In high school, I was an alternate to the knowledge bowl team. In German class, I was quizzing the captain of the team one morning. One of the questions that arose was to name the four state capitals in the US that are named for presidents. That afternoon, the same question came up as a bonus in the competition. Our team nailed it, of course.
Was that luck?
"Luck is when preparation meets opportunity." Seneca
Now, suppose that I invest significant training in a particular line and it comes up in one of my tournament games this weekend. Will my ability to handle it well be a stroke of luck?
Is there such thing as "luck" in chess?
Sort:
Apr 17, 2022
0
#522
Apr 17, 2022
0
#523
CooloutAC wrote:
LeeEuler wrote:
You have not quoted me.
1) From your post #838: Show me the quote, and give the post number, where I claimed I was a pro player
2) From your post #838: Show me the quote, and give the post number, where I claimed homeruns are based on luck or that baseball is not skillsbased.
3) From your post #838: Show me the quote, and give the post number, where I claimed consistency is irrelevant in determining skill
4) From your post #834: Show me the quote, and give the post number, where I claimed speedchess is not real chess
5) From your post #834: Show me the quote, and give the post number, where I claimed lower skilled players only beat higher skilled players by luck
6) From your post #789: Show me the quote, and give the post number, where I claimed accuracy [exclusively] determines skill
7) From your post #763: Show me the quote, and give the post number, where I ever implied Ivanchuk got his rating and record due to luck
There are other errors to, like from your post #809: where you say "because this is a competitive sport something you clearly have no understanding of. Take your head out of your books lmao."
Or from post #789 where you say "The problem is you don't even know the definition of luck, have yet to even research it." while simultaneously replying to my post saying that "I will use any reasonable definition, but I've been using luck ='success or failure apparently brought by chance rather than through one's own actions'".
I literally hit quote everytime. I never respond to someone without doing so. The reason you don't sometimes is because you don't want me to be notified you replied to me afraid to deal with my retort.
1) And I accept now that you were not a pro player, this makes much more sense.
2) you tell me what you were referring to when it comes to homeruns? Because Btickler made the same assumption as me. But I accept your concession now that Homeruns are based on skills.
3) Doesn't matter now. Because again, don't be afraid to address this point I will repeat to you now... it is semantics for you to say skill is determined by consistency, but that its not what separates the level of skill between pro players from amateurs. Go ahead. concede this is not what you mean in your next post and that you in fact agree with me lol Because thats how ludicrous your argument is otherwise when put simply without the fluff.
4) Are you saying you don't feel this way? Then you agree with my point. again.
5) Again, if not, you agree with my point. good. moving on...
6) refer to point 3. you are desperately repeating yourself now. flailing in the wind agreeing and conceding everyone of my points trying to save face. I hope this ends now.
7) This whole topic is based on luck, and you bringing up Ivanchuk's "wild variance" to prove luck exists in chess I find absolutely deplorable. And again, like optimissed, ziryab and otherss, shows you don't even know what a competitive sport is. And as I have now added to the list of motives, from this I have to assume you also don't think styles or different strategies are valid in chess, related again do you thinking some incidental metric like accuracy metrics developed on chess.com determines ones sucess in chess, or that other variants of chess are not skill based. Mr I played baseball at a high level...lol
They only errors are within you my friend. You would call me winning this debate luck, I would call it your lack of skill. Thankyou for now agreeing with everything I have been saying and conceding the argument.
And don't forget my friend
Not all randomness is luck. Only randomness that is not the result of human action and in which success or failure can not be influenced by practice and knowledge.
So what you are admitting to in this post is that you do make up claims to argue against rather than address what I've actually said, which is encapsulated crystal clearly on post #799:
"Chess, and most games humans play, is skills-based with elements of luck built in by virtue of it's very design. That is to say, people can improve their performance by improving their skills, but that in any given position or any given game, it is fallacious to categorize one's results as being exclusively based on their skill relative to their opponent (since in any position, a player must make a move, and since there is an associated prior distribution with any move). This overly simplistic categorization ignores the randomness inherent in any non-deterministic system. As a proxy for where an activity sits on the luck-to-skill spectrum, one can look at the least upper bound for the number of trials needed to completely determine one's relative skill/competency at the activity"
If you want to address my position, quote directly from the above.
As to your last point, "Not all randomness is luck", you are implying that I have ever disagreed with this, whereas I have said this is true from the beginning. Observed randomness (outcome) is a derivative of both skill and luck. This is what I have linked previously talking about exactly this point: https://conjointly.com/kb/true-score-theory/
This along with other links showing that luck is an accepted part of all sports, for example baseball: https://sabr.org/journal/article/calculating-skill-and-luck-in-major-league-baseball/
Or links to best sellers that talk about the flaws in people's thinking in regards to the role of chance: https://www.amazon.com/Fooled-Randomness-Hidden-Markets-Incerto/dp/0812975219
Apr 18, 2022
0
#524
CooloutAC wrote:
mpaetz wrote:
Wow!! Even more psychic abilities. Now you can say for certain what someone really meant. It seems the "truth" turns out to be what you want it to be and fhe individuals involved have no business trying to tell the honest truth as they see it. And there was NO skill involved in the ball hitting the bat. He wasn't even looking at the ball while flinging himself to the ground.
Whether you believe it or not, there is an event of chance in human activities, even those that are designed to minimize it. "The best laid plans of mice and men...
You omit the fact the throw was a result of the pitchers actions not some randomizing device, as well as the skill of Mays to dodge the ball and run to the base. A lesser experienced or skilled player would not have made that play. And Yes he said he was lucky, because its a common phrase to be courteous and sporting and because it was not what he planned himself. That does not mean his knowledge of the game and practice was not a factor in his success.
You ignore the reality that diving out of the path of a dangerous moving object is not a special baseball skill that only a top player can master. We're I to throw a brick at you from a distance of 30 feet you would duck. This dorsn:t mean you have the skills to be a Hall of Fame baseball player, and baseball skills played NO part in the ball striking the bat. Who are you to say that Mays wasn't being honest about the play being a freak stroke of luck? Why would anyone accept your uninformed opinion rather than that of the dozens of major league players that were on the scene? What is the remarkable talent that you possess that makes you more competent to judge the circumstances surrounding an event you never saw than all the eyewitnesses?
Apr 18, 2022
0
#525
Au contraire, Bud. I actually saw the play (on TV) and you know nothing about it. The only player that might have been thrown out, considering where the ball landed, was Long John Silver and he wasn't in the lineup. As for your continued insistence that you know better than dozens of actual baseball experts at the game, words such as pompous, fatuous, blowhard, and dingbat come to mind. To quote Toshio Mifune in Kurosawa's Yojimbo "You can't help fools".
Apr 18, 2022
0
#526
CooloutAC hat geschrieben:
Optimissed wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
You think that "luck" is an imaginary force? It's not really a force, except inasmuch as all movement is a kind of force and everything in existence is moving, altering and changing in some way. It seems like "imaginary" because sometimes this movement isn't noticeable and at others, it may seem completely predictable. But the way things move and alter isn't always predictable and randomness is inherent in everything, including in our thoughts. We have "pre-programmed" thoughts, we have random thoughts and we have free will also, although some dispute that on grounds of determinism or because they can't understand how the mind can be effectively isolated from determinstic events.
Calling luck predictable is another oxymoron. This is because you refuse to adhere to the very definition of the word you are debating and you do this for the reasons I have already stated.
I'm starting to think that you're more intelligent than you seem but that you wilfully misrepresent what others write because you refuse to use your intelligence. I certainly didn't call luck "predictable". That's straight out of your own mind because you don't take the time to understand what others are saying. It isn't as if you can't do that but because you're so used to others insulting you that you want to strike first. Doing that can make you look stupid when you certainly aren't stupid. I now think you are not stupid but you should learn to make the effort to understand what people are saying and then you'll be able to interact more meaningfully with them and realise your potential.
Using my intelligence could be something obtained with practice as you admit. Which means any thought in my head, even though is based on my own human body, not an outside randomizing force, is not luck by definition. But it is also not luck because how well I use my intelligence can be measured and the outcome influenced for a more consistent desired outcome. When it comes to luck, none of these things are true. I can't even believe you said such a thing. If what you believe is true that would mean we are not even human. The very definition of luck means without human ability to influence chances of a desired outcome. If this exists, then it is no longer luck its a measurement of skill. Luck is when lighting strikes you since you had no possible influence over it.
Bro just give it up it´s the same as arguing with a religious cult. Those people want to belive what they want to belive. And you can´t change their mind no matter how hard you try. Because if they would admit, that they lose not because of bad luck but the lack of skill, they would feel bad and no one wants to feel bad. It´s so much easier to not take responsebility for your actions and blame it on bad luck instead. With that mindset they will always stay on low level and never improve, but you can´t save everyone...
CooloutAC wrote:
You are very similar to the majority of the people I see in the computer industry, that think something is not a solution because it is too simple. And when someone like me comes along with an extremely simple solution to a problem, they get offended when their inferiority complex kicks in. lmao. I consider them fraudulent. It could be argued you would do this for job security, but here you are on a chess forums arguing nonsense, so this is part of your complex, the error within you that causes you to always want to overcomplicate things. This is what I eluded to earlier when I said it was not "elegant" enough for you to believe as true.
"alluded"
Eluded means to escape or avoid something.
Good software developers actually do the opposite of what you are positing here. They strip a process down to its bare bones and eliminate all extraneous baggage, which is why a PGN contains everything you need to know about a game of chess, and not one thing more. It's why relational databases exist rather than gigantic spreadsheets with redundant data records and fields everywhere.
When you are programming and have such a limit instructions set/vocabulary, it becomes essential to be able to reduce and codify everything. Adding complexity usually occurs at the protocol layers, in the name of interoperability. But even that "complexity" is allowed only to simplify communications between the widest range of software/hardware.
Apr 18, 2022
0
#528
technical_knockout wrote:
Romans 1:20
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
yeah, you tell me there's no God & i'll ask you where the universe came from;
it takes far more 'faith' to believe that nothing miraculously exploded into a harmonious universe of mathematical laws than it does to believe in an eternal, omniscient, omnipotent & benevolent Creator.
You have it backwards. If Occam's razor disfavors anything, it's the type of God that combines omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, etc. It's (literally) infinitely more reasonable to assume almost anything else.
llama51 wrote:
technical_knockout wrote:
Romans 1:20
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
yeah, you tell me there's no God & i'll ask you where the universe came from;
it takes far more 'faith' to believe that nothing miraculously exploded into a harmonious universe of mathematical laws than it does to believe in an eternal, omniscient, omnipotent & benevolent Creator.
You have it backwards. If Occam's razor disfavors anything, it's the type of God that combines omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, etc. It's (literally) infinitely more reasonable to assume almost anything else.
I should also point out that Romans was written by someone who never even met Jesus. They had to come up with a story about a beam of light and a horse just to try to make him seem legit 
...so, not the greatest source.
You have it backwards. If Occam's razor disfavors anything, it's the type of God that combines omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, etc. It's (literally) infinitely more reasonable to assume almost anything else.
https://www.giadiencongnghiep.com/bang-gia.html
Apr 18, 2022
0
#531
btickler wrote:
llama51 wrote:
technical_knockout wrote:
Romans 1:20
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
yeah, you tell me there's no God & i'll ask you where the universe came from;
it takes far more 'faith' to believe that nothing miraculously exploded into a harmonious universe of mathematical laws than it does to believe in an eternal, omniscient, omnipotent & benevolent Creator.
You have it backwards. If Occam's razor disfavors anything, it's the type of God that combines omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, etc. It's (literally) infinitely more reasonable to assume almost anything else.
I should also point out that Romans was written by someone who never even met Jesus. They had to come up with a story about a beam of light and a horse just to try to make him seem legit ...so, not the greatest source.
the entire bible was authored by God over the course of 1600+ years, as is apparent to me from its one voice & numerous (fulfilled) prophecies.
if a doctor has a medical assistant dictate for him, does that make her the author of his words? 🤔
Saul of Tarsus, perhaps early Christianity's biggest persecutor, became its biggest supporter (Paul) after MEETING JESUS on the road btw. 😜
notice how the emojis help strengthen my position btickler? 😆
no, ziryab, not willie mays: don't be daft or dishonest... this was started from YOU saying 'try telling a religious person there is no God' on EASTER, as if they won't listen to reason:
that's the day us Christians remember the Creator's resurrection after Lucifer had him crucified in the flesh on Earth.
red pjs those attributes are necessary, along with omnipresence for the Creator of the universe, with its vast sea of stars... btw he 'knows their number & calls them all by name':
quite the 'flying spaghetti monster', huh? 😉
Apr 18, 2022
0
#532
technical_knockout wrote:
the entire bible was authored by God over the course of 1600+ years, as is apparent to me from its one voice & numerous (fulfilled) prophecies.
This isn't an accident. The Jews who wrote the New Testament were very much aware of the prophecies, and tried their best to make Jesus fit them. Since they were written 50-100 years after the death of Jesus they had plenty of time to work on it.
Not only that, but over centuries humans chose which books to throw out of the Bible or accept... and not only that, we know over the centuries parts were erased or added because sometimes the people copying them made errors, and other times they changed passages to better fit with the overall message. And even after all this, the final product has obvious inconsistencies.
1) Contradictory accounts of creation, the flood, and even Jesus in the 4 gospels. (Of course this doesn't bother most Christians because they're smart enough to take stories metaphorically).
2) If there is one clear message, why do so many Christians disagree on doctrine. Sometimes enough to kill each other. Sometimes enough to go to war, and even when it's less fatal, we can't even agree which translation is correct. You'd think if the Bible were important God wouldn't have written it in dead languages.
Anyway, it's obvious to anyone who wasn't raised in a Church, or who has actually studied the Bible, that Christianity (and its book) appear exactly the way you'd expect a man made religion to appear.
Apr 18, 2022
0
#533
Another proof that there is luck n chess. It's plain bad luck that Jesus didn:t play chess. If he had we would have examples of perfect play and would know if chess is a win or a draw. Or perhaps some miight feel that we:re lucky he didn't play, as now we can enjoy figuring it out for ourselves. Luck either way you look at it.
Apr 18, 2022
0
#534
technical_knockout wrote:
red pjs those attributes are necessary, along with omnipresence for the Creator of the universe, with its vast sea of stars... btw he 'knows their number & calls them all by name':
And in the end times all the stars will fall from the heavens onto the earth... because the bronze age morons who wrote the Bible thought they were little specs of light stuck in the dome of the sky instead of what they really are, objects that billions (sometimes trillions) of earths could fit into.
Apr 18, 2022
0
#535
the religious leaders of the Jews rejected Jesus as the promised Messiah & sought his death lol... their hostile witnessing strengthens the bible's claims.
the Creator of the universe is perfectly capable of delivering & preserving his message to humanity intact.
the KJV or HOLY Bible is a faithful translation into English from the original Hebrew & Greek:
it's only natural that Satan would attack God's word with inaccurate & corrupted translations like the NIV or ESB (an important verse in Acts is removed entirely from even the footnotes, for example).
1. examples? lol...
2. real Christians don't murder & God naturally authored his books in the language of the locations where they were penned.
3. i wasn't raised in a church, i HAVE read the bible & no, rather, secular humanism's religion of evolution is exactly what you'd expect a man-made religion to look like.
maybe you should decide to know exactly WHY you hate the bible & actually READ it before DISCUSSING it, like I DID.
Apr 18, 2022
0
#536
technical_knockout wrote:
the Creator of the universe is perfectly capable of delivering & preserving his message to humanity intact.
I think the Christian God should get in contact with him then, you know, to get a few tips.
Apr 18, 2022
0
#537
there is bad luck in chess. the best player ever was up against "w"esley "s"o and absolutely wiped the board with him but got disqualified cause "w"esley "s"o is the biggest looser i ever seen
Apr 18, 2022
0
#538
technical_knockout wrote:
1. examples?
There are tons. They just don't teach them to babies in Sunday school.
For example, which was created first according to Genesis? Humans or animals? There are two different stories.
For example, how many pairs of animals did Noah take on the ark? In one version it says 2 of each, in another it says 7 pairs of the clean animals.
The gospels have some of the best known differences, for example did John the Baptist baptize Jesus? Not according to the Gospel of John. And after Jesus' death... I don't quite remember this one... I think in one Gospel the women ran away and never said a word to anyone, and in another they went and told a lot of people.
Anyway, you can use Google.
Apr 18, 2022
0
#539
technical_knockout wrote:
the religious leaders of the Jews rejected Jesus as the promised Messiah & sought his death lol... their hostile witnessing strengthens the bible's claims.
You... you realize that when Jesus was alive he was a Jew right? Christianity didn't exist until after Jesus died. Some of the Jews believed Jesus was the messiah and others didn't. The original Christians started out as Jews... it's not hard to understand.
The short answer is "yes".
Do this thought experiment: Have Houdini play 50 games against Rybka. Try to predict the outcome of each game before they start. Houdini will win the match, but there's no way to predict which games it will in advance.
This randomness is "luck". It's why we need longer matches to determine the better player!
From 15 May 2011. This thread.