I've heard the saying "There is good luck in chess but there is no such thing as bad luck" - meaning you can win because you were lucky that your opponent played poorly, but if you lose it is because you were outplayed.
that.. doesn't make any sense.
@Antimustard Plato was an ideal realist who believed that the best definition of knowledge is a proposition which is confirmed, justified and true. However, that's a circular definition because we only think something is true if we consider it to be knowledge. We only think it's true because it's highly confirmed and justified. A real idealist thinks that the ideal is real, or at least, that's one definition of it. Your scenario where no randomness exists in chess is an ideal. In reality, since we have no known means of analysing chess exactly, we are bound to create our own randomness. It may not appear to be randomness. Indeed, it may seem to be determined according to how we react in various situations. However, a determinist cannot possibly prove that free choice doesn't exist. Or free will, if you want to think of it as that. Since we don't and can't understand all chess situations, ultimately some of our choices of moves are bound to be random, to some extent at least.
There is no randomness by game design not affected by the players skill and focus themselves. Trying to convolute the issue isn't proving anything. I still believe you have ulterior motives here.
I confess I'm trying to use it to take over the World but isn't that what it's all about?
<<Also there's absolutely no randomness involved.>>
So for practical purposes that's incorrect. It's correct only in an idealised setting where the best decisions CAN be made.
It is correct, period. There's just no randomness in chess. Not being able to make the best decision is not caused by presence of randomness, but by a lack of skill.
In your opinion. But where the best computers cannot solve it, randomness is therefore involved.
Incorrect. There is always a best move in Chess.
No there isn't and that has been established, with my help and that of others, on Ponz's thread regarding chess being a draw with best play. Since chess is a draw, there's a definite drawing margin. No move which doesn't alter the outcome because it's a mistake IS a mistake and all the rest are best moves, some of which suit some players and others of which suit others better, according to their various styles.
<<Also there's absolutely no randomness involved.>>
So for practical purposes that's incorrect. It's correct only in an idealised setting where the best decisions CAN be made.
It is correct, period. There's just no randomness in chess. Not being able to make the best decision is not caused by presence of randomness, but by a lack of skill.
In your opinion. But where the best computers cannot solve it, randomness is therefore involved.
Ops, I missed this one. Best computers cannot solve it, therefore there's randomness? Wouldn't be able to find a better example of non sequitur.
It's only because computer engine assessments of positions are in common use that some people have been induced to believe that single, best moves exist in all positions, which is incorrect, although, of course, single, best moves do exist in positions with "forced moves" for which an alternative move would bring about a worse game result. However, humans have input into engine programming and also chess has never and almost certainly will never be "solved".
<<Also there's absolutely no randomness involved.>>
So for practical purposes that's incorrect. It's correct only in an idealised setting where the best decisions CAN be made.
It is correct, period. There's just no randomness in chess. Not being able to make the best decision is not caused by presence of randomness, but by a lack of skill.
In your opinion. But where the best computers cannot solve it, randomness is therefore involved.
Ops, I missed this one. Best computers cannot solve it, therefore there's randomness? Wouldn't be able to find a better example of non sequitur.
Yeah, the best computers aren't good enough to solve chess and that, therefore, doesn't mean that the game is random
Also by logical understanding of chess you just get that it is simply impossible for a position to happen by "randomness", as if the same variants are played the same position will always occur
It would be better if you explain your reasoning: otherwise, you're making a claim that isn't backed up in any way. Why doesn't it mean that there are random elements being introduced? What else would you call the potential variations which are introduced when there's no clear line of play which may be considered "best"?
<<<Also by logical understanding of chess you just get that it is simply impossible for a position to happen by "randomness", as if the same variants are played the same position will always occur>>>
Isn't that slightly circular? Like "if you play a4 then you play a4"?
I would say there is some luck involved because maybe your opponent got up that morning and had a bad night of sleep and that's lucky for you because they might play poorly.
!. You got it backwards. Human error which you consider lucky for you, is the opinion in YOUR mind. the FACT is that is due to the players and not part of the game design.
What did that mean? I'm sorry but I can't make it mean anything.
2. I already explained to you ulterior motives one could assume. Either you want excuses for losing, or want excuses for disrespecting the game like someone who doesn't want to consider it a sport for example.
To be charitable to you, we can forget the first part. The second part just seems to me to mean that you think I'm impelled to disagree with you, not because you're wrong but only because I want to disagree with you. So you think I'm disrespecting you, because I disagree with you. But it's impossible to disrespect or to respect an inanimate and abstract idea such as chess, or it should be impossible. We can enjoy it, we can think it useful, interesting or challenging, we can be bored by it or think it a waste of time.
3. Look in the mirror buddy. You calling human error lucky for you is simply the opinion you are still here insisting. Me saying luck is not part of the game design is simply a fact that even ziryab had to eventually concede. I'm doing my part by not demeaning lower rated players or those who like to play blitz. I'm here countering your false narratives which invite dishonesty and disrespect into the sport.
Why do you say |"even Ziryab"?| Do you imagine he's smarter than me? 
Or you imagine he conceded that point to you?
It would be better if you explain your reasoning: otherwise, you're making a claim that isn't backed up in any way. Why doesn't it mean that there are random elements being introduced? What else would you call the potential variations which are introduced when there's no clear line of play which may be considered "best"?
<<<Also by logical understanding of chess you just get that it is simply impossible for a position to happen by "randomness", as if the same variants are played the same position will always occur>>>
Isn't that slightly circular? Like "if you play a4 then you play a4"?
What random elements? What variations? You are the one that needs to explain. Because everything you call luck are factors outside of the game itself and have to do with the player. What Immaculate_Slayer said is perfectly understandable and logical as to why the game itself is not based on luck. as many board games are.
It wasn't addressed to you. I don't want you to explain anything to me. What he said isn't supported by an argument. It's just an unsupported claim and at least some effort needs to be made to sell that claim to the other side. Otherwise it gets ignored.
<<Also there's absolutely no randomness involved.>>
So for practical purposes that's incorrect. It's correct only in an idealised setting where the best decisions CAN be made.
It is correct, period. There's just no randomness in chess. Not being able to make the best decision is not caused by presence of randomness, but by a lack of skill.
In your opinion. But where the best computers cannot solve it, randomness is therefore involved.
Incorrect. There is always a best move in Chess.
No there isn't and that has been established, with my help and that of others, on Ponz's thread regarding chess being a draw with best play. Since chess is a draw, there's a definite drawing margin. No move which doesn't alter the outcome because it's a mistake IS a mistake and all the rest are best moves, some of which suit some players and others of which suit others better, according to their various styles.
There is always a best move in Chess. Always. It may be a draw is the result, or a stalemate, maybe even a loss. Best is a subjective term.
It would be better if you explain your reasoning: otherwise, you're making a claim that isn't backed up in any way. Why doesn't it mean that there are random elements being introduced? What else would you call the potential variations which are introduced when there's no clear line of play which may be considered "best"?
<<<Also by logical understanding of chess you just get that it is simply impossible for a position to happen by "randomness", as if the same variants are played the same position will always occur>>>
Isn't that slightly circular? Like "if you play a4 then you play a4"?
Lack of skill.
There is always a best move in Chess. Always. It may be a draw is the result, or a stalemate, maybe even a loss. Best is a subjective term.
What is the best move?
@Antimustard Plato was an ideal realist who believed that the best definition of knowledge is a proposition which is confirmed, justified and true. However, that's a circular definition because we only think something is true if we consider it to be knowledge. We only think it's true because it's highly confirmed and justified. A real idealist thinks that the ideal is real, or at least, that's one definition of it. Your scenario where no randomness exists in chess is an ideal. In reality, since we have no known means of analysing chess exactly, we are bound to create our own randomness. It may not appear to be randomness. Indeed, it may seem to be determined according to how we react in various situations. However, a determinist cannot possibly prove that free choice doesn't exist. Or free will, if you want to think of it as that. Since we don't and can't understand all chess situations, ultimately some of our choices of moves are bound to be random, to some extent at least.
I'm looking at that table realizing I should have taken more philosophy courses. It seems that I missed some nuances that Socrates was trying to communicate.
I've always wondered whether Socrates thought a chessboard and pieces were something real, or some futile effort to imitate the one that matters (where blindfold play takes place--and all true chess players play blindfold in their calculations).
Of course, we can Google "Socrates' writings" to find out what he thought. More seriously, I'm more interested in pre-Socratic philosophers: especially Democritus and Heraclitus. I think that there's a lot that is decadent about Socratic philosophy. After all, Plato wished Democritus' writings to be destroyed, just as Newton did actually destroy those of Hooke, who had been the more brilliant scientist than Newton. At least history now remembers Newton as greater than Hooke but it would have been the other way round and so it was also with the Socratics. I think we should scrap Plato, because he simply represented all that could be easily supported in pre-Socratic as Socratic and discarded the rest. OK, probably the World needed to assimilate it all in easy stages but then, if that's true, how come Plato deliberately put back the processes of science by centuries? Greek "culture" deserved to be made subservient to Roman, because it was decadent and self-defeating.
There is always a best move in Chess. Always. It may be a draw is the result, or a stalemate, maybe even a loss. Best is a subjective term.
What is the best move?
Ask a GM … or the engine.
Is there a bad move? If so, there is a better move.
It would be better if you explain your reasoning: otherwise, you're making a claim that isn't backed up in any way. Why doesn't it mean that there are random elements being introduced? What else would you call the potential variations which are introduced when there's no clear line of play which may be considered "best"?
<<<Also by logical understanding of chess you just get that it is simply impossible for a position to happen by "randomness", as if the same variants are played the same position will always occur>>>
Isn't that slightly circular? Like "if you play a4 then you play a4"?
Lack of skill.
I didn't like to say it was due to lack of debating skill. But you said it.
There is always a best move in Chess. Always. It may be a draw is the result, or a stalemate, maybe even a loss. Best is a subjective term.
What is the best move?
Ask a GM … or the engine.
Is there a bad move? If so, there is a better move.
He gave an example where it should be obvious, to a merely competent player, that there's no best move. The winning side needs to lose a move so he moves the rook to g1, g2, g3, g4 or g8. So there's no unique best move.
<<Also there's absolutely no randomness involved.>>
So for practical purposes that's incorrect. It's correct only in an idealised setting where the best decisions CAN be made.
It is correct, period. There's just no randomness in chess. Not being able to make the best decision is not caused by presence of randomness, but by a lack of skill.
In your opinion. But where the best computers cannot solve it, randomness is therefore involved.
Incorrect. There is always a best move in Chess.