lemaudit1 wrote:
@btickler...my answer is in post #1911 regarding your question in post #1799...I bid you go there now...
Got it. I have logged and certified your answer. Carry on.
Is there such thing as "luck" in chess?
Sort:
Both of them he achieved playing blitz.
CooloutAC wrote:
Kotshmot wrote:
When you roll the dice, the result can be considered luck because humans can't predict it, as we don't have information about the angle, speed, weight and other stats needed to calculate a chaotic event of dice rolling.
A similar situation always happens when you make a chess move, because just as information needed to calculate a dice roll, we lack the information to make a chess move. We see enough to make a prediction, this is where the element of skill comes in. What we don't see are the move sequences past our skill of calculation, and how that affects the game out come. The information we lack whe making a chess move brings in the element of luck, just like in a dice roll.
It's not as black and white as if in a game skill is involved, luck cannot be.
Just like in boxing, most of the time you go by skill, taking information on your opponents position and movement and throwing your shot based on this info, this is skill. Sometimes in a fight you'll throw a random punch of desperation without reading your opponent. If this lands, you got lucky as most of the time you cant make a prediction without info, as we see with dice/lottery etc.
Its not just that they can't predict it. Its because they have no influence over a successful or failed roll. The force is not human.
Let me tickle you a little bit since you draw the line very black and white by definition.
What do you think about sports betting results? We know that good bettors can make better predictions than casuals, but anyone can get a pick wrong. Is it a combination of luck and skill to make a good bet?
CooloutAC wrote:
Kotshmot wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
Kotshmot wrote:
When you roll the dice, the result can be considered luck because humans can't predict it, as we don't have information about the angle, speed, weight and other stats needed to calculate a chaotic event of dice rolling.
A similar situation always happens when you make a chess move, because just as information needed to calculate a dice roll, we lack the information to make a chess move. We see enough to make a prediction, this is where the element of skill comes in. What we don't see are the move sequences past our skill of calculation, and how that affects the game out come. The information we lack whe making a chess move brings in the element of luck, just like in a dice roll.
It's not as black and white as if in a game skill is involved, luck cannot be.
Just like in boxing, most of the time you go by skill, taking information on your opponents position and movement and throwing your shot based on this info, this is skill. Sometimes in a fight you'll throw a random punch of desperation without reading your opponent. If this lands, you got lucky as most of the time you cant make a prediction without info, as we see with dice/lottery etc.
Its not just that they can't predict it. Its because they have no influence over a successful or failed roll. The force is not human.
Let me tickle you a little bit since you draw the line very black and white by definition.
What do you think about sports betting results? We know that good bettors can make better predictions than casuals, but anyone can get a pick wrong. Is it a combination of luck and skill to make a good bet?
I'll give you one better. I think poker is a skill based game. But it has elements of luck within the game, unlike chess which does not. Do you see this important distinction? Sure there is some skill in sports betting, but it is mostly luck. The definition is very black and white my friend, especially when applicable to gaming. Sports betting, poker, they all have elements of luck. Chess does not, not even the only element of random chance which is the choosing of colors, can be considered luck because it does not mean success or failure.
The problem you are having is you are still refusing to acknowledge the definition of the word which means you don't really have a leg to stand on in this debate and are being insincere from the start.
All good. I'll keep poking your bench marks.
I'll hand you a math exercise to calculate in your head. The numbers are inhumanly large to calculate, so you'll have to make an estimation with inprecise technique. You still get the answer right to the decimals. Is there a possibility that an element of luck was involved here?
CooloutAC wrote:
The word elegant is used by computer programmers who overcomplicate things because of their inferiority complexes. I know the type all too well.
Translation:
"I work(ed) in tech support, and I am envious of developers"
When sonic plays its not luck.
CooloutAC wrote:
Kotshmot wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
Kotshmot wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
Kotshmot wrote:
When you roll the dice, the result can be considered luck because humans can't predict it, as we don't have information about the angle, speed, weight and other stats needed to calculate a chaotic event of dice rolling.
A similar situation always happens when you make a chess move, because just as information needed to calculate a dice roll, we lack the information to make a chess move. We see enough to make a prediction, this is where the element of skill comes in. What we don't see are the move sequences past our skill of calculation, and how that affects the game out come. The information we lack whe making a chess move brings in the element of luck, just like in a dice roll.
It's not as black and white as if in a game skill is involved, luck cannot be.
Just like in boxing, most of the time you go by skill, taking information on your opponents position and movement and throwing your shot based on this info, this is skill. Sometimes in a fight you'll throw a random punch of desperation without reading your opponent. If this lands, you got lucky as most of the time you cant make a prediction without info, as we see with dice/lottery etc.
Its not just that they can't predict it. Its because they have no influence over a successful or failed roll. The force is not human.
Let me tickle you a little bit since you draw the line very black and white by definition.
What do you think about sports betting results? We know that good bettors can make better predictions than casuals, but anyone can get a pick wrong. Is it a combination of luck and skill to make a good bet?
I'll give you one better. I think poker is a skill based game. But it has elements of luck within the game, unlike chess which does not. Do you see this important distinction? Sure there is some skill in sports betting, but it is mostly luck. The definition is very black and white my friend, especially when applicable to gaming. Sports betting, poker, they all have elements of luck. Chess does not, not even the only element of random chance which is the choosing of colors, can be considered luck because it does not mean success or failure.
The problem you are having is you are still refusing to acknowledge the definition of the word which means you don't really have a leg to stand on in this debate and are being insincere from the start.
All good. I'll keep poking your bench marks.
I'll hand you a math exercise to calculate in your head. The numbers are inhumanly large to calculate, so you'll have to make an estimation with inprecise technique. You still get the answer right to the decimals. Is there a possibility that an element of luck was involved here?
nope. especially when appled to gaming. First of all by definition, if was my human ability that determined it. Not some other force of randomization that led to my success.
Then we can come to the conclusion that the version of definition you present of the word luck is insufficient because we have no word to use in the context I just gave you lol.
Same with chess as you probably realized by the example. Instead of luck should we use just "a good guess"? Suggestions?
CooloutAC wrote:
Kotshmot wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
Kotshmot wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
Kotshmot wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
Kotshmot wrote:
When you roll the dice, the result can be considered luck because humans can't predict it, as we don't have information about the angle, speed, weight and other stats needed to calculate a chaotic event of dice rolling.
A similar situation always happens when you make a chess move, because just as information needed to calculate a dice roll, we lack the information to make a chess move. We see enough to make a prediction, this is where the element of skill comes in. What we don't see are the move sequences past our skill of calculation, and how that affects the game out come. The information we lack whe making a chess move brings in the element of luck, just like in a dice roll.
It's not as black and white as if in a game skill is involved, luck cannot be.
Just like in boxing, most of the time you go by skill, taking information on your opponents position and movement and throwing your shot based on this info, this is skill. Sometimes in a fight you'll throw a random punch of desperation without reading your opponent. If this lands, you got lucky as most of the time you cant make a prediction without info, as we see with dice/lottery etc.
Its not just that they can't predict it. Its because they have no influence over a successful or failed roll. The force is not human.
Let me tickle you a little bit since you draw the line very black and white by definition.
What do you think about sports betting results? We know that good bettors can make better predictions than casuals, but anyone can get a pick wrong. Is it a combination of luck and skill to make a good bet?
I'll give you one better. I think poker is a skill based game. But it has elements of luck within the game, unlike chess which does not. Do you see this important distinction? Sure there is some skill in sports betting, but it is mostly luck. The definition is very black and white my friend, especially when applicable to gaming. Sports betting, poker, they all have elements of luck. Chess does not, not even the only element of random chance which is the choosing of colors, can be considered luck because it does not mean success or failure.
The problem you are having is you are still refusing to acknowledge the definition of the word which means you don't really have a leg to stand on in this debate and are being insincere from the start.
All good. I'll keep poking your bench marks.
I'll hand you a math exercise to calculate in your head. The numbers are inhumanly large to calculate, so you'll have to make an estimation with inprecise technique. You still get the answer right to the decimals. Is there a possibility that an element of luck was involved here?
nope. especially when appled to gaming. First of all by definition, if was my human ability that determined it. Not some other force of randomization that led to my success.
Then we can come to the conclusion that the version of definition you present of the word luck is insufficient because we have no word to use in the context I just gave you lol.
Same with chess as you probably realized by the example. Instead of luck should we use just "a good guess"? Suggestions?
The definition i'm using? Thats cute. Its pretty much every definition if you even bothered to google it. And i explained exactly how it applies. You are in denial.
What you call a guess, is still based off human ability. period. Intution comes from experience and knowledge. Magnus Carlsen has publicly said as much himself when explaining why he is good at speed chess. Even in your own example you say "imprecise technique" All you are doing there is implying his level of skill, not luck my friend. Keep trying.
I should tell you again though, if you refuse to even look up the definition, you are not going to have a leg to stand on here. You should first at least to attempt to debate the definition. otherwise you are already conceding, and will continue to do so every time. Throughout this thread you said you would, but you probably know that would also be a losing endeavor for you. Because the definitions are clear and not "broad" like you claimed.
Okay, let me correct myself. The definition of luck found on google is insufficient as this example clinically shows. Either that or we have to invent a new word that means the same, but can be used in these specific contexts so that some people are happy with the use of the word.
May 18, 2022
0
#1190
CooloutAC wrote:
What you call a guess, is still based off human ability. period.
So now you do think the initial selection in Deal Or No Deal is based on skill?
This was the point I brought up in my post #1737:
"When you are using "own efforts" in such a way, you must presuppose your conclusion, e.g. the correct selection in Deal Or No Deal is lucky because it didn't come from your own efforts (because it's lucky!), whereas the "correct" move in chess is 100% skillful because it did come from your efforts (because it is 100% skillful)."
May 18, 2022
0
#1191
CooloutAC wrote:
LeeEuler wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
What you call a guess, is still based off human ability. period.
So now you do think the initial selection in Deal Or No Deal is based on skill?
This was the point I brought up in my post #1737:
"When you are using "own efforts" in such a way, you must presuppose your conclusion, e.g. the correct selection in Deal Or No Deal is lucky because it didn't come from your own efforts (because it's lucky!), whereas the "correct" move in chess is 100% skillful because it did come from your efforts (because it is 100% skillful)."
We've been over this. Human ability has no effect on elements of chance like a randomized device like dice or shuffled cards or suitcases in deal or no deal. efforts, abilities, aka skill or lack thereof. It is disingenuous to leave out the other part of the definition, which is if it determines success or failure, good or bad outcomes.
Yes that is the presupposition I mentioned. You think a person guessing in Deal or No Deal is lucky, because you presuppose that Deal Or No Deal is 100% luck, whereas you think a person guessing in chess is skillful, because you presuppose that chess is 100% skill. The way you apply your interpretation of the definition is selective.
May 18, 2022
0
#1192
btickler wrote:
llama51 wrote:
btickler wrote:
It's like daycare in here, who let out all the kids?
You must be new here.
Welcome to the chess.com forums.
Kids usually trickle in and out of the more serious discussion threads. But a group of kids all showed up at roughly the same time and a started spamming inane one liners. That could be coincidence...might not be. Someone may have made a call out for "reinforcements" in some club or something. I'm just pointing out the sudden arrival, not the existence of kids on chess.com that actually belong on chesskids.com, which is a longstanding issue .
Sure sure, I'm just taking a cheap shot at chess.com.
They recently re-opened a large spam topic. The vision they have for the forums is really pathetic. Maybe some staff members are too young to know what a forum is, so this place is ignored for spaces like Twitch and Discord. Not that I have anyone in mind particularly, cough* @trym cough*
May 18, 2022
0
#1193
CooloutAC wrote:
LeeEuler wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
LeeEuler wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
What you call a guess, is still based off human ability. period.
So now you do think the initial selection in Deal Or No Deal is based on skill?
This was the point I brought up in my post #1737:
"When you are using "own efforts" in such a way, you must presuppose your conclusion, e.g. the correct selection in Deal Or No Deal is lucky because it didn't come from your own efforts (because it's lucky!), whereas the "correct" move in chess is 100% skillful because it did come from your efforts (because it is 100% skillful)."
We've been over this. Human ability has no effect on elements of chance like a randomized device like dice or shuffled cards or suitcases in deal or no deal. efforts, abilities, aka skill or lack thereof. It is disingenuous to leave out the other part of the definition, which is if it determines success or failure, good or bad outcomes.
Yes that is the presupposition I mentioned. You think a person guessing in Deal or No Deal is lucky, because you presuppose that Deal Or No Deal is 100% luck, whereas you think a person guessing in chess is skillful, because you presuppose that chess is 100% skill. The way you apply your interpretation of the definition is selective.
Because no amount of skill, aka, practice or knowledge can increase chances of success in deal or no deal. Unlike chess. The way I interpret the definition is exactly how it applies to gaming. The force of Human "action" "ability" or "efforts" aka skill. Is not the force determining what is in the case in deal or no deal. Unlike the human force that determines the move in chess. Its very simple to explain regardless of your attempts, such as your profession, to obfuscate it.
That was my gripe with your definition, that you added "not being able to increase ones chance of success with practice or knowledge".
Because 1) nobody I've heard besides yourself thinks of or uses luck that way and
2) Obviously, when you define luck that way, anything with skill elements will be considered void of luck.
Point 2 contradicts your thinking on poker in your post #1933 when you said that you "think poker is a skill based game. But it has elements of luck within the game". Obviously, you can increase your chance of success in poker with knowledge in practice. But yet you still think it has elements of luck within the game. The same is true for chess.
Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity. So yes, your win is based on luck. The tactics you trained, the opening theory you've adopted over the years and the mind set you had at the time all lead up to the opportunity of beating your opponent in that moment.
The real question you should be asking is whether or not your win was mainly due to opportunity, or preparation
RoadDorado wrote:
tresequis wrote:
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?
Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity. So yes, your win is based on luck. The tactics you trained, the opening theory you've adopted over the years and the mind set you had at the time all lead up to the opportunity of beating your opponent in that moment.
The real question you should be asking is whether or not your win was mainly due to opportunity, or preparation
And you can easily do that by counting the number of bone head blunders your opponent made
May 18, 2022
0
#1196
CooloutAC wrote:
LeeEuler wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
LeeEuler wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
LeeEuler wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
What you call a guess, is still based off human ability. period.
So now you do think the initial selection in Deal Or No Deal is based on skill?
This was the point I brought up in my post #1737:
"When you are using "own efforts" in such a way, you must presuppose your conclusion, e.g. the correct selection in Deal Or No Deal is lucky because it didn't come from your own efforts (because it's lucky!), whereas the "correct" move in chess is 100% skillful because it did come from your efforts (because it is 100% skillful)."
We've been over this. Human ability has no effect on elements of chance like a randomized device like dice or shuffled cards or suitcases in deal or no deal. efforts, abilities, aka skill or lack thereof. It is disingenuous to leave out the other part of the definition, which is if it determines success or failure, good or bad outcomes.
Yes that is the presupposition I mentioned. You think a person guessing in Deal or No Deal is lucky, because you presuppose that Deal Or No Deal is 100% luck, whereas you think a person guessing in chess is skillful, because you presuppose that chess is 100% skill. The way you apply your interpretation of the definition is selective.
Because no amount of skill, aka, practice or knowledge can increase chances of success in deal or no deal. Unlike chess. The way I interpret the definition is exactly how it applies to gaming. The force of Human "action" "ability" or "efforts" aka skill. Is not the force determining what is in the case in deal or no deal. Unlike the human force that determines the move in chess. Its very simple to explain regardless of your attempts, such as your profession, to obfuscate it.
That was my gripe with your definition, that you added "not being able to increase ones chance of success with practice or knowledge".
Because 1) nobody I've heard besides yourself thinks of or uses luck that way and
2) Obviously, when you define luck that way, anything with skill elements will be considered void of luck.
Point 2 contradicts your thinking on poker in your post #1933 when you said that you "think poker is a skill based game. But it has elements of luck within the game". Obviously, you can increase your chance of success in poker with knowledge in practice. But yet you still think it has elements of luck within the game. The same is true for chess.
That is a definition of skill, which you agreed is the opposite of luck. I put in that antithesis to help you understand luck. Human ability you have admitted is part of a "skill-set", in your own words. All words have meanings my friend. Its as if you want me to define every single word written in a definition because you are pretending not to understand them like you are a child learning to read. Please stop.
It is the opposite, see my post #782 ("I will use any reasonable definition...") for one of many examples. I have consistently said that there is not really confusion over what people mean when they use the word "luck". Any old reasonable definition fits; they largely say the same thing in different ways.
1) most people do, unless to show good sportsmanship. Or not making distinctions between games as is the topic of this thread.
That's not true, see my previous links. For a short summary:
1) For luck in general, see Fooled By Randomness or The Success Equation
2) For luck in markets, see A Random Walk Down Wall Street
3) For luck in sports, see Fangraphs or any other sabermetric inclined site
4) For luck in board games, see the Ludometrics Paper
5) For luck in tests, see what we mean by measurement error
6) For luck in gambling, see this paper on poker
etc. etc. Insurance companies, medicine, finance, entertainment, all these types of businesses think of luck as ubiquitous.
2) Only when there are no elements of luck in the game.
I explained exactly why poker is a skill based game. It requires more skill then luck, especially over time. Sports betting as the above poster suggested, has more luck then skill, because only addictive gamblers think you will be ahead over time. You can never have a successful career in such a game, even though sometimes your knowledge can help.
Uhhh, maybe you have different definition of success than me, but I'd call a near $50 million career successful. I am not super knowledgeable about poker, but I have dabbled in it. Over the long run, there is a consistent skills premium. I have played with people who even in low-mid stakes games can manage a consistent $100/hr.
But just because some games have some amount of both luck and skill, doesn't mean all games do my friend.
Just to clarify for you because you will pretend you don't understand. Each of those games have elements of inhuman force and randomized devices determining outcomes which determine success or failure, or things good or bad. Chess does not. Its purely skill based, meaning by human ability.
Again, this is you presupposing it is so. If you didn't already think selecting a suitcase was lucky, how would you, CooloutAC, test it? Likewise if you didn't already think chess was 100% skillful, how would you test it?
May 18, 2022
0
#1197
CooloutAC wrote:
And thats the thing. You don't have to test anything to know. That would overcomplicate things and be a waste of time. All you have to know, is that by game design itself, and as part of the game play and game mechanics, no elements of luck exist. That is known before you even play the game my friend.
This is why you have failed to convince people. Your argument is exclusively "it is because I think it is", and you reject any of even the simplest thought experiments , tests, scenarios, or comparisons that prod at your presuppositions as being too difficult to understand.
Your same argument can be used to say Deal Or No Deal is skill-based (which it obviously isn't). "You don't have to test anything to know Deal Or No Deal is skill. That would overcomplicate things and be a waste of time. All you have to know, is that by game design itself, and as part of the game play and game mechanics, no elements of luck exist. That is known before you even select a suitcase"
CooloutAC wrote:
Kotshmot wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
Kotshmot wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
Kotshmot wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
Kotshmot wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
Kotshmot wrote:
When you roll the dice, the result can be considered luck because humans can't predict it, as we don't have information about the angle, speed, weight and other stats needed to calculate a chaotic event of dice rolling.
A similar situation always happens when you make a chess move, because just as information needed to calculate a dice roll, we lack the information to make a chess move. We see enough to make a prediction, this is where the element of skill comes in. What we don't see are the move sequences past our skill of calculation, and how that affects the game out come. The information we lack whe making a chess move brings in the element of luck, just like in a dice roll.
It's not as black and white as if in a game skill is involved, luck cannot be.
Just like in boxing, most of the time you go by skill, taking information on your opponents position and movement and throwing your shot based on this info, this is skill. Sometimes in a fight you'll throw a random punch of desperation without reading your opponent. If this lands, you got lucky as most of the time you cant make a prediction without info, as we see with dice/lottery etc.
Its not just that they can't predict it. Its because they have no influence over a successful or failed roll. The force is not human.
Let me tickle you a little bit since you draw the line very black and white by definition.
What do you think about sports betting results? We know that good bettors can make better predictions than casuals, but anyone can get a pick wrong. Is it a combination of luck and skill to make a good bet?
I'll give you one better. I think poker is a skill based game. But it has elements of luck within the game, unlike chess which does not. Do you see this important distinction? Sure there is some skill in sports betting, but it is mostly luck. The definition is very black and white my friend, especially when applicable to gaming. Sports betting, poker, they all have elements of luck. Chess does not, not even the only element of random chance which is the choosing of colors, can be considered luck because it does not mean success or failure.
The problem you are having is you are still refusing to acknowledge the definition of the word which means you don't really have a leg to stand on in this debate and are being insincere from the start.
All good. I'll keep poking your bench marks.
I'll hand you a math exercise to calculate in your head. The numbers are inhumanly large to calculate, so you'll have to make an estimation with inprecise technique. You still get the answer right to the decimals. Is there a possibility that an element of luck was involved here?
nope. especially when appled to gaming. First of all by definition, if was my human ability that determined it. Not some other force of randomization that led to my success.
Then we can come to the conclusion that the version of definition you present of the word luck is insufficient because we have no word to use in the context I just gave you lol.
Same with chess as you probably realized by the example. Instead of luck should we use just "a good guess"? Suggestions?
The definition i'm using? Thats cute. Its pretty much every definition if you even bothered to google it. And i explained exactly how it applies. You are in denial.
What you call a guess, is still based off human ability. period. Intution comes from experience and knowledge. Magnus Carlsen has publicly said as much himself when explaining why he is good at speed chess. Even in your own example you say "imprecise technique" All you are doing there is implying his level of skill, not luck my friend. Keep trying.
I should tell you again though, if you refuse to even look up the definition, you are not going to have a leg to stand on here. You should first at least to attempt to debate the definition. otherwise you are already conceding, and will continue to do so every time. Throughout this thread you said you would, but you probably know that would also be a losing endeavor for you. Because the definitions are clear and not "broad" like you claimed.
Okay, let me correct myself. The definition of luck found on google is insufficient as this example clinically shows. Either that or we have to invent a new word that means the same, but can be used in these specific contexts so that some people are happy with the use of the word.
Explain why it is insufficient, when I explained how it applies. I'll wait.
I gave you this example to prove that skill as an element doesn't fully explain the success in certain skill based exercises, even when the game or exercise or whatever itself has a set answer and no true randomness.
If I made you calculate in your head 88,767 divided by 199,676 in 15 seconds, you'll be able to answer with an estimate, but you wont have time to precisely count the correct number. If your answer was still spot on, wed know that it wouldn't be fully based on skill because most likely you won't ever be able to replicate it.
In this kind of exercise as well as chess you're forced to do some pure guessing after you narrowed down the possible options in your calculations. In math as well as chess, you can also come up with the right answer for the wrong reasons. When this happens it is not based on skill, and if it can't be called luck we are missing a word.
Very well and excellently put my friend from finland.
CooloutAC wrote:
Kotshmot wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
Kotshmot wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
Kotshmot wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
Kotshmot wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
Kotshmot wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
Kotshmot wrote:
When you roll the dice, the result can be considered luck because humans can't predict it, as we don't have information about the angle, speed, weight and other stats needed to calculate a chaotic event of dice rolling.
A similar situation always happens when you make a chess move, because just as information needed to calculate a dice roll, we lack the information to make a chess move. We see enough to make a prediction, this is where the element of skill comes in. What we don't see are the move sequences past our skill of calculation, and how that affects the game out come. The information we lack whe making a chess move brings in the element of luck, just like in a dice roll.
It's not as black and white as if in a game skill is involved, luck cannot be.
Just like in boxing, most of the time you go by skill, taking information on your opponents position and movement and throwing your shot based on this info, this is skill. Sometimes in a fight you'll throw a random punch of desperation without reading your opponent. If this lands, you got lucky as most of the time you cant make a prediction without info, as we see with dice/lottery etc.
Its not just that they can't predict it. Its because they have no influence over a successful or failed roll. The force is not human.
Let me tickle you a little bit since you draw the line very black and white by definition.
What do you think about sports betting results? We know that good bettors can make better predictions than casuals, but anyone can get a pick wrong. Is it a combination of luck and skill to make a good bet?
I'll give you one better. I think poker is a skill based game. But it has elements of luck within the game, unlike chess which does not. Do you see this important distinction? Sure there is some skill in sports betting, but it is mostly luck. The definition is very black and white my friend, especially when applicable to gaming. Sports betting, poker, they all have elements of luck. Chess does not, not even the only element of random chance which is the choosing of colors, can be considered luck because it does not mean success or failure.
The problem you are having is you are still refusing to acknowledge the definition of the word which means you don't really have a leg to stand on in this debate and are being insincere from the start.
All good. I'll keep poking your bench marks.
I'll hand you a math exercise to calculate in your head. The numbers are inhumanly large to calculate, so you'll have to make an estimation with inprecise technique. You still get the answer right to the decimals. Is there a possibility that an element of luck was involved here?
nope. especially when appled to gaming. First of all by definition, if was my human ability that determined it. Not some other force of randomization that led to my success.
Then we can come to the conclusion that the version of definition you present of the word luck is insufficient because we have no word to use in the context I just gave you lol.
Same with chess as you probably realized by the example. Instead of luck should we use just "a good guess"? Suggestions?
The definition i'm using? Thats cute. Its pretty much every definition if you even bothered to google it. And i explained exactly how it applies. You are in denial.
What you call a guess, is still based off human ability. period. Intution comes from experience and knowledge. Magnus Carlsen has publicly said as much himself when explaining why he is good at speed chess. Even in your own example you say "imprecise technique" All you are doing there is implying his level of skill, not luck my friend. Keep trying.
I should tell you again though, if you refuse to even look up the definition, you are not going to have a leg to stand on here. You should first at least to attempt to debate the definition. otherwise you are already conceding, and will continue to do so every time. Throughout this thread you said you would, but you probably know that would also be a losing endeavor for you. Because the definitions are clear and not "broad" like you claimed.
Okay, let me correct myself. The definition of luck found on google is insufficient as this example clinically shows. Either that or we have to invent a new word that means the same, but can be used in these specific contexts so that some people are happy with the use of the word.
Explain why it is insufficient, when I explained how it applies. I'll wait.
I gave you this example to prove that skill as an element doesn't fully explain the success in certain skill based exercises, even when the game or exercise or whatever itself has a set answer and no true randomness.
If I made you calculate in your head 88,767 divided by 199,676 in 15 seconds, you'll be able to answer with an estimate, but you wont have time to precisely count the correct number. If your answer was still spot on, wed know that it wouldn't be fully based on skill because most likely you won't ever be able to replicate it.
In this kind of exercise as well as chess you're forced to do some pure guessing after you narrowed down the possible options in your calculations. In math as well as chess, you can also come up with the right answer for the wrong reasons. When this happens it is not based on skill, and if it can't be called luck we are missing a word.
Just like you used the word "imprecise technique", using the word "estimate", is still you admitting it is a guess based on a persons intuition which comes from experience and knowledge. You would not be able to determine their certain skill level without measuring their success over time. But you are admitting yourself their level of skill is the factor. For example, if this was a game someone who is "better" at calculating will guess right more times then someone who is not. The reason we can easily make this distinction, is because that skill factor is another way of saying their humanity and the results are from no other force.
You can keep running around in circles my friend, but again, the reason why this is so easy for me is because I am sincere and you are not. I'm adhering to what was already defined for me, you are foolishly trying to find ways to ignore it.
Problem is, the only person who would agree this is easy for you is you. This definitely didn't go in circles, we bench marked how you use this definition and found holes in there for anyone to see. I'm done for today.
@btickler...my answer is in post #1911 regarding your question in post #1799...I bid you go there now...