Because it is for asserting dominance.
Is there such thing as "luck" in chess?
Sort:
May 17, 2022
0
#1143
Well all it's doing is being annoying. Save it for the points you want to make clear (if you can) It takes up so much space.
ᴼᵏ ⁿᵉˣᵗ ᵗᶦᵐᵉ ᴵ ʷᶦˡˡ ᵘˢᵉ ˢᵐᵃˡˡ ᵗᵉˣᵗ ᵃⁿᵈ ˢᵃᵛᵉ ˢᵖᵃᶜᵉ
Mugo345 wrote:
I made sensible points.
You made very sensible points, alright.
TsetseRoar wrote:
Your statement conceded the point. This isn't "Simon says"; you can concede the point without needing to utter the specific phrase "I hereby formally concede".
If I claim all vegetables taste bad, then later say I think carrots are delicious, I've conceded the point without needing to make a formal declaration of such.
As for your point about game design, 1. That is just your assertion...what is your cite for the claim that "luck" has this specific definition in this context and 2. It isn't a question of game design anyway. The question is whether luck is a factor, not whether the "designers" of chess (I'm putting that in scare quotes because the game evolved over centuries) intended luck to be a factor.
Not applicable. Here's an applicable sentence for what occurred:
"If you claim all vegetables taste bad (broad), but that with certain preparation carrots are okay (narrower), and then *I* say you're wrong about the unqualified point, then you've conceded the argument to me"
Chess evolved. I hate to break it to you, but not having a single designer or having a game evolve over time does not mean that game lacks design...the same elements are all there. Notable, however is that none of the stages of evolution of chess introduces luck.
I am not going to run all over looking for citations, but this one is okay for starters. It specifically mentions Chess and Go as games that do not any luck in them whatsoever. It posits a factor called "execution luck" for physical endeavors (aiming, mostly), but that is also just a normal variance range in the application of skill, and could just as easily be called "skill range variance". If, for example you are thinking about your girlfriend that left you when take a free throw and miss, it's not "unlucky" that your girlfriend left you, it's a lack of skill/discipline that you lost focus/concentration. If you play poorly the whole game because you ate leftover pizza that sat out for 3 days, that is also not luck. That is a lack of skill/discipline.
In the case of your "10 moves later a move turns out to be decisive" example, the course of a chess game is made up of *both* players moves, and each and every one of them is based on the moving player's skill. Follow along here...each individual move from each player is based on skill, and the interaction of those skills and the moves that result build the game. The result 10 moves later is an unexpected outcome, but those 10 moves are all based on additive skill of two players interacting in a way that is too complex for either of them to understand. Unexpected outcomes are not the same as luck, and are not based on random chance. There was zero random chance in what built that unexpected outcome.
Say you are doing an experiment. If you pour two liquids into a beaker and they react in an unexpected way, is that luck? There's only 3 viable scenarios:
- One or both beakers contain the "wrong" liquid (lack of skill)
- The beakers contain the right liquids but react differently anyhow (lack of information)
- Something else was introduced somehow (external factor to the experiment)
None of the scenarios introduces any luck *into the experiment procedure*. There's no way for luck to *be* introduced into the procedure. It's the same for chess.
Your only argument is to fall back on luck being purely perception, which can be true for a broader and more poetic definition of luck, but not for luck as it is talked about by game designers. If you plan to go back to the broad definition, then don't bother replying (to me, anyway).
I apologize to Mugo345 for saying he that he writes too long text. Btickler writings is actually very long.
May 17, 2022
0
#1148
zxasqw1212345 wrote:
I apologize to Mugo345 for saying he that he writes too long text. Btickler writings is actually very long.
At least it is worth reading.
Some posters are long-winded but short on content.
hello
zxasqw1212345 wrote:
I apologize to Mugo345 for saying he that he writes too long text. Btickler writings is actually very long.
Lol. If long posts hurt your head, that's still no reason to downvote them.
Your posts are another story. Stop spamming giant text and repeated images.
I just noticed the date on the first post. It was made 11 years ago. Fascinating! 
Many people here need to learn Albert Einstein's famous quote.
That quote is perfect. Truth is very simple. No need for long explanations. Only lies need convincing, truth doesn't.
May 17, 2022
0
#1154
zxasqw1212345 wrote:
Many people here need to learn Albert Einstein's famous quote.
What I said was simple, It's just you didn't understand.
May 17, 2022
0
#1155
Akshath0 wrote:
Mugo345 wrote:
I made sensible points.
You made very sensible points, alright.
Tell me one reason why it didn't make sense. 😡
It's like daycare in here, who let out all the kids? (Lord, I pray they are kids)
This is what you are promoting, Coolout.
U need to learn albert einsteins quote. That is why It didn't make sense, because my head was already hurting because I didn't understand it.
CooloutAC wrote:
btickler wrote:
It's like daycare in here, who let out all the kids? (Lord, I pray they are kids)
This is what you are promoting, Coolout.
They having fun. I love that einstein quote. it really hit home with you hahaha.
Finally someone is getting it.
May 17, 2022
0
#1159
zxasqw1212345 wrote:
U need to learn albert einsteins quote. That is why It didn't make sense, because my head was already hurting because I didn't understand it.
YOU didn't understand it. I doubt anyone else didn't understand it. Well, other than @AKshath0 backing you up.
Mugo345 wrote:
zxasqw1212345 wrote:
U need to learn albert einsteins quote. That is why It didn't make sense, because my head was already hurting because I didn't understand it.
YOU didn't understand it. I doubt anyone else didn't understand it. Well, other than @AKshath0 backing you up.
Oh! I perfectly got it. That's why I said you made very sensible points. hahahahaha
Also, why are the letters your writing so BIG?