If you attribute any change in outcome to a change in skill, you are not dealing in reality in my opinion.
A thought experiment: ask someone to try and roll a six and record their first 100 tries. To be logically consistent in this sort of philosophy, you would need to say that every time they rolled a six, their skill in rolling a six increased.
That doesn't follow in any way.
I understand that. I didn't think his flip flop was anything more than artificial but well observed.
I'm guessing there is partial awareness there. How much is conscious or not would be hard to determine from afar...
<<but if he ever reads up on quantum fluctuations, look out>>
He's far from being as stupid as he's painted but he couldn't grasp the essentials of QM, in my opinion at least. It takes a clear mind which is free from presuppositions.
Not saying and never said he is stupid (in fact, I never call anybody stupid). Just willfully ignorant of his own lack of information on topics where he makes numerous absolute claims.
If you attribute any change in outcome to a change in skill, you are not dealing in reality in my opinion.
A thought experiment: ask someone to try and roll a six and record their first 100 tries. To be logically consistent in this sort of philosophy, you would need to say that every time they rolled a six, their skill in rolling a six increased.
That doesn't follow in any way.
Of course it does. You can pretend it doesn't, just like you can pretend that the meaning of common words are mysterious. Such is the postmodernist mind.
luck is a hopelessly broad term for a discussion without agreeing on the exact parameters.
Which is why I sidestepped that by asking a simple question i.e. how do you account for the apparent randomness of results.
Which is why I asked for your definition of "random variable". You qualified it this time, "apparent randomness" which means you already got the gist of where I was going to go anyway . There's not really a whole lot of true randomness in our universe, and far less within the confines of the game of chess.
Heh, ok. We probably agree on stuff, you're just being a harda** about the definition 
Perhaps you do believe in determinism, then. I wonder, did you spend any time on Elroch's randomness thread? If he did anything well, he did make very good arguments as to why the entire fabric of the universe is based on randomness. A physicist would understand. However, I'm not trying to change your views. That would be pointless. I just wanted to establish whether you believe there's no luck in chess because you have seen a good argument for it or whether it's for ideological reasons. Thanks.
Lol. This presupposes that I cannot have come to the conclusions I have through lifelong observations and accumulation of knowledge from numerous sources on my own.
If I could teach a class for everyone arguing with me here for a semester, and the class project was to build a chess engine (or just take Stockfish source code and tweak it in the interests of time) and create a chess database from the ground up, I'm pretty sure I could convince most of you that I am right about this 
.
If you can create a chess engine that will win 99.9% of the time against the best human being, then why can't you make a computer program that will beat someone at rock-paper-scissors by a similar margin? The answer is glaringly obvious.
One of the best ways to learn the underlying fundamentals of anything is to have to make a working model of it from the ground up.
When two players (accurately rated players) play a match, you can't reliably predict the outcome of an individual game, if they play a large number of games, you can reliably predict the score of the match.
This is exactly like rolling dice. You can't reliably predict individual rolls, but you can predict that after many rolls, each number will appear about 16.7% of the time.
Is it true that six appears more than any other number, because the opposite side is one, which has the least amount of holes, which is heavier.
I guess if we assume the die's faces are identified by removing material from a cube with uniform density, then sure, each number will not have the same probability of appearing.
In a more realistic thought experiment, the density isn't uniform to begin with, and the effect of that variation may be on par with the variation introduced by removing material.
Of course it does. You can pretend it doesn't, just like you can pretend that the meaning of common words are mysterious. Such is the postmodernist mind.
Ok, go ahead and explain how "in order to be logically consistent" works for this case, step by step. Take us through it.
I guess if we assume the die's faces are identified by removing material from a cube with uniform density, then sure, each number will not have the same probability of appearing.
In a more realistic thought experiment, the density isn't uniform to begin with, and the effect of that variation may be on par with the variation introduced by removing material.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidewalt/2012/09/06/dice-chessex-gamescience-roll-randomn/?sh=799b705fe5d3
Of course it does. You can pretend it doesn't, just like you can pretend that the meaning of common words are mysterious. Such is the postmodernist mind.
Ok, go ahead and explain how "in order to be logically consistent" works, steps by step. Take us through it.
There is no us, just a you who pretends to be confused by borderline tautologies.
The claim: If there is a change in outcome, then the change is attributable to a change in skill
Observation: There is a change in outcome (a person rolled a six following a one)
Conclusion: The change is attributable to a change in skill (the person got better at rolling a six)
There is no us, just a you who pretends to be confused by borderline tautologies.
The claim: If there is a change in outcome, then the change is attributable to a change in skill
Observation: There is a change in outcome (a person rolled a six following a one)
Conclusion: The change is attributable to a change in skill (the person got better at rolling a six)
Doesn't follow.
The claim "If there is a change in outcome, then the change is attributable to a change in skill" is a straw man. Nobody has argued that in 75+ pages here. Your "change in outcome" is a leap you made on your own to get to your "conclusion".
In chess, the outcome is skill-based. Luck of color selection usually accounts for 1% to 5% extra wins for white, depending on the ratings pool. A person's skill is a range, not a discrete value, and varies from its average by the minute, hour, day, week, or any other period of time. Each application of that skill is can fall anywhere in their range. People blunder...it does not necessarily mean they have lost skill from that instance/incident. People beat higher rated opponents, it doesn't necessarily mean that have gained skill from or during that instance/incident.
Color selection itself is not an outcome that can be affected by getting better at it, just like you can't get better at rolling a six on your die. You can get better at choosing your moves...because that is based on skill. Good move -> higher skill. Poor move -> lower skill (successful applications of skill, or unsuccessful/failed applications, i.e. lack of skill, which is not luck).
I guess if we assume the die's faces are identified by removing material from a cube with uniform density, then sure, each number will not have the same probability of appearing.
In a more realistic thought experiment, the density isn't uniform to begin with, and the effect of that variation may be on par with the variation introduced by removing material.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidewalt/2012/09/06/dice-chessex-gamescience-roll-randomn/?sh=799b705fe5d3
Yeah, so, a lot depends on the manufacturing process.
I wonder whether casinos try to leverage anything like this... I can think of at least one past casino owner who isn't concerned with ethics heh.
To be fair, you presuppose that it was my intention to try to establish that you can't come to conclusions by yourself. I have no interest in doing that and why or how you reach conclusions is only relevant if your conclusions affect me and if you can establish a good reason for reaching conclusions that you reach. Since I'm commenting here and am expressing my own opinions, your opinions do have some impact.
But we can both say that we use our personal experience to reach the conclusions we may reach. What counts is how we interpret our experience. Do we interpret it with an open mind or one made sluggish by indoctrinated beliefs and even through clouded sense and memory perceptions? We've already been discussing someone who seems to do that.
Regarding models, I wonder what a working model of the human brain would look like now, according to our best scientists. You do sound slightly like tygxc in your last paragraph. Have you argued much with him?
Ummm, you already know that I have. You were a not-infrequent participant in one of the more recent threads.
You won't find me hand-waving away 30 orders of magnitude, though, nor do I share his staccato reply style, so I'm not sure we're all that similar .
Then you will know what a constant repetition of indoctrinated opinions sounds like. It was like trying to argue with a recording machine. I don't think I created the thread you were discussing, before you deleted arguably the less judicious part. I agree that thread was very similar to the Ponz thread and I also thought it strange. Would you like me to unblock you? I will unilaterally, if you say the word. I don't very much wish to discuss Covid on your thread. Our opinions are too divergent.
I removed that reference in the interests of not starting up any side topics. I am good with you blocking me or not blocking me, I don't have much of a preference and you don't start a lot of threads anyway.
There is no us, just a you who pretends to be confused by borderline tautologies.
The claim: If there is a change in outcome, then the change is attributable to a change in skill
Observation: There is a change in outcome (a person rolled a six following a one)
Conclusion: The change is attributable to a change in skill (the person got better at rolling a six)
Doesn't follow.
The claim "If there is a change in outcome, then the change is attributable to a change in skill" is a straw man. Nobody has argued that in 75+ pages here. Your "change in outcome" is a leap you made on your own to get to your "conclusion".
In chess, the outcome is skill-based. Luck of color selection usually accounts for 1% to 5% extra wins for white, depending on the ratings pool. A person's skill is a range, not a discrete value, and varies from its average by the minute, hour, day, week, or any other period of time. Each application of that skill is can fall anywhere in their range. People blunder...it does not necessarily mean they have lost skill from that instance/incident. People beat higher rated opponents, it doesn't necessarily mean that have gained skill from or during that instance/incident.
Color selection itself is not an outcome that can be affected by getting better at it, just like you can't get better at rolling a six on your die. You can get better at choosing your moves...because that is based on skill. Good move -> higher skill. Poor move -> lower skill (successful applications of skill, or unsuccessful/failed applications, i.e. lack of skill, which is not luck).
If it doesn't follow to you, then you reject propositional logic since it is an if-then statement with the hypothesis fulfilled (but wait, this sentence is another such statement!).
If what you meant to say was that you don't subscribe to the statement you replied to in my post #1499, then you should have said that instead, because it is very different from your reply in post #1502 saying that the conclusion doesn't follow in any way.
If it doesn't follow to you, then you reject propositional logic since it is an if-then statement with the hypothesis fulfilled (but wait, this sentence is another such statement!).
If what you meant to say was that you don't subscribe to the statement you replied to in my post #1499, then you should have said that instead, because it is very different from your reply in post #1502 saying that the conclusion doesn't follow in any way.
If-then statements with garbage variables produce garbage output, and it doesn't matter if the syntax is correct in that case. I already pointed out why.
It doesn't follow. That's why I don't agree with it. I'm not saying your premise is simply wrong, I already did that days ago . I'm saying your logic doesn't carry through, either.
I'm saying your logic doesn't carry through, either.
I know, it has been clear based on your prior responses that you reject propositional logic . Write out the truth table if you are still struggling to see your errors . "If P then Q" is only logically inconsistent if P is true and Q is false . Since P in the statement was true (there is a change in outcome), then Q in the statement must be true (there is a change in skill) to be logically consistent . Hence your rejection of propositional logic .
I know, it has been clear based on your prior responses that you reject propositional logic . Write out the truth table if you are still struggling to see your errors . "If P then Q" is only logically inconsistent if P is true and Q is false . Since P in the statement was true (there is a change in outcome), then Q in the statement must be true (there is a change in skill) to be logically consistent . Hence your rejection of propositional logic .
Not if your P and Q are both S...
As I already pointed out, using a procedure correctly to process faulty information doesn't mean anything.
"Sir, a point of parliamentary procedure if you please..."
"Go ahead. You have the floor."
"I would like to move that we adjourned 45 minutes ago and are canoodling with our partners right now."
[...]
skill is not measured against luck my friend. There is no "luck" variable in a glicko or ELO equation. Chance is something you can calculate, but luck is not. You also apparently cannot tell the difference between the two and I can't explain it any more clearer. Its only luck when it is not based on your own actions and is random chance that has determined success or failure. What most of you are doing is only adhering to the part of the definition that suits your narrative.
I've already shown how this is not the case in my post #1379. The very title of the paper I cite is "Ludometrics: Luck, and How to Measure It". You can find it on the arXiv, look at my old post, or just follow this link.
"Its only luck when it is not based on your own actions"- You are not understanding what luck means. A person rolls the dice (their own action), but we do not attribute the result of the dice roll to the person's action, but to random chance.
This is also why the PGN argument fails. You are just recording the moves after they've already taken place, not what led to the moves. It is like saying because you can record the result of 3 dice rolls, that the result of the dice rolls isn't based on luck.
The paper I linked specifically talks about this flawed idea of what luck is ("I wanted to play Nf3, so I played Nf3, therefore it wasn't luck!"), which it calls extra-agential, when it says "an extra-agential concept of luck is neither authentic nor useful" and goes on to explain why.
That paper goes on to write "Some of this same intractability can be found in Chess’s unfathomable game tree, which suggests that Chess has at least some luck. This claim can be a sticking point for those who relish the idea of a game of 'pure skill.' However, this categorization
was hardly defensible in the first place; a random number generator could beat Magnus Carlsen once every few heat-deaths of the universe, and the reason is unlikely due to the machine suddenly acquiring a high level of skill, and then immediately relinquishing it."
I looked at the paper. Tell me in your own words what I miss and how it proves skill is measured by luck?
I do not pretend to know what goes on inside your mind. If I was forced to guess though, I would guess that you missed 100% of the technical parts, but more importantly the bits about why extra-agential views on luck are not useful, the attributes of activities which are categorized as having a high or low amount of luck, heuristics for determining levels of luck (chain-length), and the conditions which are important when quantifying skill or luck. I will also say that there is no such thing as proof except for in maths, and that while some might disagree, I would consider applied stats such as those in the paper separate from math.
No my friend, it is you who doesn't understand what ones own action means. The outcome of the dice roll is not from your own action. It is from the dice themselves, it is purely random, and the dice are a randomizing device. But more importantly a successful dice roll is not influenced by skill. Not only do you not understand what the "one's own action" or "ones own force" of the definition means. You totally leave out the part of successful or unsuccessful which is what determines random chance from good or bad luck. And it is not the outcome, it is the action or force that influenced the outcome positively or negatively.
PGN? And how ironic you say this, when that is my very point. The difference with dice rolls, is again no amount of skill can influence a successful outcome or not. That is the point of saying the results of some "force" rather then ones "own action" or even better "Ability" as in the cambridge definition. When you pull a slot machine lever, are you saying the results are from your own action? Absolutely not, the slot machine is a randomizing device and the positive or negative outcome is not a result of your own action.
You keep citing this paper that claims luck exists in chess, but it doesn't explain how.
That is not the focus of the paper, but it does explain how. It clearly lays out what exactly they mean by luck, cites other popular works that have given measures for luck in areas such as major professional sports leagues, and comes up with two new measurements of their own from different areas.
We already know luck exists in life, but there are no elements of luck that exist within the game. Should we now point to scientists that say the earth isn't flat or global warming isn't real?
What you seem to be missing despite link after link that I've supplied you with is that you are the flat-earther. I've given links on luck in baseball and other sports, luck in finance and other businesses, luck from a pure stats perspective, and now even luck in board games. It is the mainstream consensus view that luck is prevalent in anything humans do. I do not know of any statistician who takes a different stance. Perhaps you could get some supporting for your position and show me otherwise?
Can you even try to explain their claims in your own words?
I have done more than try, and have done so crystal clearly for those who genuinely wish to learn.
If I told you I read the paper and think its all nonsense and doesn't prove there is luck in chess what are you going to tell me?
That I am surprised you can read 20+pages (sorry, couldn't help it). Also that proof exists only in maths, so wouldn't exist in the paper.
You are just going to parrot that they claim otherwise so it must be true?
No, appeal to authority is more your style ("the creators of Glicko and Elo"). The ideas in the paper stand on their own right.
What about the physicist who developed the ELO system. What variable in his equation is luck?
I have already explained in my post #1379 the error in your thinking that the creators of either Glicko or Elo, who both have quite a strong background in statistics, think luck is somehow uniquely uninvolved with chess. Their formulas use past performance (outcome), but it is how this performance came about that is relevant to the discussion. It is similar to your erroneous belief in post #835 that the people who brought the sabermetric revolution mainstream somehow don't/didn't believe luck was in baseball until you saw direct evidence from their writings stating otherwise.
I didn't think you had argued it. Nobody has here. The only argument for it is based on universal determinism.
Coolout is, in fact, arguing this since his flip flop splitting luck from chance so he can say that color selection is chance, but not luck (and there *is* a distinction between luck and chance, but not the one he has invented). He hasn't mentioned universal determinism because he doesn't really know what it is, but if he ever reads up on quantum fluctuations, look out
.