Because it's a silly topic. Why should there be luck in everything else but not in chess?
Because chess is a game of skill, unlike, say, darts, auto racing, and skeet.
I can't tell if you are being sarcastic. But if darts, auto racing and skeet are not games of skill then wouldn't all sports and many games (like checkers and soduko} also not be games of skill?
Because it's a silly topic. Why should there be luck in everything else but not in chess?
Because chess is a game of skill, unlike, say, darts, auto racing, and skeet.
There is luck in all games of skill and in all sports.
That's like saying water is wet. But I guess even the glaringly obvious escapes some people.
It sort of reminds me of something I saw two days ago. I saw the remains of a car crash. It was at an intersection on the edge of the city limits. There was a sign that says stop ahead. And another big red sign that says stop. And above there is a flashing red light. And it's an intersection. It should be glaringly obvious that people are supposed to stop at that intersection. But sure enough, for someone, glaringly obvious isn't enough.
How about debating it using darts as the subject?
Or, literally any sport. But that's going to be difficult with someone who believes there is no luck in any sport when literally all sports at some point have luck involved. The dart hitting that little barrier that separates a high score spot vs a low score spot, it's pure luck which side the dart happens to land on. Just like golf. hitting the center of the flagstick from 100 yards away and having the ball drop in the cup vs. being a tiny fraction of a millimeter off to the side and have the ball bounce away. Pure luck.
nah. Chess is like a sport, it mainly requires skill
nah. Chess is like a sport, it mainly requires skill
On that we can agree. chess, like many sports, mainly requires skill. Not exclusively, but mainly. Sort of like crossword puzzles, curling, and Concentration. Plus, they all start with the letter c, so there's that.
The "water is wet" non-argument is based on the same type of language imprecision that this whole debate is founded upon.
Dihydrogen Monoxide is a solid, a liquid, and a gas. The liquid form of H2O is the least common form, universally. 
Some people can only see things from their own limited perspectives, however, and cannot really conceive of anything else. That's the true lesson of the phrase "water is wet".
thats a game that has both luck and skill, like poker. But some games are based purely on skill, like sports. And some are based solely on luck, like games of chance.
That some sport or game is based purely on skill doesn't prevent luck from affecting it in ALL circumstances. Rules and playing conditions have been set up by humans, an admittedly imperfect architect. Sometimes unexpected accidents upset the intended course of play.
In this case, luck would mean the probability of the thing that happened happening.
Since there is no probability in chess, unless one is making purely random moves, therefore there is no luck.
In this case, luck would mean the probability of the thing that happened happening.
Since there is no probability in chess, unless one is making purely random moves, therefore there is no luck.
And what great skill are you displaying when you are losing decisively and your opponent loses because a power failure in their area causes him to overstep the time limit?
In this case, luck would mean the probability of the thing that happened happening.
Since there is no probability in chess, unless one is making purely random moves, therefore there is no luck.
And what great skill are you displaying when you are losing decisively and your opponent loses because a power failure in their area causes him to overstep the time limit?
But that would be luck on the computer side of chess, not in the actual chess game.
In this case, luck would mean the probability of the thing that happened happening.
Since there is no probability in chess, unless one is making purely random moves, therefore there is no luck.
No human can calculate chess fully accurately so there is always a factor of randomness in your move. Practically speaking, when you make a move, you can end up in a better position than you intended.
I've used this example already, but say you make a pawn push for the sole purpose of defending your bishop from being captured. This move also happens to prevent a mate in 20 that you didn't calculate and didnt know existed in the position, so you end up accidentally defending mate.
You can make comparisons of this example to real life examples of where the word luck applies, if you want to verify that it would be an accurate way to describe this chess related event.
In this case, luck would mean the probability of the thing that happened happening.
Since there is no probability in chess, unless one is making purely random moves, therefore there is no luck.
This was brought up before. Cases where moves are made entirely randomly. As in basically toss a coin. Moves where there is no rhyme, reason, motive, or plan. I suspect this can happen more at the beginner level, where someone who barely knows how to move the pieces accidentally makes a great move, just for the sake of making a move. Somewhere, anywhere.
In this case, luck would mean the probability of the thing that happened happening.
Since there is no probability in chess, unless one is making purely random moves, therefore there is no luck.
And what great skill are you displaying when you are losing decisively and your opponent loses because a power failure in their area causes him to overstep the time limit?
But that would be luck on the computer side of chess, not in the actual chess game.
So when you play via computer on this site you are not actually playing chess? Computer failures are just one of the possible imperfections I mentioned in #2308. As you admit, that IS luck, and it can be the decisive factor in a chess game.
In this case, luck would mean the probability of the thing that happened happening.
Since there is no probability in chess, unless one is making purely random moves, therefore there is no luck.
And what great skill are you displaying when you are losing decisively and your opponent loses because a power failure in their area causes him to overstep the time limit?
But that would be luck on the computer side of chess, not in the actual chess game.
So when you play via computer on this site you are not actually playing chess? Computer failures are just one of the possible imperfections I mentioned in #2308. As you admit, that IS luck, and it can be the decisive factor in a chess game.
This is nonsense. We are debating about luck in the game of chess. Anything outside of the rules of chess does not apply here. It's a waste of time anyway because its very easy to prove luck exists within the game of chess, who cares about some computer failures regarding this topic.
In this case, luck would mean the probability of the thing that happened happening.
Since there is no probability in chess, unless one is making purely random moves, therefore there is no luck.
This was brought up before. Cases where moves are made entirely randomly. As in basically toss a coin. Moves where there is no rhyme, reason, motive, or plan. I suspect this can happen more at the beginner level, where someone who barely knows how to move the pieces accidentally makes a great move, just for the sake of making a move. Somewhere, anywhere.
It doesn't matter when a chess player guesses moves when the results, unlike tossing a coin, are based on their practice and knowledge. To try and equate tossing a coin, shows you are not able to make a distinction between skill and luck. And if you tell me there is a skill to tossing a coin, I will tell you again that is cheating. Because you also don't have the foggiest idea what is sporting and what is not.
Lets put this very simple special for you.
Can any human ability everything included (knowledge, instinct, calculation) consider all functions of every chess move, or sequence of moves that you made during a chess game? No, even computers cannot.
Therefore is it possible to make a move and have some function of this move absolutely off your radar? Answer is yes, the previous point proves this.
Can a function of a chess move, or sequence of moves that you absolutely missed, benefit you in some way? Yes, we are following a logical chain here.
The clinical conclusion is that all human ability considered, you can absolutely accidentally make a move, that benefits you in a way you did not account for in any way or form.
Debate/
In this case, luck would mean the probability of the thing that happened happening.
Since there is no probability in chess, unless one is making purely random moves, therefore there is no luck.
This was brought up before. Cases where moves are made entirely randomly. As in basically toss a coin. Moves where there is no rhyme, reason, motive, or plan. I suspect this can happen more at the beginner level, where someone who barely knows how to move the pieces accidentally makes a great move, just for the sake of making a move. Somewhere, anywhere.
It doesn't matter when a chess player guesses moves when the results, unlike tossing a coin, are based on their practice and knowledge. To try and equate tossing a coin, shows you are not able to make a distinction between skill and luck. And if you tell me there is a skill to tossing a coin, I will tell you again that is cheating. Because you also don't have the foggiest idea what is sporting and what is not.
Lets put this very simple special for you.
Can any human ability everything included (knowledge, instinct, calculation) consider all functions of every chess move, or sequence of moves that you made during a chess game? No, even computers cannot.
Therefore is it possible to make a move and have some function of this move absolutely off your radar? Answer is yes, the previous point proves this.
Can a function of a chess move, or sequence of moves that you absolutely missed, benefit you in some way? Yes, we are following a logical chain here.
The clinical conclusion is that all human ability considered, you can absolutely accidentally make a move, that benefits you in a way you did not account for in any way or form.
Debate/
It doesn't matter if they can or not, Their intuition is still based on the amount of knowledge, practice, experience or lack thereof they have. It is their own force that determined the moves, and NOT some force of luck. You are failing to realize, by definition, luck is a description of something that is not human ability causing the results. Its literally the antitehsis to it and you are trying to say they are the same thing. You are refusing to acknowledge this very distinction and the reason for the words existing as they apply to gaming.
"It doesn't matter if they can or not"
If they cannot, human ability is out of equation. Only factor left is luck. End of
In this case, luck would mean the probability of the thing that happened happening.
Since there is no probability in chess, unless one is making purely random moves, therefore there is no luck.
This was brought up before. Cases where moves are made entirely randomly. As in basically toss a coin. Moves where there is no rhyme, reason, motive, or plan. I suspect this can happen more at the beginner level, where someone who barely knows how to move the pieces accidentally makes a great move, just for the sake of making a move. Somewhere, anywhere.
It doesn't matter when a chess player guesses moves when the results, unlike tossing a coin, are based on their practice and knowledge. To try and equate tossing a coin, shows you are not able to make a distinction between skill and luck. And if you tell me there is a skill to tossing a coin, I will tell you again that is cheating. Because you also don't have the foggiest idea what is sporting and what is not.
Lets put this very simple special for you.
Can any human ability everything included (knowledge, instinct, calculation) consider all functions of every chess move, or sequence of moves that you made during a chess game? No, even computers cannot.
Therefore is it possible to make a move and have some function of this move absolutely off your radar? Answer is yes, the previous point proves this.
Can a function of a chess move, or sequence of moves that you absolutely missed, benefit you in some way? Yes, we are following a logical chain here.
The clinical conclusion is that all human ability considered, you can absolutely accidentally make a move, that benefits you in a way you did not account for in any way or form.
Debate/
It doesn't matter if they can or not, Their intuition is still based on the amount of knowledge, practice, experience or lack thereof they have. It is their own force that determined the moves, and NOT some force of luck. You are failing to realize, by definition, luck is a description of something that is not human ability causing the results. Its literally the antitehsis to it and you are trying to say they are the same thing. You are refusing to acknowledge this very distinction and the reason for the words existing as they apply to gaming.
"It doesn't matter if they can or not"
If they cannot, human ability is out of equation. Only factor left is luck. End of
that is only if you believe intuition is not based on experience. That also only if you believe skill is only determined by things you can consciously plan for. So sharp reflexes or exercised muscle memory are also not skill according to that logic. That is only if you believe you are measuring skill by a single move, or the fact you cannot measure skill by single move is what determines skill is not involved. Noone can predict outcomes or consider plans are good or bad until we take the results into account. By your logic there is no such thing as skill at all.
Let me ask you this, since you refuse acknowledge the dictionary definition of luck as it applies to gaming. What is your definition of skill? And do you believe it is the opposite of luck? Because imo the words exist to distinguish between actions of force determining good or bad results, because that is what the words accomplish.
And I find it interesting you replied to mpaets and called him ridiculous for speaking of luck outside of the game. But its just as ridiculous to claim human force is luck itself, when the word luck is a human construct to differentiate specifically from human force. And your reply to him seems very contradictory because the game of chess has no elements of luck designed in the game, so exactly what you said to him can now be said to you.
"Intuition, experience, etc"
In my example I defined human ability to include all of this and I mean conscious and subconcious, so yes I absolutely believe intuition is based on this and its considered in my argument, go read it again (if it helps you to understand it, might not).
Definition of skill is level of ability. To credit something to your ability or skill, you must have specified the goal for your effort absolutely precisely. If you achieve something else than you intended, this cannot be credited to your skill. Example, if a soccer player tries to pass to his teammate but the pass ends up in the net, goal cannot be credited to his skill but it has to be luck. Similar things happen in chess as my example provided.
For anyone is that really interested in this topic...
This course started today, it's free if you audit the course for no credit, and you can still sign up:
https://www.coursera.org/learn/combinatorial-game-theory?action=enroll
Georgia Tech University
(It's not required, but Calculus is recommended)
Because it's a silly topic. Why should there be luck in everything else but not in chess?
Because chess is a game of skill, unlike, say, darts, auto racing, and skeet.
To be fair, very few are talking about completely binary skill vs chance when they talk about difference between game of skill and game of chance. And in most cases it is a question of built in element of randomness instead of "well, I didn't eat breakfast and started lose my focus but I was lucky enough to find and threaten my opponents family the day before".