There is luck in chess, there is skill in chess, and there are actions that are neither and can still affect results.
Maybe. I cant think of any, but if there are, I dont think they invalidate the argument. Succesful maintenance of equipment though.. I strongly suggest its a skill. I think those good at it would ask you, what it is other than skill that allows them to be good at it, you know.
How would proper maintenance of your iPhone help if solar flares interfered with the Starlink connection you were depending on to transmit your signal?
Would this mean that you were lax or poorly skilled at keeping the sun functioning properly?
How would proper maintenance of your iPhone help if solar flares interfered with the Starlink connection you were depending on to transmit your signal?
Would this mean that you were lax or poorly skilled at keeping the sun functioning properly?
You already made this argument in #5711 and I responded in #5712:
"A truly unpreventable connection issue - luck in chess. A connection issue due to, say, poor maintenance of equipment - lack of skill.. in chess. See, the maintenance work can be very relevant to a games outcome."
"A truly unpreventable connection issue - luck in chess. A connection issue due to, say, poor maintenance of equipment - lack of skill.. in chess. See, the maintenance work can be very relevant to a games outcome."
Then you DO agree that "a truly unpreventable connection issue" IS luck in chess?
Chess is not a game of luck... unless the opponent or you does a mouse slip you could consider that "unlucky". People a lot of time just have bad days and cannot admit they played bad so it must be to them luck was on your side. I say just play more accurately lol
"A truly unpreventable connection issue - luck in chess. A connection issue due to, say, poor maintenance of equipment - lack of skill.. in chess. See, the maintenance work can be very relevant to a games outcome."
Then you DO agree that "a truly unpreventable connection issue" IS luck in chess?
That's not quite right mr. Mpaetz, just me being lazy at this point to keep repeating the full context.
Im just demonstrating that If that was considered luck in chess (your position), then the maintenance work in turn should logically be considered skill in chess. Do you accept that? Atleast then the position is approaching consistency..
No. As I have pointed out several times, a players' actions (assaulting the arbiter, outright cheating, deliberately abandoning a game) can and will result in the loss of a chess game and the opponent's success. Everything that is not luck in chess is not necessarily chess skill.
Distractions can affect either or both players.
That's irrelevant to my argument.
Some playing sites are crowded, poorly lit, equipped with noisy air conditioning, etc. Should you wish, you might employ the Bobby Fischer method and simply refuse to play unless all conditions conform to your exact specifications. (Don't hold your breath waiting for tournament organizers to accede to your demands.) If it's too hot/cold/noisy/dark/crowded/whatever that environment might be considered as "part of" that specific game, but the ability to maintain one's concentration at a high level IS an important chess skill. Even if one player finds particular conditions more distracting than their opponent does it is still the players' moves that decides the issue.
What conditions I choose to allow has no bearing on whether they are part of the actual game in terms of claiming something is "in" chess.
If you consider tournament games (and presumably online games) involving clocks to be actual chess games, then failure to complete the moves within the stipulated timeframe must be considered "part of" those chess games.
That does not follow, actually. They affect chess games, and may cause premature cessation of chess games. But then again an agreed draw does the same. In a truly "played" chess game, the result is either checkmate, or draw, via lack of material or stalemate. Every other result is a tacit agreement (directly or indirectly by adding external rule constructs/clock) to stop playing the game before it is over.
One player's failure to complete the game on time results in a loss (and the opponent's win). The position of the pieces on the board has no bearing on victory/defeat (success/failure) in that game. Time management is another chess skill in timed games.
It results in a forced cessation of the game and an "assigned" loss that did not actually take place. Time management is a skill that does not apply to basic chess games, and despite your experiences, I would contend that untimed games are still a majority of games played worldwide. Chess.com claims 600+ million people play chess. FIDE has 360,000 active members. Major federations *might* add an order of magnitude to this (let's be generous and say 6 million tournament players. That's 1% of players, admittedly the most prolific ones, but they would need to play 100 games to the casual player's 1.
In rare instances, such as internet failures or strokes at the board, the players' time management skills are not the cause of clock expiration and the game's outcome. The moves made by the players have no influence on such games' outcomes.
You are right, those game were halted by external circumstances.
"Success apparently brought about by chance rather than through one's own abilities or actions" (OED) means luck.
Success *in chess* is not present in the cases you are referring to. If you meet someone at a coffee house and you agree to play a game, then they get a text before the first move and say "I have to go, emergency...sorry, I resign."...do you feel "successful" in the context of the chess game you have just technically "played"? Extend to the extreme...say you played in a tournament and every single opponent resigned before the first move. You win the tournament! (maybe there's some investigation afterwards, but...)
Did you succeed in chess? No, not one bit. You did however win the tournament, i.e. the external construct that surrounded and encapsulated your individual chess games.
How exactly do you explain who won such games, and how they did so, within the "very consistent" and "far easier to delineate" definitions you propose? Perhaps your parameters do not cover all eventualities?
They cover them nicely, I think.
A game of chess can be considered to have truly started when both players have made a legal move with a continuing intent to play out that game. It ends with checkmate, an insufficient material draw, or stalemate. Everything else is outside that game of chess. The pairings are not part of the game, hitting the clock is not part of the game, writing your moves down is not part of the game, arbiter interventions are not part of the game, the power blackout in the tourney hall is not part of the game, your opponent flipping over the chess board and walking away is not even part of the game. Tournament rules are imposed to force games to fit the time schedule and resources available. Any abnormal terminations they cause, whether agreed upon or not, are not part of the game. Your laptop falling the toilet is not part of the game. Rather it is an external event that is part of your life, the player, not the game.
Game and/or external rules like tourney rules that cover cessation of play outside of direct victory/draw conditions do so to allow for a reasonable exit from play, not to imply that your game was "successful" or completed.
Is this thread about the game, or the player, though? It's kind of hard to have a game without any players -__-
Is this thread about the game, or the player, though? It's kind of hard to have a game without any players -__-
The title makes it clear...it's about the game. The correct title for the thread you are looking for is "Can players perceive/experience luck while they are playing chess?" to which the answer is yes.
Funny that they can perceive something that you say isn't there.
Funny that they can perceive something that you say isn't there.
How so? Human beings perceive (A) a tiny fraction of what occurs around them (1%-5%), (B) with rather poor ability on what they do perceive, and (C) make up stuff to fill in the unknown gaps constantly every waking moment. Eyewitness testimony is generally the most inaccurate kind of evidence.
Try this book: Loftus, E. F. (2005). "Eyewitness Testimony" (Harvard University Press)
ISBN-13: 978-0674931383
Well, you didn't say they hallucinate luck in chess. You said they perceived it. So if they're perceiving something, that's perception of something that's there. It wouldn't be accurate to say you perceived something that wasn't there.
Well, you didn't say they hallucinate luck in chess. You said they perceived it. So if they're perceiving something, that's perception of something that's there. It wouldn't be accurate to say you perceived something that wasn't there.
Demonstrably false with innumerable examples. You're conflating subjective perception with objective reality.
Your set of hallucinations is contained within the set of your perceptions.
Not that the dictionary is the word of God or anything, but
per·ceive
/pərˈsēv/
verb
1.
become aware or conscious of (something); come to realize or understand.
Doesn't say anything about subjectivity there, but about becoming conscious of something (not of nothing).
Not that the dictionary is the word of God or anything, but
per·ceive
/pərˈsēv/
verb
1.
become aware or conscious of (something); come to realize or understand.
Doesn't say anything about subjectivity there, but about becoming conscious of something (not of nothing).
Nowhere in the definition does it mention accuracy. You have, ironically, perceived the definition inaccurately.
There is luck in chess, there is skill in chess, and there are actions that are neither and can still affect results.