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.
Based on this statement, you would have to agree that there is luck involved in getting 100% on a math test.
For me, absolutely. Like, over 50% luck.
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.
Based on this statement, you would have to agree that there is luck involved in getting 100% on a math test.