Bare in mind I told you in my previous response I dont misrepresent your statements, I draw logical conclusions from them and demonstrate them separately.... So your argument here seems to be that the result of a deliberate action is not necessarily based on skill. Okay, what is it alternatively based on in that case? It would also seem to me that moving a pawn is an action as well.
As I have repeatedly stated, the definition of luck involves "one's own actions or abilities". In English the word "or" indicates that the terms being compared differ from each other. Your opinion that my post saying Carlsen's dressing in a manner forbidden by tournament organizers was an "action" on his part referenced his chess "ability" was your misunderstanding English usage (which I do not believe), or an incompetent attempt to refute a point you could not evade (possible), or just frivolous BS (most likely). In any case it WAS a misrepresentation of my post, no matter how often and strenuously you deny it.
'or just frivolous'
'no matter how often and strenuously you deny it'
---------------------------
exactly.
But nobody has a monopoly on criticizing Octo's frivolous claims.
----------------
And neither Octo nor Optimissed could deal with the contrast of a forced mate sequence controlling the outcome of a game - completely and deterministically controlling it - versus other stages of that game or other games of chess where the outcome is not under control and multiple variables aren't under the control of either player.
In addition to trying to invoke the phrase 'game mechanics' as an argument (it isn't) - Octo often trots out the word 'intuition' - he seems to think - again - that just the existence of a word or phrase is an 'argument'. Would Octo's pseudo-intellectualism appeal to Optimissed?
Sure it would.
'Jumbled'?
I'll take Opto's accusation to mean that he thinks my posts are the exact opposite of that.
Octo has no proof of his claims. No evidence.
His posts are refuted over and over again.
Flat earthers don't have proof of their claims either - nor are they receptive to evidence refuting their claims.
Octo knows that winning a lost game because the opponent's internet connection fails is luck.
---------------------------
Regarding a position by much better (and more sincere) posters than Octo that there is 'no luck' in chess - some of those persons will or do or would recognize a difference between 'rejecting' luck in chess and 'denying' luck in chess.
Rejection versus denial.
Rejection of something doesn't have to include denial of its existence.
Rejection implies that something isn't wanted - not a pretense.
Denialism of things that are real and commonly recognized, such as not having total control of an outcome, such denialism are pretenses.
----------------
There is another situation and that is defining subjective things as perceptions.
But that has grey areas.
Is purpose always subjective? It only exists subjectively?
I would say no.
Anything with DNA in it that is living and functioning to survive has purpose.
That's an objective fact.
So events not under the control of that living thing that happen to determine the good or bad fortune of that living thing are luck.
In other words a tree can be lucky. It doesn't need perception of luck to be lucky.
Whereas a rock cannot be lucky. It has no DNA. It has no operation to survive.
People know these things.
Realities are consequences of existence not somebody's logic or illogic.
---------------------
When I read Octo's posts, whatever I may think of the arguments they may contain, I see them as the reasoned output of someone who takes some care in putting his thoughts across. He reads like a respectable person and we may be interested in reading what he has to say, since it's transmitted in a respectful manner.
Reading your posts, however, gives none of that type of impression. I honestly cannot imagine any person getting pleasure or knowledge from reading your posts, which generally consist of a garbled mess of proclamation, declamation, innuendo and also defamation.
@mpaetz thumbed up O's reply there -
but here's a post of mpaetz made a short time ago elsewhere:
"If you didn't constantly bring up your (and everyone else in your family) "high IQ" to justify your claims that all other posters here are mental midgets by comparison no one else here would ever talk about it"