From Octo's post:
"A game of chess can be affected by factors internal and external to chess. Internal factors are a part of chess rules"
Octo's mistake is showcased there.
Internal factors extend well beyond chess rules.
At least five factors are internal to 'chess'.
rules-clocks-assignment of results-game-opponents.
Without those five internal factors you don't really have 'chess' in its essence.
And in the modern set of rules that includes things like castling and double pawn move and en passant - clocks have been around throughout the lifetime of that set of rules.
'game' and 'opponents' are both subject to chance and therefore luck.
That's without externals - which themselves could have two major categories:
Common externals. Everyday or mundane things.
One opponent has a cold.
Or his sister has gone into labor. Ominously.
----------------------------------
Extreme externals. Lightning hitting the chess hall.
War breaking out that day.
People in the audience trying to psyche out one of the opponents.
Is there such thing as "luck" in chess?
'We'
"We are only'
Idea: everyone speaks for himself/herself.
To reach a reasonable consensus is to mutually comprehend something, i.e. it is the goal of communicating, without that you're just chattering cryptic nonsense in the direction of other people and there's really not alot of point to it (something you tend to do). Unless your goal is to berate others into submission with this cryptic chatter.
Even if you're speaking independently, you strive to make what you say rational i.e. comprehensible, and hence it is still a basis for consensus.
Now, if there's no definite conclusion to be made and all you have is a contrary opinion for that reason you don't strive reach a consensus, but only because you realize it's a futile attempt.
On the other hand... if the conclusion is obvious but you're speaking with dunces who just won't acknowledge it (i.e. this entire thread) you're not obligated to refrain from offending them.
'We'
"We are only'
Idea: everyone speaks for himself/herself.
To reach a reasonable consensus is to mutually comprehend something, i.e. it is the goal of communicating, without that you're just chattering cryptic nonsense in the direction of other people and there's really not alot of point to it (something you tend to do). Unless your goal is to berate others into submission with this cryptic chatter.
Even if you're speaking independently, you strive to make what you say rational i.e. comprehensible, and hence it is still a basis for consensus.
Now, if there's no definite conclusion to be made and all you have is a contrary opinion for that reason you don't strive reach a consensus, but only because you realize it's a futile attempt.
On the other hand... if the conclusion is obvious but you're speaking with dunces who just won't acknowledge it (i.e. this entire thread) you're not obligated to refrain from offending them.
ibrust missed the whole point.
If he'd observed carefully the post above mine he would have seen that it was somebody else who initiated 'We' and 'We are only'.
Instead he built on a false premise.
He 'tends' to do things like that.
Opponent blunder is your luck.
From Octo's post:
"A game of chess can be affected by factors internal and external to chess. Internal factors are a part of chess rules"
Octo's mistake is showcased there.
Internal factors extend well beyond chess rules.
At least five factors are internal to 'chess'.
rules-clocks-assignment of results-game-opponents.
Without those five internal factors you don't really have 'chess' in its essence.
Only your mistake is showcased here.
Game rules include everything you need in chess: time, assignment of results based on the outcome on the board, two players and objective of the game which is to move pieces which is the act of playing the game.
When someone plays poorly and is facing forced mate in three only to have their online opponent's power go out causing computer shutdown and loss of the game, how exactly does that fit under you rubric "ability that results in better moves wins"?
Believe it or not, there are some chess players who think the point of playing the game is to try to win. (Some players actually invest far too much of their self image in their winning and ratings.) When winning/losing is NOT the result of better moves that's lucky for the winner, unlucky for the loser.
Chess is a contest between two opponents. The opponents are an essential part of the process, not an "external factor". Chess does not exist without participants. The rules of piece movement are not the only rules of chess: there are rules about time used, "touch move", various forms of cheating and other matters that can determine the winner/loser regardless of what moves have been made on the board.
The "Royal We" as used by English Monarchs employed the use of the plural to denote that that individual is exercising their right to proclaim the will of the nation as a whole, despite any contrary opinions some (or most) of their subjects may hold. Had you read my last post with minimal discernment you would have noted that I was explicitly pointing out your appropriation of such authority to declare that the issue of heart attacks at the board and the like had been settled no matter what others had been saying in the last 5000+ posts.
Incidentally, there are elephants in chess. The piece we call "bishop" in English originally represented the elephants used in ancient Indian armies. More recently classical Indian chess sets used elephants equipped with howdahs carrying warriors as rooks.
Insisting on this argument is futile. As I said, the game can be affected and interfered with by external factors such as a power outage. There is no power outage in chess alltho it can disrupt the game from outside. A player can also get up and shoot the other player effectively ending the game. The game can be affected by external factors, deemed probabilistic or deterministic but they are not a part of the game. Guns and violence is not internal to or a part of chess. What happens IN chess is within the rules and thats the topic of this thread. Not power outages.
PS. Giving thumbs up on your own post seems conceited.
'We'
"We are only'
Idea: everyone speaks for himself/herself.
To reach a reasonable consensus is to mutually comprehend something, i.e. it is the goal of communicating, without that you're just chattering cryptic nonsense in the direction of other people and there's really not alot of point to it (something you tend to do). Unless your goal is to berate others into submission with this cryptic chatter.
Even if you're speaking independently, you strive to make what you say rational i.e. comprehensible, and hence it is still a basis for consensus.
Now, if there's no definite conclusion to be made and all you have is a contrary opinion for that reason you don't strive reach a consensus, but only because you realize it's a futile attempt.
On the other hand... if the conclusion is obvious but you're speaking with dunces who just won't acknowledge it (i.e. this entire thread) you're not obligated to refrain from offending them.
ibrust missed the whole point.
If he'd observed carefully the post above mine he would have seen that it was somebody else who initiated 'We' and 'We are only'.
Instead he built on a false premise.
He 'tends' to do things like that.
You're confused again... this is a defense of saying "we" and "we are only" in debate... you know, because the word "we" implies the seeking of a consensus... The very fact you are criticizing that is what I am criticizing.
Keep trying
Thank you we'll have to do that since nobody in this thread has ever mentioned that before. But anyway, yes you're fundementally right.
Show me a position where Stockfish or any other engine reached a depth of 1000.
Yes, perfect information in theory, but no human sees all, and from most positions, neither do engines.
From Octo's post:
"A game of chess can be affected by factors internal and external to chess. Internal factors are a part of chess rules"
Octo's mistake is showcased there.
Internal factors extend well beyond chess rules.
At least five factors are internal to 'chess'.
rules-clocks-assignment of results-game-opponents.
Without those five internal factors you don't really have 'chess' in its essence.
Only your mistake is showcased here.
Game rules include everything you need in chess: time, assignment of results based on the outcome on the board, two players and objective of the game which is to move pieces which is the act of playing the game.
You just agreed with me without realizing it.
Lol.
Your mistake was showcased in my quote and reply.
My post stands.
Nothing you can do about it so don't worry about it.
'We'
"We are only'
Idea: everyone speaks for himself/herself.
To reach a reasonable consensus is to mutually comprehend something, i.e. it is the goal of communicating, without that you're just chattering cryptic nonsense in the direction of other people and there's really not alot of point to it (something you tend to do). Unless your goal is to berate others into submission with this cryptic chatter.
Even if you're speaking independently, you strive to make what you say rational i.e. comprehensible, and hence it is still a basis for consensus.
Now, if there's no definite conclusion to be made and all you have is a contrary opinion for that reason you don't strive reach a consensus, but only because you realize it's a futile attempt.
On the other hand... if the conclusion is obvious but you're speaking with dunces who just won't acknowledge it (i.e. this entire thread) you're not obligated to refrain from offending them.
ibrust missed the whole point.
If he'd observed carefully the post above mine he would have seen that it was somebody else who initiated 'We' and 'We are only'.
Instead he built on a false premise.
He 'tends' to do things like that.
You're confused again... this is a defense of saying "we" and "we are only" in debate... you know, because the word "we" implies the seeking of a consensus... The very fact you are criticizing that is what I am criticizing.
Keep trying
You are criticizing invalidly.
Somebody mistakenly used the word 'we' and the phrase 'we are only' in a misguided attempt to define what others are doing.
Your failures to understand his mistakes and yours is your problem.
But keep trying.
And as I predicted - somebody tried to cherrypick power failures .... after I just mentioned such.
which occasionally happen in tournaments ... I've seen it happen.
I've also seen failures of the air conditioning too.
--------------------------
these are examples of luck being part of chess - but in the external factor category.
But internally - chess has several elements - probably five - with at least two of them subject to chance and luck.
Everyone knows that rules and clocks and posted results and game and players are parts of the game internally.
Because without them you don't have 'chess' in the common meaning of the word.
Everyone knows that.
And players and how they choose their moves and invest time in the clock are both subject to chance and luck which means 'game' is too. Even if the two players are computers there's still chance and luck.
Because chess isn't solved.
Everyone knows that too.
That's all obvious.
----------------------
But there will be pretenses that the only luck could come from externals like cherrypicked electric light failures - which also refute the false notion that there's 'no luck' in chess.
But do so in a weaker and pretentious way.
Which misguidedly tries to obfuscate the more central sources and causes of good and bad luck in chess.
You just agreed with me without realizing it.
Lol.
Your mistake was showcased in my quote and reply.
My post stands.
Nothing you can do about it so don't worry about it.
You must've slipped some of your mushrooms in my tea since I have 'accidentally' started to agree with you.
Insisting on this argument is futile. As I said, the game can be affected and interfered with by external factors such as a power outage. There is no power outage in chess alltho it can disrupt the game from outside. A player can also get up and shoot the other player effectively ending the game. The game can be affected by external factors, deemed probabilistic or deterministic but they are not a part of the game. Guns and violence is not internal to or a part of chess. What happens IN chess is within the rules and thats the topic of this thread. Not power outages.
PS. Giving thumbs up on your own post seems conceited.
Insisting that your definition of "in chess" is the only possible way to look at things seems conceited and unrealistic. Of course computers/smartphones and the power and connection associated with them are an essential part of online chess--the game could not exist without them.
You agree that players are part of the game, and that winning is the objective. On some rare occasions the winner/loser is determined by factors other than which contestant has displayed better chess skill. When uncontrollable circumstances award the poorly-performing player the victory, rating points, prize money that player was lucky rather than skilled. The loser wailing that an opponent didn't really deserve to win is not uncommon, but it's just sour grapes.
PS--I looked to see who gave me the thumbs-up but the chess.com program put my name in and froze so I was unable to delete it. Sometimes computer glitches produce unintended results.
@mpaetz
the thumb up emoji just posted under your last post is from me.
"Insisting that your definition of "in chess" is the only possible way to look at things seems conceited and unrealistic."
I'll add to that. It Is both conceited and unrealistic. Not just 'seems'.
But he's 'attempting to insist'.
And failing.
There's at least three of them here so attempting/failing. Constantly and over the years.
And one person's use of the word 'We' and 'We are only' was also conceited and foolish.
---------------------------
If one wants to make a general argument - much better to start with what's established and for real - instead of pretending to 'false establishment'.
Why do people do such things?
Because they see it as part of entertainment perhaps.
The ridiculous the illogical the preposterous and outrageous and incongruous and conceited can all be part of entertainment and are.
And they attract attention.
Sometimes.
Trying to pretend there's no luck in chess is a kind of 'starting with rook down' kind of activity.
There's probably many forms of such.
Flat-earthism would be another one.
But being careful to qualify:
If one wants to define 'chess' as only being its rules structure - then that's different.
But here's the bad news for those who want to so define:
It isn't. 'Chess' isn't a mathematical term and wasn't meant to be either.
Its a game.
---------------------
And everybody knows it.
Maybe some will cherrypick exceptions:
Hey what about a two month old baby?
How about somebody in coma?
How about those tribes in south america cut off from the rest of the world?
What about people who are so unaware of chess that they don't even know anything about it? There's probably a large number.
Note--In English grammar it is usual to capitalize the W in the royal plural, as when the ultimate authority figure speaks for everyone else--"that We ruled out", meaning that you have decided the issue and cannot be contradicted.
Those things are characteristics of an individual. Chess doesn't care in which form your ability comes in. The ability that results in better moves wins.
A game of chess can be affected by factors internal and external to chess. Internal factors are a part of chess rules. External ones happen in life outside of chess. An elephant can ruin a chess game but there are no elephants in chess.
The capital W was used in the beginning of a sentence, no royalty to it.
When someone plays poorly and is facing forced mate in three only to have their online opponent's power go out causing computer shutdown and loss of the game, how exactly does that fit under you rubric "ability that results in better moves wins"?
Believe it or not, there are some chess players who think the point of playing the game is to try to win. (Some players actually invest far too much of their self image in their winning and ratings.) When winning/losing is NOT the result of better moves that's lucky for the winner, unlucky for the loser.
Chess is a contest between two opponents. The opponents are an essential part of the process, not an "external factor". Chess does not exist without participants. The rules of piece movement are not the only rules of chess: there are rules about time used, "touch move", various forms of cheating and other matters that can determine the winner/loser regardless of what moves have been made on the board.
The "Royal We" as used by English Monarchs employed the use of the plural to denote that that individual is exercising their right to proclaim the will of the nation as a whole, despite any contrary opinions some (or most) of their subjects may hold. Had you read my last post with minimal discernment you would have noted that I was explicitly pointing out your appropriation of such authority to declare that the issue of heart attacks at the board and the like had been settled no matter what others had been saying in the last 5000+ posts.
Incidentally, there are elephants in chess. The piece we call "bishop" in English originally represented the elephants used in ancient Indian armies. More recently classical Indian chess sets used elephants equipped with howdahs carrying warriors as rooks.