I don't have any other profile I use online. My linkin has no pic on it... I don't take pictures.
Anyway, go away.
got your phone and address too!
guess you arent quite as smart as you think you are....
but dont worry, dumbass. im not coming to your house if you are too cowardly to play otb
You couldn't even tell me what my most recent job was, you thought it was the Lunafit job... You have random information scraped from 10 different websites oudated to various degrees, in some cases decades, and you can barely piece together which is which. But if you keep at it you'll get yourself banned on here, so keep it up.
i will get banned? YOU are the one who threatned me, dumbass. Also you called me a slur.
I issued you a legal threat in the event you show up to my house, and I stand by that threat. If you show up to my house I will be armed.
that's cute.
I issued you a legal threat in the event you show up to my house, and I stand by that threat. If you show up to my house I will be armed.
that's cute.
sweet dreams, cupcake!
@KestrelPi
Luck is a subjective view of probabilistic events. Not deterministic or conscious efforts, such as skill in chess. There is no objective chance or luck in chess.
Now we're getting somewhere! So what you're saying is that in order for luck to be involved the events have to be in some way... probabilistic. Can we define that a little more so we can see if that's robust?
I promise, I'm not doing this to be annoying: it's my suspicion the reason people can't agree on this is that we're all working with different ideas of what luck is. So I've proposed one, to see if it holds up. Maybe your one holds up better
"Maybe your one holds up better."
Kestrel you were quite gracious to say that at the end.
Many would not have said that.
@KestrelPi
Luck is a subjective view of probabilistic events. Not deterministic or conscious efforts, such as skill in chess. There is no objective chance or luck in chess.
Now we're getting somewhere! So what you're saying is that in order for luck to be involved the events have to be in some way... probabilistic. Can we define that a little more so we can see if that's robust?
I promise, I'm not doing this to be annoying: it's my suspicion the reason people can't agree on this is that we're all working with different ideas of what luck is. So I've proposed one, to see if it holds up. Maybe your one holds up better
Probabilistic event involves a random mechanic that is out of the players control. They typically use dice for this purpose in games. Two players making conscious decisions with superior ability and move prevailing is not an example of such, it is the opposite of random and therefore cannot provide an instance of luck.
Superficially it does seem like there is no luck in chess, as there is no random mechanic in the game itself. But - even if we discount external events over which a player has no control - I think you could argue that chess does contain luck because no human player has a perfect understanding of the moves they make.
To give a very basic example: if I move a pawn, intending to attack my opponent's knight, and inadvertently block a checkmate threat from a bishop-queen battery that I haven't seen, what is that, if not luck? It certainly isn't skill.
That's a good solid post by Hon Sec.
Of course he's right as he indicated at the bottom of his post regarding his example 'its certainly not skill'
And that's a good example of luck in chess - of an internal variety.
I anticipated correctly that some others would try to cherrypick and over-emphasize the external factors of luck in chess - thereby weakening their own argument of luck in chess and 'helping' their opponents.
But fact is there are also internal factors of luck in the game and some members have given good examples of that.
Much better to go right at those internal factors of luck - and concentrate on them instead of red herrings of external factors - which also apply of course but aren't as key.
Yes, now you got it.
No, he doesn't.
Luck is not one one end of a spectrum with skill at the other end. Skill and luck are separate spectrums and different variables (you'd think a software developer would get this). The opposite of perfect skill is not luck, it's the lack of perfect skill. The opposite of luck does not even really exist; it's a subjective perception, good luck or bad luck are the theoretical spectrum and they are entirely dependent on the observer's perception. In fact, someone can lose a game and declare themselves lucky anyway for any number of external reasons.
This is easy enough to demonstrate. Before a game of chess starts, a player has a skill range (and a pretty predictable one if rated), but there is no luck "sitting at rest" waiting for the game to start and balancing out skill like some kind of see-saw. Even for a rank beginner, you cannot say "I guess they have no skill, so this will be a luck-based game of chess". Games between beginners are decided by lack of applied skill. Games between GMs are also decided by lack of applied skill. Humans play chess badly as a whole, which is why there's this idea that there's luck in the game.
But chess is a game of perfect information and if you were capable of playing a perfect game and understood why, you could never lose a game, ever...because there is no luck in chess. Like Tic-Tac-Toe...no luck other than the first move selection (which cannot really be entirely eliminated for turn-based games or chess would have gotten rid of that, too). Lay people will equate game complexity and player ignorance with luck because humans cannot play a perfect game of chess and never will, That is a failing of humanity, not any proof of luck in chess.
If randomized elements were added, then there would be luck in the game of chess.
It's always the same impasse of definitions. Most people have a fuzzy and poetic idea of luck, but that is not what lucks means in terms of game design.
I will point out that the two main proponents of "luck" here today are one person that believes he has paranormal powers and the other who believes in Tarot deck readings.
Now back to my vacation.
No wonder there are so many posts today. The conversation has become a playground squabble.
Have we found out whose dad could beat up the other's dad yet?
Well, you know, there are a small number of people who go their lives always or almost-always being the smartest person in the room. That's just a statistical reality.
And they are smart enough to know better than to crow about it.
I wonder just how many people occupy the average room. Are we talking about like, 1.5 people here or something? That would give everyone a pretty good chance of being the smartest person in the room at least some of the time.
Good god there's another 200 pages of fluff. And a couple threats, why not. DiogenesDue put it well and apparently he only comes back from vacation to either re-establish the objective definition of luck or to go after Optimissed. I prefer the former.
The two arguments that I see for luck are the following
1) External factors like power outage are luck. I made a counter some pages back to Mpaetz: If external probabilistic factors like power outage are luck in chess, then external conscious influences like physical harm to opponent must be ability in chess.... This is not the case and both are factors outside of chess principals.
2) Bad moves or lack of skill resulting in luck. Only thing determining results in chess is relationship of abilities. They don't produce luck. Like DiogenesDue said it's easy to demonstrate this by questioning whether optimal skill could ever lose? Surely yes if there is luck? But no. In a game of perfect information optimal skill can always produce optimal theoretic result no matter what. There is no argument for luck there.
Its suggested today by a good member that skill and luck are separate.
A premise.
Seeming to argue that wherever skill applies or happens to apply that luck could not also apply.
If that's the argument - I wouldn't agree with it.
Skill and luck cannot overlap?
Cannot have a grey area between them?
I wouldn't agree with either of those either.
And in activities where two opponents compete against each other - luck factors might actually be Increased rather than decreased.
Including internally.
Skill factors? That too.
---------------------------------
If there's a big difference in strength between the two opponents - then 'skill factors' are increased. Internal to that 'chess' activity.
Internal luck factors are reduced and for luck to cause a result favorable to the weaker player - well incidence of external factors to so cause would be increased. (in percentage - not in absolutes)
The less difference in strength between the two players - the more luck factors increase. Internal to that chess activity. External factors don't reduce but would figure in causing a result a lower percentage of the time relative to the internal factors.
All of that is simple.
But it takes some words to describe it properly.
Describe. Not insist. Which some are 'inclined' to attempt.
Well, you know, there are a small number of people who go their lives always or almost-always being the smartest person in the room. That's just a statistical reality.
And they are smart enough to know better than to crow about it.
Or who 'think' they're the 'smartest' assuming they could even define that.
And - chances that anybody here is going to change somebody else's mind about the degree to which luck is present or not in 'chess'?
.001 % ?
1/infinity ?
1/(the John Tromp number) ?
(..)
Games between beginners are decided by lack of applied skill. Games between GMs are also decided by lack of applied skill. Humans play chess badly as a whole, which is why there's this idea that there's luck in the game.
But chess is a game of perfect information and if you were capable of playing a perfect game and understood why, you could never lose a game, ever...because there is no luck in chess. Like Tic-Tac-Toe...no luck other than the first move selection (which cannot really be entirely eliminated for turn-based games or chess would have gotten rid of that, too). Lay people will equate game complexity and player ignorance with luck because humans cannot play a perfect game of chess and never will, That is a failing of humanity, not any proof of luck in chess.
If randomized elements were added, then there would be luck in the game of chess.
It's always the same impasse of definitions. Most people have a fuzzy and poetic idea of luck, but that is not what lucks means in terms of game design.
The question of game design. Is chess a game designed to have luck factors? You could argue for that. It is not as simple in design as tic-tac-toe.
In chess, we can learn skills and advance from making random moves to making more or less good moves.
We have rules to follow, including that we are promising to play our best, try to win or withstand our opponent best we can, to draw or lose putting up resistance. We have to move in a given time (our lifetime, for example). This obligation to move, sometimes, amounts to drawing lots from an urn. We have candidate moves but neither our vision nor our intuition tell us which one to pick. This is due to lack of skill or knowledge, but we are able to play this game designed to exceed our judgement by taking to randomizers to come to a decision. One randomizer is a toss of a coin, another is a shrug and a random pick. So the element of luck occuring in chess is that you have to move before you have perfect information- which is always, in a game (factually) designed to deny us perfect information.
To players who could see through chess as well as we can see through tic-tac-toe, chess would contain no element of luck. Does that mean that chess per se contains no element of luck? In terms of the result, luck is out of the picture. While, looking at the manifold ways a game can go to reach that result, which way we take is random. We can use a coin or just shrug and pick at random among the possible ways to reach the inevitable end.
But for would-be perfectly informed players it would, arguably, no longer be a game- they couldn't play it, there is no finding out, no guesswork and betting on probabilities, no taking a chance left, it is just going through the motions of presenting the very well-known equation, using arbitrarily chosen variables of the day.
Us, we cannot see through it, and the engines can't. Aren't we lucky? O, how well-made chess turns out to be! 
"To players who could see through chess as well as we can see through tic-tac-toe"
chess is not solved so there are no such players.
Chess 'evolved'.
chess is not solved so even two very strong computers playing each other are subject to luck.
chess is not solved so 'best play by both sides produces a draw' is invalid because best play isn't known.
Its suggested today by a good member that skill and luck are separate.
A premise.
Seeming to argue that wherever skill applies or happens to apply that luck could not also apply.
That does not follow from what I said. You leapt one lilypad too far. There are plenty of games with skill and luck intrinsic to them. Chess is not one of them. Remove humans for engines (or theoretical perfect players) and the luck immediately disappears.
If that's the argument - I wouldn't agree with it.
Skill and luck cannot overlap?
Cannot have a grey area between them?
I wouldn't agree with either of those either.
That's good because those would be straw men if you went down that road.
And in activities where two opponents compete against each other - luck factors might actually be Increased rather than decreased.
Including internally.
Skill factors? That too.
The question of game design. Is chess a game designed to have luck factors? You could argue for that. It is not as simple in design as tic-tac-toe.
In chess, we can learn skills and advance from making random moves to making more or less good moves.
We have rules to follow, including that we are promising to play our best, try to win or withstand our opponent best we can, to draw or lose putting up resistance. We have to move in a given time (our lifetime, for example). This obligation to move, sometimes, amounts to drawing lots from an urn. We have candidate moves but neither our vision nor our intuition tell us which one to pick. This is due to lack of skill or knowledge, but we are able to play this game designed to exceed our judgement by taking to randomizers to come to a decision. One randomizer is a toss of a coin, another is a shrug and a random pick. So the element of luck occuring in chess is that you have to move before you have perfect information- which is always, in a game (factually) designed to deny us perfect information.
To players who could see through chess as well as we can see through tic-tac-toe, chess would contain no element of luck. Does that mean that chess per se contains no element of luck? In terms of the result, luck is out of the picture. While, looking at the manifold ways a game can go to reach that result, which way we take is random. We can use a coin or just shrug and pick at random among the possible ways to reach the inevitable end.
But for would-be perfectly informed players it would, arguably, no longer be a game- they couldn't play it, there is no finding out, no guesswork and betting on probabilities, no taking a chance left, it is just going through the motions of presenting the very well-known equation, using arbitrarily chosen variables of the day.
Us, we cannot see through it, and the engines can't. Aren't we lucky? O, how well-made chess turns out to be!
I might answer this later, but suffice to say...your premise doesn't work. Chess is still a game of perfect information whether or not you can actually decipher that information. A strategy game that is not a game of perfect information? Stratego.
I agree chess is a game of perfect information too.
But - its also not solved. Which has various implications.
I think you don't understand the concept of luck. Luck implies some random element in the game beyond the control of the players. Games with dice, or cards, or such devices introduce luck into a game. There are no such random elements in chess. It is your brain against your opponent's brain. You have equal armies, with the only difference being that the player with the white pieces moves first. However, in a match, the players change colors each game, so that difference is negated. Pairings in tournaments are decided by the algorithm of the pairings program that tournament directors use.
I believe it is this lack of "luck" elements which makes chess so great, but also so hard. When you lose, baring cheating, it is because your opponent played better than you. This can be hard on the ego to be sure. This is both the joy and pain of chess. I think this lack of luck makes chess the world's greatest game.
I don't have any other profile I use online. My linkin has no pic on it... I don't take pictures.
Anyway, go away.
got your phone and address too!
guess you arent quite as smart as you think you are....