The fact that playing a game otb would eliminate the chances of internet connection interruptions couldn't determine the winner does not mean that such things don't happen in online play.
That instances of games being decided by factors other than the players' moves or poor time management are very rare does not mean that such occurrences are non-existent.
If i sacrifice something and it's a blunder,it's a ability
But,If i sacrifice something and it's a brilliant,it's a luck
If there is a win/loss-- success or failure--in a chess game that is indisputably caused "apparently by chance rather than one's own abilities or actions" we must admit that luck has played a part in that particular game result.
The fact that playing a game otb would eliminate the chances of internet connection interruptions couldn't determine the winner does not mean that such things don't happen in online play.
That instances of games being decided by factors other than the players' moves or poor time management are very rare does not mean that such occurrences are non-existent.
Ill give a direct quote from one of my previous posts.
"Nothing I havent explained before, but none the less chess games arranged by any human method are real games of course.. but when that arrangement fails I feel it is more accurate to say its chance playing its part in the functionality of those arrangements, not in the game itself. Again we could choose not to do that and rather say an internet connection must be, lets say, an 'in game factor'.. Simply because it can be crucial for the players success in a game. Familiar dilemmas follow.. If one is to consider a random connection issue as luck in chess, then anything deliberate one can do to maintain or acquire a better connection must be skill in chess.. It is quite logical. The dilemmas stem from internet having nothing to do with fundamental game mechanics or principles."
The earthquake did not decide the victor of that World Series game. Extreme weather can put an end to a baseball game, but cannot decide which team wins. Of course tournament rules and clocks are part of those chess games that the contestants agree to play under such conditions, just as computers or smartphones are an essential part of online play.
Should we abide by your definition of chess, there are almost no games of chess being played anywhere anymore, as most are played at tournaments, with some time strictures, or entirely in a server.
If we consider winning an essential part of chess, the proximate cause of victory (success) is part of that particular chess game. Should that cause be something other than the players' moves it is possible that luck has played a part.
You are misinterpreting my definition. Tournaments games are chess games. What happens to players due to external tournaments rules is not part of the game of chess they are playing. What occurs due to their environment, bodies, etc. is not part of the game of chess they are playing either. What happens when players lose focus because they are thinking about something other than the game is not part of the game of chess they are playing either.
It's a very consistent definition, and far easier to delineate than the position that anything/everything can be considered part of the game, but only so long as it causes a player to be materially affected, and even then only if it is considered by a subjective observer's judgment to be significant enough in degree to be deemed so. Otherwise, it's summarily ignored and not considered part of the game. Arbitrary is a good adjective for this outlook.
Do you consider the request "please don't distract me from the game" to hold any meaning? What would that meaning be? By your definition, you cannot be distracted from a game of chess because everything that distracts you immediately becomes part of the current game the very moment you are affected by it.
₩₩₩₩₩₩₩₩₩₩₩₩₩₩₩₩₩₩₩₩₩₩₩₩₩₩₩₩₩₩₩₩₩₩;);););););)):)::););(;(:)(;):(;)(;);(::)(;(::((:(;(;(;;(;((:(:(:(:(;(:(;);(;(;;);(;(:(:(:);(;;(;(:
To put it simply: There is no such thing as luck in chess, rather, there is luck in life.
As DiogenesDue has previously stated, there are many outside factors that can affect the outcome of a chess game. This spontaneity is innate to our universe, and can be applied to much more than a simple game of chess.
I won a Live Blitz game against an opponent ("monsieur") after I badly blundered and he badly blundered twice. As I was about to checkmate him he told me I was winning because of "luck".
I definitely didn't play brilliantly and my rating is low (about 1450) but he played worse than me so I beat him. For me, that's not luck.
I have also sometimes been called "lucky" after an opponent has dominated me positionally, but then made a blunder I have checkmated him.
Can you get lucky in chess? Or are there only good moves and bad moves?
I had to go back to the original comment to see what was meant by "luck in chess". Probably most people agree that the way the game is designed eliminates all luck. But that's the game itself. Not the people playing it.
So did he mean the game observed from a distance, just the rules of the game, the pieces not being moved, just the theoretical possibilities of moves, etc. Or did he mean actually playing the game? If he meant just the rules of the game, probably no luck. If he meant anyone actually playing the game, then yes definitely luck will creep in at some point. The way I look at it is the game was invented and meant to be played, otherwise it would never exist. So because it does exist, and people do play it, then yes a small amount of luck inevitably takes place.
The fact that playing a game otb would eliminate the chances of internet connection interruptions couldn't determine the winner does not mean that such things don't happen in online play.
That instances of games being decided by factors other than the players' moves or poor time management are very rare does not mean that such occurrences are non-existent.
Ill give a direct quote from one of my previous posts.
"Nothing I havent explained before, but none the less chess games arranged by any human method are real games of course.. but when that arrangement fails I feel it is more accurate to say its chance playing its part in the functionality of those arrangements, not in the game itself. Again we could choose not to do that and rather say an internet connection must be, lets say, an 'in game factor'.. Simply because it can be crucial for the players success in a game. Familiar dilemmas follow.. If one is to consider a random connection issue as luck in chess, then anything deliberate one can do to maintain or acquire a better connection must be skill in chess.. It is quite logical. The dilemmas stem from internet having nothing to do with fundamental game mechanics or principles."
Incorrect. There is NOTHING that one can do to ensure that one's internet connection cannot be interrupted through a glitch at chess.com's end of the process, or a total blackout in your neighborhood disabling transmission. One's skills are irrelevant to the game's outcome.
The fact that playing a game otb would eliminate the chances of internet connection interruptions couldn't determine the winner does not mean that such things don't happen in online play.
That instances of games being decided by factors other than the players' moves or poor time management are very rare does not mean that such occurrences are non-existent.
Ill give a direct quote from one of my previous posts.
"Nothing I havent explained before, but none the less chess games arranged by any human method are real games of course.. but when that arrangement fails I feel it is more accurate to say its chance playing its part in the functionality of those arrangements, not in the game itself. Again we could choose not to do that and rather say an internet connection must be, lets say, an 'in game factor'.. Simply because it can be crucial for the players success in a game. Familiar dilemmas follow.. If one is to consider a random connection issue as luck in chess, then anything deliberate one can do to maintain or acquire a better connection must be skill in chess.. It is quite logical. The dilemmas stem from internet having nothing to do with fundamental game mechanics or principles."
Incorrect. There is NOTHING that one can do to ensure that one's internet connection cannot be interrupted through a glitch at chess.com's end of the process, or a total blackout in your neighborhood disabling transmission. One's skills are irrelevant to the game's outcome.
It's odd of you to claim what I said was "incorrect" and then make a statement that was already accounted for in my post...
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.
The earthquake did not decide the victor of that World Series game. Extreme weather can put an end to a baseball game, but cannot decide which team wins. Of course tournament rules and clocks are part of those chess games that the contestants agree to play under such conditions, just as computers or smartphones are an essential part of online play.
Should we abide by your definition of chess, there are almost no games of chess being played anywhere anymore, as most are played at tournaments, with some time strictures, or entirely in a server.
If we consider winning an essential part of chess, the proximate cause of victory (success) is part of that particular chess game. Should that cause be something other than the players' moves it is possible that luck has played a part.
You are misinterpreting my definition. Tournaments games are chess games. What happens to players due to external tournaments rules is not part of the game of chess they are playing. What occurs due to their environment, bodies, etc. is not part of the game of chess they are playing either. What happens when players lose focus because they are thinking about something other than the game is not part of the game of chess they are playing either.
It's a very consistent definition, and far easier to delineate than the position that anything/everything can be considered part of the game, but only so long as it causes a player to be materially affected, and even then only if it is considered by a subjective observer's judgment to be significant enough in degree to be deemed so. Otherwise, it's summarily ignored and not considered part of the game. Arbitrary is a good adjective for this outlook.
Do you consider the request "please don't distract me from the game" to hold any meaning? What would that meaning be? By your definition, you cannot be distracted from a game of chess because everything that distracts you immediately becomes part of the current game the very moment you are affected by it.
Distractions can affect either or both players. 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.
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. 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.
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. "Success apparently brought about by chance rather than through one's own abilities or actions" (OED) means luck.
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?
It's odd of you to claim what I said was "incorrect" and then make a statement that was already accounted for in my post...
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.
The fact that someone has made a statement in a chess.com forum does not mean that statement was correct.
Should a player knock their PC off the table and damage it (or suchlike), they might lose connectivity. That would cause the loss of the game "through ones own....actions" and luck would not be involved. Players can and do take actions (fighting with the TD, get caught using a smartphone) that cause them to lose (and their opponents to win) a chess game. Those are not skills related to chess.
It's odd of you to claim what I said was "incorrect" and then make a statement that was already accounted for in my post...
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.
The fact that someone has made a statement in a chess.com forum does not mean that statement was correct.
Should a player knock their PC off the table and damage it (or suchlike), they might lose connectivity. That would cause the loss of the game "through ones own....actions" and luck would not be involved. Players can and do take actions (fighting with the TD, get caught using a smartphone) that cause them to lose (and their opponents to win) a chess game. Those are not skills related to chess.
Mpaetz says "Those are not skills related to chess"
Clearly they are, since they can influence the game result. That is the condition you propose to define 'luck in chess' by so I don't see a reason why we would treat 'skill in chess' differently.
Purposeful bad play e.g. breaking equipment or making a bad move intentionally are not logically relevant.
There is luck in chess, there is skill in chess, and there are actions that are neither and can still affect results.
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.
Wins and losses are essential features of chess. Whether or not you wish to consider them "in game factors" (your term, not mine) all chess players think winning/losing is an essential part of the game. Wins by time forfeit, resignation,, expulsion of a contestant for cheating or other unsanctioned behavior, or checkmate all show up as "1" on the scoreboard.
So sometimes a player achieves success "by chance, rather than through one's own actions or abilities". The win has been recorded no matter what the cause. Success was obtained through luck. If luck was not involved, how are such games won/lost?
I understand that you are saying that such success isn't envisioned in the idea of the game, but if we wish to be able to play chess in the actual world we must accept that reality doesn't always conform to our ideals.
We have been discussing fundamentals of game related objects and relevant practical examples to unpack and test what we consider 'in game factors'.. now it seems like youre zooming out and reverting back to a sort of high level slogan like argument where we originally kicked off from.. Which is unfortunate because while it sounds reasonable, it doesnt offer enough reasoning to conclude the answer to the question at hand.. unpacking the fundamentals is necessary for such progress so leaving them insufficiently addressed and going back is indeed just causing regression in the discussion.
The high level argument you bring forward is probably impossible to sufficiently address at that level and in short. If an 'in game factor' ie something that is considered a part of the game, e.g. a player (doesnt equal human by the way but any force that is capable of playing the game).. is influenced in a manner that in turn influences the game result.. or in a manner that disrupts the game completely.. it doesnt logically follow that the particular source of influence in question must be an in game factor itself. Potential influence on the result is one of the symptoms of being an in game factor but whether or not its enough to define an 'in game factor', it has to be unpacked for some logical scrutiny and testing... which we were doing. And I have proposed that a more logical definition of an in game factor would involve a direct relationship with game mechanics and principles. It is not a premise but a conclusion from testable scenarios and logical discussion.