That's what I'm trying to say to you. I'm not arguing, only you're not getting it. That the reason you're giving why luck can't exist is absurd because of your made up God and stuff.
clearly, me AND you are arguing, so can we just agree to stop and respect each other's opinions?
Lets make this more concrete. Miscalculations in chess happen at all levels so elo is irrelevant in this argument, but to keep it simple for arguments sake let's take a beginner player in our example.
A beginner makes a queen move to attack a pawn. The move ends up winning the game for a different reason, one the beginner couldn't calculate before making the move.
If luck doesn't exist in chess, what caused him to win this game? Was it his skill level that topped his opponent? If so, explain how.
Absolutely it was his skill. You keep repeating this over and over and I will keep repeating the answer. It was his human ability, His educated guess, his intuition based on his chess experience, His own actions and efforts. It was not a randomizing device that chose his move as in a "game of chance". Someone taking a "chance" on a move, does not mean "luck" played a role in it. Especially when we adhere to the definition of the very word you are ignorantly debating.
Also take exercised skills such as reflexes and muscle memory, they are sharpened and honed and become automatic without "thinking" first. But they are still considered skills. Ziryab will tell you that Magnus explains his fast intuition as something that comes from his experience and knowledge. That is like muscle memory applied to chess.
And it is an extreme contradiction to start your flawed argument with "Skill ratings don't play a rolse in this argument.......but lets take a beginner player for example..." lol And this is what it boils down for someone like you. You want to feel superior over beginner players. My friend, The human variable negates any luck. Period. The human variable = skill no matter what their chances are, and no matter how low a level of skill.
"Intuitition, human ability, educated guess"
You can't follow even a simple example so honestly why do you participate in the conversation? The whole point of the beginner example was that he made an UNEDUCATED guess with no ability or intuition behind it and calculated wrong, still with a positive outcome.
All you did was say nonsense and proceed with a strawman argument insulting me. Don't waste peoples time if you have nothing to give to this conversation, no1 rates it.
Task was to explain if luck didnt exist in chess, how did the players skill decide the game.
There is no such thing as an uneducated guess if one knows how to play the game. All one has to know is how the pieces move to play. You can say one made a guess with not as much knowledge as a more experienced and knowledgeable player, but one is still a human with knowledge and thats all that matters. All you are doing is referring to his low level of skill and chances to win, not good or bad luck. Anything calculated wrong is only calculated wrong because of his opponents response. As GM FInegold always says, accuracy in chess is just a number in relation to your opponent. If you can't understand that chess is a competitive game, you can't understand how luck, skill or chance could play roles.
And if all you want to do is claim i'm not addressing your points when I am. And constantly repeat the same thing, as I retort with the same answer explained in different ways to help you understand. Then it seems it is you who is doing nothing but hurling insults and wasting peoples times.
Then answer the question: How did winning this game show case that the beginner in our example was higher skilled than his opponent?
Bare in mind, both players missed the line where the queen move of the example was winning.
That's what I'm trying to say to you. I'm not arguing, only you're not getting it. That the reason you're giving why luck can't exist is absurd because of your made up God and stuff.
clearly, me AND you are arguing, so can we just agree to stop and respect each other's opinions?
Sure bro. Take it easy! 
Lets make this more concrete. Miscalculations in chess happen at all levels so elo is irrelevant in this argument, but to keep it simple for arguments sake let's take a beginner player in our example.
A beginner makes a queen move to attack a pawn. The move ends up winning the game for a different reason, one the beginner couldn't calculate before making the move.
If luck doesn't exist in chess, what caused him to win this game? Was it his skill level that topped his opponent? If so, explain how.
Absolutely it was his skill. You keep repeating this over and over and I will keep repeating the answer. It was his human ability, His educated guess, his intuition based on his chess experience, His own actions and efforts. It was not a randomizing device that chose his move as in a "game of chance". Someone taking a "chance" on a move, does not mean "luck" played a role in it. Especially when we adhere to the definition of the very word you are ignorantly debating.
Also take exercised skills such as reflexes and muscle memory, they are sharpened and honed and become automatic without "thinking" first. But they are still considered skills. Ziryab will tell you that Magnus explains his fast intuition as something that comes from his experience and knowledge. That is like muscle memory applied to chess.
And it is an extreme contradiction to start your flawed argument with "Skill ratings don't play a rolse in this argument.......but lets take a beginner player for example..." lol And this is what it boils down for someone like you. You want to feel superior over beginner players. My friend, The human variable negates any luck. Period. The human variable = skill no matter what their chances are, and no matter how low a level of skill.
"Intuitition, human ability, educated guess"
You can't follow even a simple example so honestly why do you participate in the conversation? The whole point of the beginner example was that he made an UNEDUCATED guess with no ability or intuition behind it and calculated wrong, still with a positive outcome.
All you did was say nonsense and proceed with a strawman argument insulting me. Don't waste peoples time if you have nothing to give to this conversation, no1 rates it.
Task was to explain if luck didnt exist in chess, how did the players skill decide the game.
There is no such thing as an uneducated guess if one knows how to play the game. All one has to know is how the pieces move to play. You can say one made a guess with not as much knowledge as a more experienced and knowledgeable player, but one is still a human with knowledge and thats all that matters. All you are doing is referring to his low level of skill and chances to win, not good or bad luck. Anything calculated wrong is only calculated wrong because of his opponents response. As GM FInegold always says, accuracy in chess is just a number in relation to your opponent. If you can't understand that chess is a competitive game, you can't understand how luck, skill or chance could play roles.
And if all you want to do is claim i'm not addressing your points when I am. And constantly repeat the same thing, as I retort with the same answer explained in different ways to help you understand. Then it seems it is you who is doing nothing but hurling insults and wasting peoples times.
Then answer the question: How did winning this game show case that the beginner in our example was higher skilled than his opponent?
Bare in mind, both players missed the line where the queen move of the example was winning.
He was higher skilled for that particular game, although not higher skilled in general. We as humans have streaks and slumps, we are not robots. Sometimes we play more or less skillfully then other times my friend. Its what makes us human.
Again I have to ask you, why do you ignore the very definition of the word you are in this thread debating? Do you not find that disingenuous? I mean to me, as someone who applies the same common sports sense and principles to chess as I would any game, it seems self evident. And I have to say, its also obvious to me why you would not, even if you don't realize why yourself.
Question was "how did the game showcase the beginner was higher skilled than his opponent".
Your answer: "He was higher skilled for that particular game."
See how arguing with you takes the conversation nowhere?
The definition is pointless and abstract if you don't get more practical and show what you mean by that. Thats what Im forcing out of you or anyone debating luck doesn't exist in chess.
I found this on reddit:
There is no such thing as luck because it is simply a matter of hindsight- always occurring after the fact. If I flip a coin and it lands on the side i predicted, then I can say i was lucky, and vice versa. But IMO there is no metaphysical entity of luck actually in existence that determines coin flips and fate. There is no future luck, and when you wish somebody luck, you are really just giving them your best wishes. Luck is human hindsight.
Lets make this more concrete. Miscalculations in chess happen at all levels so elo is irrelevant in this argument, but to keep it simple for arguments sake let's take a beginner player in our example.
A beginner makes a queen move to attack a pawn. The move ends up winning the game for a different reason, one the beginner couldn't calculate before making the move.
If luck doesn't exist in chess, what caused him to win this game? Was it his skill level that topped his opponent? If so, explain how.
Absolutely it was his skill. You keep repeating this over and over and I will keep repeating the answer. It was his human ability, His educated guess, his intuition based on his chess experience, His own actions and efforts. It was not a randomizing device that chose his move as in a "game of chance". Someone taking a "chance" on a move, does not mean "luck" played a role in it. Especially when we adhere to the definition of the very word you are ignorantly debating.
Also take exercised skills such as reflexes and muscle memory, they are sharpened and honed and become automatic without "thinking" first. But they are still considered skills. Ziryab will tell you that Magnus explains his fast intuition as something that comes from his experience and knowledge. That is like muscle memory applied to chess.
And it is an extreme contradiction to start your flawed argument with "Skill ratings don't play a rolse in this argument.......but lets take a beginner player for example..." lol And this is what it boils down for someone like you. You want to feel superior over beginner players. My friend, The human variable negates any luck. Period. The human variable = skill no matter what their chances are, and no matter how low a level of skill.
"Intuitition, human ability, educated guess"
You can't follow even a simple example so honestly why do you participate in the conversation? The whole point of the beginner example was that he made an UNEDUCATED guess with no ability or intuition behind it and calculated wrong, still with a positive outcome.
All you did was say nonsense and proceed with a strawman argument insulting me. Don't waste peoples time if you have nothing to give to this conversation, no1 rates it.
Task was to explain if luck didnt exist in chess, how did the players skill decide the game.
There is no such thing as an uneducated guess if one knows how to play the game. All one has to know is how the pieces move to play. You can say one made a guess with not as much knowledge as a more experienced and knowledgeable player, but one is still a human with knowledge and thats all that matters. All you are doing is referring to his low level of skill and chances to win, not good or bad luck. Anything calculated wrong is only calculated wrong because of his opponents response. As GM FInegold always says, accuracy in chess is just a number in relation to your opponent. If you can't understand that chess is a competitive game, you can't understand how luck, skill or chance could play roles.
And if all you want to do is claim i'm not addressing your points when I am. And constantly repeat the same thing, as I retort with the same answer explained in different ways to help you understand. Then it seems it is you who is doing nothing but hurling insults and wasting peoples times.
Then answer the question: How did winning this game show case that the beginner in our example was higher skilled than his opponent?
Bare in mind, both players missed the line where the queen move of the example was winning.
He was higher skilled for that particular game, although not higher skilled in general. We as humans have streaks and slumps, we are not robots. Sometimes we play more or less skillfully then other times my friend. Its what makes us human.
Again I have to ask you, why do you ignore the very definition of the word you are in this thread debating? Do you not find that disingenuous? I mean to me, as someone who applies the same common sports sense and principles to chess as I would any game, it seems self evident. And I have to say, its also obvious to me why you would not, even if you don't realize why yourself.
Question was "how did the game showcase the beginner was higher skilled than his opponent".
Your answer: "He was higher skilled for that particular game."
See how arguing with you takes the conversation nowhere?
The definition is pointless and abstract if you don't get more practical and show what you mean by that. Thats what Im forcing out of you or anyone debating luck doesn't exist in chess.
I clearly and directly answered your question bud. You saying i'm not, without proving why, is you simply conceding for everyone to see.
What is happening with people like you, is you think you are asking an unanswerable question. But because I am so sincere I took your question sincerely and answered it. And because what i'm arguing is simple common sense to me, it was that easy and simple to answer. You are having trouble debating me, because the truth is, you are being insincere.
I literally quoted your answer and it was you making an empty statement, how insincere that can be? I still have no clue what is your answer.
Anyone here will have trouble debating you because you're not capable of having a debate. Im sad to say so because it would be an interesting topic. I tried my best, have a good one.
This topic is getting funnier by the minute. I'm enjoying this.
This topic is getting funnier by the minute. I'm enjoying this.
I genuinely thought it would be possible to have a real discussion on this topic, would be funny if I wasn't a part of this circus lol
See, the definition of the word "concede" is *not* really a very broad concept. It requires that I actually concede (and ideally that you acknowledge it graciously), not that you unilaterally declare it. This is just a bad debate tactic you should have learned to avoid in Debate class in high school.
I didn't "unilaterally declare" anything. I pointed out to you the thing that you said in the preceding post. That you "don't really care what people mean by luck" i.e. that your definition is not the standard one.
As for condescending stuff like "coolout junior" and what I should have learned in high school, the fact that you need to resort to this shows how confident you are in your actual arguments.
"I don't actually need to personally give you yet another go 'round of why the definition of "luck" as it applies to game design is narrower, though. That would require that I care to convince you."
Well that's convenient isn't it? Because there I was thinking you have no reason to make up your own definition of luck.
I totally agree with that definition of a "GAME OF CHANCE", But the word CHANCE on its own has a separate definition as well as the word luck and you are using both incorrectly. You are claiming that chess has no "chance", but it has "Luck".
No, look back through my posts. I only used the word "chance" specifically in the phrase "game of chance". The misunderstanding is very much on you.
The rest of your post continues with further misconceptions, but before I get into those, let's start with you acknowledging this first.
Why is it I suddenly have this mental image of a certain someone with their fingers in their ears, eyes closed, saying "lalalalala".
The rest of my post you are ignoring, explains why you are still making a contradiction and ignoring the definition of luck. Explains the difference between chance and luck, and how each apply to gaming. Where "games of chance" is an example of luck. LIke mpaetz and koshmot, you know you can't rebut or retort my points. SO you are simply conceding...
You wrote in your post #1690 that "Chess IS indeed a game of chance".
When I pointed out your error, you then claimed I had used the word "chance" incorrectly, even though I had never used the word outside of the specific phrase "game of chance", and, unlike you, I had been using the phrase correctly.
So, I have no problem whatsoever replying to your latest post where you fight with your own brain about the word "luck". I promise I will do that. But before that, are you going to acknowledge your error, and that all your BLOCK CAPS rudeness to me was based on your own misconception?
I didn't "unilaterally declare" anything. I pointed out to you the thing that you said in the preceding post. That you "don't really care what people mean by luck" i.e. that your definition is not the standard one.
As for condescending stuff like "coolout junior" and what I should have learned in high school, the fact that you need to resort to this shows how confident you are in your actual arguments.
"I don't actually need to personally give you yet another go 'round of why the definition of "luck" as it applies to game design is narrower, though. That would require that I care to convince you."
Well that's convenient isn't it? Because there I was thinking you have no reason to make up your own definition of luck.
Telling people when they've conceded is a unilateral declaration, by definition.
You don't understand game design. That's not a crime, so I'll leave it at that. Toodles.
The rest of my post you are ignoring, explains why you are still making a contradiction and ignoring the definition of luck. Explains the difference between chance and luck, and how each apply to gaming. Where "games of chance" is an example of luck. LIke mpaetz and koshmot, you know you can't rebut or retort my points. SO you are simply conceding...
You wrote in your post #1690 that "Chess IS indeed a game of chance".
When I pointed out your error, you then claimed I had used the word "chance" incorrectly, even though I had never used the word outside of the specific phrase "game of chance", and, unlike you, I had been using the phrase correctly.
So, I have no problem whatsoever replying to your latest post where you fight with your own brain about the word "luck". I promise I will do that. But before that, are you going to acknowledge your error, and that all your BLOCK CAPS rudeness to me was based on your own misconception?
haha. "fight your own brain". Most say inconsistent, contradictory, delusional, and some other not so polite things. But I think I like yours the best.
Just to correct you here. In a debate, a concession is when someone does not make points on the subject and deflects or does not address and retort the points made. The points then stand and are conceded whether that is pointed out or not.
So this guy wanting me to admit I was wrong when I claimed he used the word chance wrong, when he only used it in the phrase a "game of chance" could be considered a concession by me since I'm not even addressing it. And I don't feel like explaining to him that only means he didn't use the word at all and simply stated a label, or that I don't feel like reading through his threads to quote where he did use it.
But it is a minor concession and irrelevant to the major points made, so his ultimatum does not negate him conceding the whole entire argument. Including the definition of the word luck applicable to gaming which is the subject of this debate.
Maybe you need to Google and read the first definition that pops up for "concede" 
.
Someone that decides that an argument unaddressed is an argument conceded is making an error of assumption. An argument unaddressed is exactly that, unaddressed.
It's not hard to understand why people who toss out a bunch of crap as a primary debating technique would think it is otherwise, because then they get to live a fantasy where they are winning points right and left...but alas, no.
You must prove why its so, or you concede it. Its really that simple. A debate is another competition and there are universal rules most debating competitions abide by. Especially when it comes to definitions, because as optimissed rightly pointed out early in this thread. If you can't agree on the definition you can't have an honest debate. Deflecting from the definition means you concede the definition, and risk conceding every point from then on.
Your debate rating seems to dovetail with your chess rating...
That's what I'm trying to say to you. I'm not arguing, only you're not getting it. That the reason you're giving why luck can't exist is absurd because of your made up God and stuff.