, taking a dictionary definition and then adding a whole clause or sentence at the end of it is unreasonable"
And my post #3436 where I point out that your definition of luck is necessarily "not being able to increase ones success from practice or knowledge". Since of course the result of a roll of a dice, flip of a coin, spin of a wheel, etc. are all only the result of a person's actions too.
In contrast to you, you will notice that I have been very consistent:
-my post #780: "I will use any reasonable definition, but I've been using luck ='success or failure apparently brought by chance rather than through one's own actions'"
-my post #899: "You are not understanding the definition of luck, which I have as something akin to 'success or failure apparently brought by chance rather than through one's own actions'."
-my post #948: "...I don't think the second half of your definition is reasonable. I mention it in my reply to Optimissed, but I haven't found anybody other than yourself who includes or insinuates anything like the whole second half of your definition ('or not being able to increase ones chance of success with practice or knowledge') in theirs. By including it, you are almost defining the word as the conclusion of your argument...For reference, my actual definition of luck is something akin to: 'success or failure apparently brought by chance rather than through one's own actions'."
-my post #993: "If you have an alternate definition, that is fine. But there is no evidence that your definition is shared, supported, or implied by anybody else. You can say the definition of dog is 'a four wheeled motor vehicle powered by an internal combustion engine' but that doesn't mean others use dog the same way...I have not seen anyone else define luck as anything like 'not being able to increase ones chance of success with practice or knowledge'."
-my post #1033: "So you are willing to define luck as exactly the following: 'success or failure apparently brought by chance rather than through one's own actions.'?"
-my post #3333: "As for the definition I choose: 'success or failure apparently brought by chance rather than through one's own actions' yeah I consider that perfectly reasonable. As I've explained before, you misinterpret what 'one's own actions' means, which is why you need to add your second statement--'or being able to increase ones success from practice or knowledge'-- to make your worldview work. It should be noted that nobody else uses this second statement, as far as I can tell."
Exactly. I changed nothing you quoted from google, and simply added the definition of skill as an antithesis. All you keep doing is showing you never understood the definition of skill anymore then you did luck, except to rightly conclude they are opposites of each other, or you would of already known this fact.
1) Skill is not the antithesis of luck. See my post #3417: "As is always the case with Coolout, unless he is quoting someone verbatim, you can assume he is just making things up to argue against. In this case, you can see my post #709 where I explicitly said the exact opposite of what Coolout claims. I wrote: '...luck and skill are not "opposite words with opposite definitions."'"
2) Skill and luck might be crudely thought of as existing at opposite ends of a spectrum, but that doesn't make them opposites. Usain Bolt and an SR71 are on opposite ends of a speed spectrum, but "Usain Bolt" is not the opposite of "plane", for example.
3) You tack on your or-statement (which I have seen nobody else use), since that is your real definition of luck. See my post #3436 where I say your definition of luck is necessarily "not being able to increase one[']s chances of success from practice or knowledge". If I say the definition of a chair is "a four legged place where people sit" and you say a chair is "a four legged place where people sit or any living creature", obviously you did change the definition to add a pretty big hammer of which you can hit many nails.
1. As usual you just want people to click links and say nothing in your own words except blank claims. The links are for posterity, and to give anyone who wants context around what I said. You see those quotation marks? That means I am referring to what I myself said, i.e. my own words. When I only take portions of a post that are relevant instead of reposting the whole thing, that is called an excerpt. Thats why even though I quoted the definition of luck verbatim, using the same dictionary definition you quoted yourself. You are replying to a post that shows me six times over more than a year give my definition of luck as "success or failure apparently brought by chance rather than through one's own actions" and your definition of luck as "success or failure apparently brought by chance rather than through one's own actions or not being able to increase one's chances of success with practice or knowledge". You will notice that yours is not the "definition of luck verbatim". Now you want me to do the same for skill. But just like a child told you in this thread you don't prove you understand anything if you can't explain it in your own words. What the child said is irrelevant, but as I already pointed out in my post #3271, that child was agreeing with my position, and saying that your position was not able to be explained simply. Also I should reiterate what I wrote in my post #3321 "When you plug your ears and refuse to think or even examine what is explained to you, that does not mean the actual information being presented is difficult, it just means you have a lower ability than most to comprehend it." If you don't agree with my definition of skill, explain why. Skill and luck are not opposites, but even if they were, words are rarely defined by their opposites.
2. Sounds like more contradictions from you. And I don't understand your example, it doesn't apply. A jogger and a plane are not opposites my friend, not even "crudely" lol. You are replying to a post where I say "...doesn't make them opposites..." and "...is not the opposite of..." Notice the word "not". The whole reason I brought this up, was to illustrate that they (skill and luck) are not opposites. You already agreed skill is the opposite of luck. This is now the third time I've corrected you on this point, at least. I did not agree to this nor did I ever say it. You are replying to a post where my first sentence is literally "Skill is not the antithesis of luck". Also, I linked you back to a post I made a full year ago (post #709) where I said "...luck and skill are not 'opposite words with opposite definitions.'" For those who may be blissfully new to Coolout, you can find a small compilation of instances where he has made demonstrable false claims of what other's have said in posts #829 #841 #1317 #709 #3022 and #3347. But unlike you I have explained in detail how by using the definitions of the words. To put it simply, increasing your chances of success by your own actions, or your chances of success increasing by the opposite of your own actions. period. As has been explained, adding "period" at the end of a statement does not make it true, and only serves to detract from any argument you make. See posts #1115, #769, #3038, and #3347
3. Just like I have challenged others, Just like i have shown to patriot, Post any definition of luck you want and I will show you how it applies easily. I have done so, and you have failed to do so, because you misinterpret what "one's own actions" means. But you know I have already done that with you because your definition is the same as mine. They're not the same, unless you are agreeing to use exactly "success or failure apparently brought by chance rather than through one's own actions". Notice the post you are replying to shows I originally challenged you to do this back with my post #1033. I Because all words have meanings my friend, yes, derived through common consensus. I have shown time and time again the many people across a diverse industry. For a small compilation, see my post #3271. You have given no evidence to support that anyone anywhere agrees with how you think of luck. regardless of your feelings towards them not suiting your false narrative.
Another good illustration for those who are new to Coolout. This is what you will have to deal with. He is largely incapable of addressing what you write, so much so that if you said "I don't think the sky is green" his most likely response is something like "U freeley admitted that the sky s green!"
My reply is in orange above.
I think all the progress that can be made arguing with Coolout has been made.
We shall see if something new/relevant will still pop up in this thread at some point.
Are you guys arguing whether there is luck in chess, or whether there is luck in human action?
Are you guys arguing whether there is luck in chess, or whether there is luck in human action?
Oh, so you are claiming that chess is not a human action. You must be a psychopath.
There.....you are now indoctrinated into this thread. Proceed.
Are you guys arguing whether there is luck in chess, or whether there is luck in human action?
Both it seems. Because if there is luck in human action, then there is luck in humans playing chess.
So it seems the question of whether or not there is luck in chess has been answered. There is at least some luck in chess, even if a fairly small amount. No point in beating a dead horse. I think the next question(s) should be how much of chess is luck? 10%, 5%, 1%? And if there is luck in humans playing chess, is there luck in computers playing chess?
So then if you all agree that there is luck in chess because of human action, you must also believe that there is luck in math because of human action.
This is my uneducated opinion and I am totally NOT prepared to defend it or support it, and admit freely that I haven't put a lot of effort into formulating it, nor do I really care if I'm right or wrong.
When we play chess, we have full control over every move we make and (for all practical purposes) every game is winnable*....if we make the right decisions on every move. Therefore, I don't see luck as part of the game at all.
*There is the highly unlikely possibliity that the opponent will make all the right decisions as well, in which case....a draw. This possibility is so remote, I choose to ignore it.
So then if you all agree that there is luck in chess because of human action, you must also believe that there is luck in math because of human action.
[nitpick]Math isn't a human action. It is a language designed to describe the physical word quantitatively. DOING math is a human action. [/nitpick]
This is my uneducated opinion and I am totally NOT prepared to defend it or support it, and admit freely that I haven't put a lot of effort into formulating it, nor do I really care if I'm right or wrong.
When we play chess, we have full control over every move we make and (for all practical purposes) every game is winnable*....if we make the right decisions on every move. Therefore, I don't see luck as part of the game at all.
*There is the highly unlikely possibliity that the opponent will make all the right decisions as well, in which case....a draw. This possibility is so remote, I choose to ignore it.
This is a surface level thought process that has been refuted quite a few times in the thread.
So then if you all agree that there is luck in chess because of human action, you must also believe that there is luck in math because of human action.
[nitpick]Math isn't a human action. It is a language designed to describe the physical word quantitatively. DOING math is a human action. [/nitpick]
That makes sense to me. Couldn't the same thing said of math also be said of chess? Isn't chess a big math problem? So if it's solveable (like a 6 piece endgame) then there really isn't any luck. But humans DOING chess is where the luck comes in. Which leads to the next question, how much luck is in computers playing chess?
This is my uneducated opinion and I am totally NOT prepared to defend it or support it, and admit freely that I haven't put a lot of effort into formulating it, nor do I really care if I'm right or wrong.
When we play chess, we have full control over every move we make and (for all practical purposes) every game is winnable*....if we make the right decisions on every move. Therefore, I don't see luck as part of the game at all.
*There is the highly unlikely possibliity that the opponent will make all the right decisions as well, in which case....a draw. This possibility is so remote, I choose to ignore it.
This is a surface level thought process that has been refuted quite a few times in the thread.
That's my opinion. Nothing more. Which probably makes it as valid as anything else that has been written here. You might believe that your or other particular thought processes are "deeper" but I don't. Again....just opinion. You see luck as part of the game? Great. I don't.
This is my uneducated opinion and I am totally NOT prepared to defend it or support it, and admit freely that I haven't put a lot of effort into formulating it, nor do I really care if I'm right or wrong.
When we play chess, we have full control over every move we make and (for all practical purposes) every game is winnable*....if we make the right decisions on every move. Therefore, I don't see luck as part of the game at all.
*There is the highly unlikely possibliity that the opponent will make all the right decisions as well, in which case....a draw. This possibility is so remote, I choose to ignore it.
A lot of people seem to share that view. It isn't correct for two reasons. The first is that there isn't full information. Far from it, because the information as presented to the chess player is often indecipherable. The second reason is the argument from lack of full mental control, which is a correct argument and actually irrefutable. A refutation isn't someone claiming I have to prove it, because I don't have to. No expert in human thought would or could possibly disagree. I'm acually rather amazed that there are people here who claim to disagree with it.
Whether or not there is full information is irrelevant. What I said is true. Every game is winnable if you make the right decisions on every move.
PS Red font on my black background is really hard for my 76 year old eyes to read. If you like using red, could you make it a little bigger?
For the record, a dictionary that defines luck as "fortune" isn't a dictionary, it's a thesaurus.
Which just illustrates the point that picking out one dictionary definition from the many that exist and proclaiming that that is the one "true" meaning that everyone in this forum must acknowledge is asinine.
Quite the contrary.
When we want to delve into precise meanings of words, a generalized dictionary isn’t enough. When discussing luck, we should look for the precision of the mathematicians who specialize in such events. Those mathematicians are called “statisticians”.
I have already posted a definition used by statisticians.