Proper dictionaries are simply reports of the way people use words. They are not supposed to be rules brought down from Mt. Sinai.
Is there such thing as "luck" in chess?
Sort:
Which is exactly the point I've been making for the past six pages.
It's like getting into a conversation with Elroch concerning the meaning of words he doesn't understand, such as "knowledge" or "infinity". Or "politeness". 
mpaetz wrote:
Kotshmot wrote:
A paper plane is thrown by human - result can be predicted to a degree and skill is always a factor on where the plane lands. We also know that the wind is always a factor as well. Now we have luck and skill both playing a part determining the result, even tho we can predict the outcome to a degree. Is the definition out the window already?
When the wind blows your piece to a square different from the one upon which you intended to place it your comparison will be appropriate.
The problem I have with the "we don't know everything about every possible move in most positions, therefore there must be an element of chance involved" proposition is that practical experience shows it to be untrue. Should a 1350-rated player play a 1950-rated player, we find the higher-rated player will win almost every time. Yet neither player is near master strength, so we acknowledge their deficiencies in skill. If both players' moves are determined partly by luck, the laws of probability would suggest that the 1350 player will do better more often than is the case. It is the greater number of poorer moves selected by the weaker player that will make the difference, unless we extend the "luck in every move" theory to include the principle that every time a player fails to make the best move it is because of bad luck.
Further, the oft-expressed "I wasn't sure which move was better so I guessed--then three moves later I found out that was the best move" reasoning is flawed. Aside from the fact that in many cases there will be two or more nearly-equal moves, who can say that in situations where neither player can know the optimum move the good result was not due to the opponent's intervening poor choices?
"When the wind blows your piece to a square different from the one upon which you intended to place it your comparison will be appropriate."
What comparison? I didn't make any comparison. Simply questioned the definition you provided and you didn't address that at all.
How did you calculate how often a 1350 should win against a 1900 in case the moves were "partly" determined by luck? This is just your hunch that makes no sense. If someone is playing with better odds, they win most of the time.
By your answers I would say you don't a 100% understand what the logic behind luck in lack of knowledge is, that is being presented here. There have been some good posts on it already so it's hard to further help you get on the same page. Maybe later on I'll continue on this.
mpaetz wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
Again, everyone choosing their own definition, whether from a dictionary or their own imagination, and insisting that theirs is the only valid interpretation, has been the major cause of disagreements among the thousands of posts in this thread.
Misrepresentation in its purest form. I told you that I'd given my preferred definition and I pointed out very clearly that it's best NOT to be prescriptive regarding definitions.
Yet you repeatedly claim that other definitions "fail" or "are wrong", or that OED was good years ago but now is inferior, despite the fact that the older definitions you like are still included, even if they report that different usage has become more usual. If it is simply a matter of your preference compared to others' choices, that's exactly what I said. It's the insistence of many posters that any conclusions reached from definitions other than their preferred "correct" interpretation are inherently mistaken.
In my experience and also logically, where dictionaries differ from one another, that's an indication that something's wrong somewhere. Yet when their definitions are identical, there's a possibility they're just copying one another. It pays to be sceptical, where abstract ideas that would merit an essay are defined in a few words, very often by people who are not very good at it. The World has moved on from a time when it was possible to trust dictionaries in general. That was maybe up until the 1950s. You're too trusting of people who pose as "authorities". That applies to two or three others I can think of too.
The idea that luck has nothing to do with chess is some kind of ideological belief. And I'm fed up with talking to pedantic people.
Optimissed wrote:
The idea that luck has nothing to do with chess is some kind of ideological belief. And I'm fed up with talking to pedantic people.
Mixture of that and misunderstanding
true
Yes
Optimissed wrote:
The idea that luck has nothing to do with chess is some kind of ideological belief. And I'm fed up with talking to pedantic people.
what if you just like didnt respond
Oct 6, 2023
0
#4213
Hi!
In a logical game like chess, there should be no room for luck. But honestly, sometimes it feels like luck plays a role!
I believe that if you train the right way, you will become stronger, you will comprehend the game better, and you will see that there is nothing random in it.
Good luck! (still!)"
In all the times I've played otb chess I've never once had someone say "good skill". They always say "good luck".
ZackIsBack2265 wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
The idea that luck has nothing to do with chess is some kind of ideological belief. And I'm fed up with talking to pedantic people.
what if you just like didnt respond
It would be an idea. I was wondering if, once upon a time, someone would say there's no luck in chess and actually give a reason. I didn't think it was beyond the bounds of possibility but no-one arguing that there's no luck in chess seems to have given a reason, ever. I mean, not an intelligible one.
Yes I think that's a good idea because it isn't going to happen, so we can say goodbye to this thread.
lfPatriotGames wrote:
In all the times I've played otb chess I've never once had someone say "good skill". They always say "good luck".
You don't take that as a put down?
question-authority wrote:
I haven't seen anyone give a reason to believe luck exists anywhere let alone chess. Just opinions based on unknowns.
Either you accept that randomness exists or you don't accept it. Two years ago, Elroch completely accepted it and didn't question it and now he's questioning it, based on the many worlds interpretation. But then, He isn't getting any sharper and is probably going into reverse.
I just looked at Elroch's threads and Sillver is writing in a completely different style, so much that he could be a very different person. None of the rather bumbling West Indian style he was writing in. Of course, it could be a coincidence that Dio is taking a trip somewhere but I always wondered about the Englishman. He still writes almost all quotations though, and has no personal input that I can identify. I always thought it very improbable that a very easy-going West Indian would come out in support of that erstwhile bunch of trolls. I'm also sure that Elroch more than knows what's going on. I noticed he put someone down sharply by explaining that the A.I. trainer was only an IM and the result was 1000 points stronger. It was a deliberate put-down and not a valid point at all. Put it this way. Who's stronger, a 10,000 horse-power bulldozer or the mechanic who designed and built it?
Who has the better mind? Someone who makes an interesting point or the person who puts that someone down because he doesn't really understand its significance? Elroch only unblocks me from time to time to liven things up. I know he's as corrupt as FIDE.
Yeah because nobody says good skill
Not
"I hope you play really well today and give me a tough game"
but
"I hope you have good luck, cos you'll need it".
It's also non-compatible with their definition for the noun, so I would say that all these dictionary definitions bear out my opinion that one shouldn't use dictionaries except for words you don't actually understand.
I don't actually know why people do use dictionaries. Perhaps it;s some pedantic attempt to "win" conversations? Who knows, but I would not use the word luck as a verb. We should aim to maintain at least some standards.