Is there such thing as "luck" in chess?
Sort:
Is there any luck in the word
CooloutAC wrote:
Kotshmot wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
Kotshmot wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
Kotshmot wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
Kotshmot wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
Kotshmot wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
Kotshmot wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
Kotshmot wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:
WowThisIsWeird wrote:
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.
So you believe that intuition is part of a skill set, but you believe it plays no part in chess players guessing moves?
You contradict yourself, because intuition itself in essence is not knowing why something is "precisely" right or wrong. Again muscle memory and reflexes are not "planned", they are not always even conscious, but they are also part of human ability and exercised skills. A soccer player of lesser skill, would not even pass the ball into the net mistakenly. You will find better players, will consistently get "lucky" according your logic, more often then lower skilled players. That is because luck is not part of it, their own actions are. You cannot simply call human ability a "level" of skill. It is simply skill and we know it is present because its a human force of action, but you measure its "level" over time.
"Intuition plays no part in humans guessing moves?"
I think you wont comprehend if I explain bevause I've already done it so many times. Intuition, that I include ln the definition of human ability, is the reason why you end up making a move.
Human ability including intuition and everything your brain is capable of tho, cannot take into account all functions of a chess move or a sequence of x amount of moves. Therefore when YOU or anyone make a chess move, there can be functions this move causes in the game, that your human ability didnt account for. These functions can benefit you; Since human ability did not account for these functions of chess move, human ability is not responsible for them and cannot take credit. Credit goes to something we call luck.
It might not be a concept easy to understand for everyone.
"A soccer player of lesser skill would not pass the ball in the net mistakenly"
Explain what you mean by that? It happens frequently, that a player attempts to cross the ball to his teammate, but it goes straight in the net. At the very top level this happens.
Just because you don't account or plan for the results of a move, doesn't mean a move wasn't based on skill by your own admission. Hence my examples of exercised skills like muscle memory or reflexes. But Skill and luck do not exist in the same action otherwise the words have no meaning my friend. Fact is, the move is determined by human force and not some force of luck. Two distinctly different things and the topic of this thread. You don't want to admit you are flat out contradicting yourself because you don't want to give up your flawed premise. You even replied to mpaetz that luck not in the game is not part of chess, yet you are making the same argument. At least he was identifying a separate force, you are referring to skill and luck as the same things or referring to nothing at all.
I've explained to you with practical examples how luck and skill can both be involved in a single action, everything is available in my posts to prove this. Your counter argument is "this can't be". Muscle memory is included in my definition of human ability.
What do you think about my soccer example, is it lucky or human ability if a kick meant to be a cross to your teammate goes straight in the net? Im asking because you say if you don't plan for the result of the move doesn't mean its not skill.
i'm claiming you have not. State otherwise here. Yes you keep saying you agree human ability, including intuition is part of ones skill set, yet you consider moves determined by them to come from forces of luck which is a contradiction. You are showing you don't understand the definition of the words.
I already answered your soccer example. But unlike you, i will prove it by repeating it again.
A much lesser skilled player would not even accidentally kick a ball into the net. As I said just because you can't measure level of skill from a single move, doesn't mean human ability is not the force determining the move. Skill is still present, but Levels of skill are measured over time. The reason why good players always seem to get "luckier" then bad players, by your logic, is because of their ability and no other force.
You realize the basic flaw in your argument and are now trying to say that human force and forces of luck are the same things when you imply that skill and luck exist in the same action. Again not only do you not understand the definitions of these words, you do not understand the purpose of them existing because you have no sense of sports in general. There is a reason we distinguish between the two and consider them an antithesis to each other. It is to determine human ability and fairness.
"A much lesser skilled player would not even accidentally kick a ball into the net."
You're saying this but I'm telling you it frequently happens in soccer. A player tries to cross a ball in but the cross is inaccurate, beats the goalie and goes in. You make a claim "this can't happen" but it does, this is a pattern in our debate (if you can call it that). Maybe I misunderstand your comment because I'm not sure why you would claim this kind of things don't happen.
So as it does happen for a fact, I repeat the question, do you consider this skill or luck?
I know it does, and I'm acknowledging it does, but what you are not understanding is that someone like me who has never played soccer would not even be able to pass the ball to another player, let alone in a spot that would go into the goal. Noone said it doesn't happen buddy, I'm saying it happens for a reason and its not luck. The reason this happens all the time, is because of these players awareness and skill even if not specifically planned.
I'm also saying, which you have ignored, is this is the reason better players get "luckier", according to your flawed logic, more often than worse players, because the fact is it is their human ability and force of action that causes the results and not a force of luck.
Okay, I got you. So you think a player accidentally scoring by failing a cross is not lucky, but instead the goal was due to the players skill. That I guess speaks for itself.
"Better players get luckier more often than worse players"
I haven't addressed the issue you mention because I don't know what you mean by this and it certainly doesn't follow my logic, heres why. A worse player will perform more actions on average, that result in an unplanned outcome. A better player will most of the time get an outcome they actually planned for, therefore less room to get an unplanned, lucky outcome.
Absolutely indeed. And please don't pretend you didn't think that is what I meant. Since we have been having this same conversation in circles for days...lol Its also the same reasons I used the examples of exercised skills like muscle memory and reflexes, or why I have constantly said actions from skill dont' even have to be conscious.
In fact your example of a soccer player is why ohters in this thread have pointed out it is skill for the chess player to bring himself to the position he was in on the board regardless of how precisely intended it was.
You don't know what I mean by better players get more lucky then others according your definition of luck? I think this is a case of you knowing indeed what I mean, but are once again pretending not to. lol
One getting to a winning position according to stockfish analysis means absolutely nothing if you're not aware that the position is winning and why, and how to convert it. Therefore this thing "that others have been saying" has no relevancy with my argument what so ever. If you understood what I've been talking about youd know this.
I actually don't know why better players would be luckier according to my definition, as I practically explained to you once again in my previous post why that is not the case. The higher the skill level, the less of a role luck has in your play. The higher the skill level, the more of your actions result in the outcome you planned, thus less room for unplanned lucky events. This is absolutely my stance. You must give a practical example if you want to say otherwise.
Optimissed wrote:
That's just another way of telling the World that you're an unpleasant idiot. I wouldn't normally draw attention to it but you ask for it and deserve it. You are that, because you enjoy making trouble out of nothing and insulting others for no reason. You're an unpleasant idiot. Obviously, I was describing past perceptions but you will use anything as a pretext to undermine others. You're undermining yourself.
You already replied to this post 7 hours ago. Now you reply again, but with outrage 
. This seems to be a behavior that is increasing in frequency. If you cannot make your points without resorting to idiot/imbecile/etc. then let's just say you aren't nearly as adroit at discussing things as you would have people believe. If you reply to a post, then forget you replied to it several hours later and reply again with a completely different emotional response, it begs the question...are you in control of your faculties?
Optimissed wrote:
No, Googling the differences will not work. The first reason is that I'm almost certainly more knowledgeable and intelligent than the person writing the Googled explanations.
[...]
Just quoting for posterity.
Optimissed wrote:
You're talking about outrage? No, I'm putting you in your place. If you make offhand comments designed to undermine people in whatever way, simply because you habitually do that, then you have to learn that you'll get back what you dish out, together with a completely random multiplication factor, which you can hardly complain about. It may be equality, two to one, three to one, the Biblical seven to one or ten to one.
You had no reason to make a snide comment and yet you did. It wasn't in the context of an argument but you simply "operate" by attempting to bully people. Don't do it to me, there's a good chap. I didn't notice it when I first replied. For all I knew, you might have edited it in later. I don't quite know how your mind works yet.
Lol. It was an accurate rewording of your premise. You gave your momentary perception from 1981, then later said it would take 40 years for the US perception of soccer to change. That's obviously a biased viewpoint with no credible support. It's far from the first time you have summarily made pronouncements about other countries that you visited many decades ago, I might add. As for how people's minds work...
Optimissed wrote:
I've seen you complain about the reading skills of others. Seems yours are also deficient. My comment meant that it will take another 40 years for Europeans to change their perceptions of Americans' knowledge of football.
At least that shows that in your own mind, there was reason for your negative comment. However, that was in your mind only. Next time, before you assume that a comment is anti-American, why not reread to make sure? Otherwise you could give people negative impressions of Americans and we wouldn't want that to happen. Generally I like them. Also, if you do perceive an anti-American comment, why not just accept it and move on?
The comment was:
"Virtually no-one in the USA and Canada knew much about football back then and I think that perception will take another 40 years to go away!"
Since the perception really in question here is *yours* as related in the first half of the sentence, the second half of the sentence is also your own faulty perception. That's the underlying reality of it.
Next, you go on to tell me I should just accept comments and move on, after having just called me an idiot twice over because...yep, you didn't like a comment ...which is typical of your (lack of) logic.
Optimissed wrote:
That was my post which you rudely responded to. "Virtually no-one in the USA and Canada knew much about football back then" .... that was my perception in the 70s and still in 81. Most Europeans had that perception. Probably because it was a true perception, back then.
"I think that perception will take another 40 years to go away!" means that the perception of Americans is ingrained and will take a long time to disappear. Because I was referring to a perception, it was therefore a perception OF Americans. It couldn't be anything else. The trouble is, your reading ability might be a bit rusty. Maybe you're used to anti-American comments, I don't know. But that was a sympathetic comment and if you could read better, you'd have understood that. Better to stay positive, eh??
Nope, it was your perception of the perception of Americans. That's the point. I personally had 3 soccer trophies by the time you made that visit, for example. Apparently I, and everyone in the same leagues I was playing in, were playing a game we knew nothing about...
Your premise that people deserve to called idiots if they are acting "thick" or bad mannered in your estimation seems a tad hypocritical. I mean, I didn't call you any such names when you told that whopping fish story about Bill Gates and Steve Jobs on the yacht ...
Ziryab wrote:
Because chess is a game
a-ha!
CooloutAC wrote:
Kotshmot wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
Kotshmot wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
Kotshmot wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
Kotshmot wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
Kotshmot wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
Kotshmot wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
Kotshmot wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
Kotshmot wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:
WowThisIsWeird wrote:
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.
So you believe that intuition is part of a skill set, but you believe it plays no part in chess players guessing moves?
You contradict yourself, because intuition itself in essence is not knowing why something is "precisely" right or wrong. Again muscle memory and reflexes are not "planned", they are not always even conscious, but they are also part of human ability and exercised skills. A soccer player of lesser skill, would not even pass the ball into the net mistakenly. You will find better players, will consistently get "lucky" according your logic, more often then lower skilled players. That is because luck is not part of it, their own actions are. You cannot simply call human ability a "level" of skill. It is simply skill and we know it is present because its a human force of action, but you measure its "level" over time.
"Intuition plays no part in humans guessing moves?"
I think you wont comprehend if I explain bevause I've already done it so many times. Intuition, that I include ln the definition of human ability, is the reason why you end up making a move.
Human ability including intuition and everything your brain is capable of tho, cannot take into account all functions of a chess move or a sequence of x amount of moves. Therefore when YOU or anyone make a chess move, there can be functions this move causes in the game, that your human ability didnt account for. These functions can benefit you; Since human ability did not account for these functions of chess move, human ability is not responsible for them and cannot take credit. Credit goes to something we call luck.
It might not be a concept easy to understand for everyone.
"A soccer player of lesser skill would not pass the ball in the net mistakenly"
Explain what you mean by that? It happens frequently, that a player attempts to cross the ball to his teammate, but it goes straight in the net. At the very top level this happens.
Just because you don't account or plan for the results of a move, doesn't mean a move wasn't based on skill by your own admission. Hence my examples of exercised skills like muscle memory or reflexes. But Skill and luck do not exist in the same action otherwise the words have no meaning my friend. Fact is, the move is determined by human force and not some force of luck. Two distinctly different things and the topic of this thread. You don't want to admit you are flat out contradicting yourself because you don't want to give up your flawed premise. You even replied to mpaetz that luck not in the game is not part of chess, yet you are making the same argument. At least he was identifying a separate force, you are referring to skill and luck as the same things or referring to nothing at all.
I've explained to you with practical examples how luck and skill can both be involved in a single action, everything is available in my posts to prove this. Your counter argument is "this can't be". Muscle memory is included in my definition of human ability.
What do you think about my soccer example, is it lucky or human ability if a kick meant to be a cross to your teammate goes straight in the net? Im asking because you say if you don't plan for the result of the move doesn't mean its not skill.
i'm claiming you have not. State otherwise here. Yes you keep saying you agree human ability, including intuition is part of ones skill set, yet you consider moves determined by them to come from forces of luck which is a contradiction. You are showing you don't understand the definition of the words.
I already answered your soccer example. But unlike you, i will prove it by repeating it again.
A much lesser skilled player would not even accidentally kick a ball into the net. As I said just because you can't measure level of skill from a single move, doesn't mean human ability is not the force determining the move. Skill is still present, but Levels of skill are measured over time. The reason why good players always seem to get "luckier" then bad players, by your logic, is because of their ability and no other force.
You realize the basic flaw in your argument and are now trying to say that human force and forces of luck are the same things when you imply that skill and luck exist in the same action. Again not only do you not understand the definitions of these words, you do not understand the purpose of them existing because you have no sense of sports in general. There is a reason we distinguish between the two and consider them an antithesis to each other. It is to determine human ability and fairness.
"A much lesser skilled player would not even accidentally kick a ball into the net."
You're saying this but I'm telling you it frequently happens in soccer. A player tries to cross a ball in but the cross is inaccurate, beats the goalie and goes in. You make a claim "this can't happen" but it does, this is a pattern in our debate (if you can call it that). Maybe I misunderstand your comment because I'm not sure why you would claim this kind of things don't happen.
So as it does happen for a fact, I repeat the question, do you consider this skill or luck?
I know it does, and I'm acknowledging it does, but what you are not understanding is that someone like me who has never played soccer would not even be able to pass the ball to another player, let alone in a spot that would go into the goal. Noone said it doesn't happen buddy, I'm saying it happens for a reason and its not luck. The reason this happens all the time, is because of these players awareness and skill even if not specifically planned.
I'm also saying, which you have ignored, is this is the reason better players get "luckier", according to your flawed logic, more often than worse players, because the fact is it is their human ability and force of action that causes the results and not a force of luck.
Okay, I got you. So you think a player accidentally scoring by failing a cross is not lucky, but instead the goal was due to the players skill. That I guess speaks for itself.
"Better players get luckier more often than worse players"
I haven't addressed the issue you mention because I don't know what you mean by this and it certainly doesn't follow my logic, heres why. A worse player will perform more actions on average, that result in an unplanned outcome. A better player will most of the time get an outcome they actually planned for, therefore less room to get an unplanned, lucky outcome.
Absolutely indeed. And please don't pretend you didn't think that is what I meant. Since we have been having this same conversation in circles for days...lol Its also the same reasons I used the examples of exercised skills like muscle memory and reflexes, or why I have constantly said actions from skill dont' even have to be conscious.
In fact your example of a soccer player is why ohters in this thread have pointed out it is skill for the chess player to bring himself to the position he was in on the board regardless of how precisely intended it was.
You don't know what I mean by better players get more lucky then others according your definition of luck? I think this is a case of you knowing indeed what I mean, but are once again pretending not to. lol
One getting to a winning position according to stockfish analysis means absolutely nothing if you're not aware that the position is winning and why, and how to convert it. Therefore this has no relevancy with my argument what so ever. If you understood what I've been talking about youd know this.
I actually don't know why better players would be luckier according to my definition, as I practically explained to you once again in my previous post why that is not the case. The higher the skill level, the less of a role luck has in your play. The higher the skill level, the more of your actions result in the outcome you planned, thus less room for unplanned lucky events. This is absolutely my stance. You must give a practical example if you want to say otherwise.
Wrong, good players will consistently get to winning positions even if they did not precisely plan them in the way they unfolded my friend. That is the proof it is there skill that brings them there and not an equal random chance. Your whole premise is flawed, and its why you have resorted to arguing luck and skill are the same things and exist together as the same force in the same actions.
your whole argument is that good players getting more consistent winning positions even if not precisely planned is luck. But then in the same breath you say that is less likely to happen. You are contradicting and confusing yourself. As even btickler told you, even the greatest skilled player cannot plan for all outcomes in a game. So are you saying Magnus gets lucky in every game he wins? Are you going to say that with a straight face?
I think you are once again confusing chance with luck. They are not the same things, luck is not just determined by the force of action, although you can't even define an action other then human ability ironically, but it also determined by the results my friend, and that is never known beforehand.
And I have given you practical examples, and you already agreed with them contradicting your whole argument. Intuition by definition, in its essence is unplanned, excercised skills like reflexes and muscle memory. This is why you have resorted to saying luck and skill are the same things and why you are no longer even having an honest debate. As far as I'm concerned you already lost by making this claim. Because you have already given up acknowledging any differences between them totally ignoring the definitions of the words and their reasons for existing.
If you have two 700 elo players playing against each other, every other move they end up in a winning position having no idea that its winning in any way. Two 2500 players will have much less of these moments and the position they end up in a much more precisely planned position. Again, this should be obvious but there you go. Just winning more doesn't mean you're getting luckier, it actually means you are more skilled.
Your thinking is way too topical here. Someone with a winning position can have made many more planned, precise moves, mean while his opponent who is losing couldve been frustrated and playing more random moves, but luckily escaping check mate. Winning does not equal lucky.
Intuition is something I include in the definition of human ability, this is all that matters. Human ability, intuition included will miss some functions of a move, or a sequence of x amount of moves. How these missed functions play out on the board I categorize as "unplanned". It is merely a word I need to use to distiguish from a move that human ability would have mapped entirely. Every time you claim my logic is flawed, you've misinterpreted what I said completely just like here.
I have a feeling losing all of his arguments will not slow him down one bit. If it's not a condition of some sort, then he honestly believes he didn't lose. I suppose that too could be a condition of some kind. I guess that explains the dishonesty but I cannot figure out how a mind like that works.
Optimissed wrote:
I know. I can't help liking him. Is that a character deficiency in me? Maybe at some level I wish I was like him.
What would being like him be like, I wonder. Certainly, believing you're always right comes into it. But then, I already believe I'm usually right, if not always right. Perhaps the coincidence of believing you're right and actually being right might have some bearing on it?
I think there is a big difference. You are able to see things for what they are. And base your "always being right" off that. He bases it off something else. He lies constantly. And then denies lying. You do not do that.
I think it may come down to the differences between belief and reality. You believe what is, he believes what he wishes, regardless if it really is true or not. You both like to argue, you both like to think you are right, but you do not strike me as a compulsive liar. You rarely have to go back and play word salad or redefine your words or "clarify" what you meant. It's easy to understand what you meant the first time.
May 29, 2022
0
#1412
I have been mostly skipping over a certain contributor's comments as you already know what he's going to say. What bothers me most about the posts from the two contributors under discussion is their tendency to lapse into invective, denigration, ad hominem attacks and general unpleasantness. It seems to stem from their conviction that they are always correct and thus any critics must be trolls, intellectual inferiors, or mentally disturbed.
May 29, 2022
0
#1413
I merely added my exasperation over the tendency of some posters to turn everything into a personal confrontation and declare themselves the authority of right/wrong in the question under discussion and unquestionable arbiter of proper/improper posts.
CooloutAC wrote:
Kotshmot wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
Kotshmot wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
Kotshmot wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
Kotshmot wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
Kotshmot wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
Kotshmot wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
Kotshmot wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
Kotshmot wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
Kotshmot wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:
WowThisIsWeird wrote:
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.
So you believe that intuition is part of a skill set, but you believe it plays no part in chess players guessing moves?
You contradict yourself, because intuition itself in essence is not knowing why something is "precisely" right or wrong. Again muscle memory and reflexes are not "planned", they are not always even conscious, but they are also part of human ability and exercised skills. A soccer player of lesser skill, would not even pass the ball into the net mistakenly. You will find better players, will consistently get "lucky" according your logic, more often then lower skilled players. That is because luck is not part of it, their own actions are. You cannot simply call human ability a "level" of skill. It is simply skill and we know it is present because its a human force of action, but you measure its "level" over time.
"Intuition plays no part in humans guessing moves?"
I think you wont comprehend if I explain bevause I've already done it so many times. Intuition, that I include ln the definition of human ability, is the reason why you end up making a move.
Human ability including intuition and everything your brain is capable of tho, cannot take into account all functions of a chess move or a sequence of x amount of moves. Therefore when YOU or anyone make a chess move, there can be functions this move causes in the game, that your human ability didnt account for. These functions can benefit you; Since human ability did not account for these functions of chess move, human ability is not responsible for them and cannot take credit. Credit goes to something we call luck.
It might not be a concept easy to understand for everyone.
"A soccer player of lesser skill would not pass the ball in the net mistakenly"
Explain what you mean by that? It happens frequently, that a player attempts to cross the ball to his teammate, but it goes straight in the net. At the very top level this happens.
Just because you don't account or plan for the results of a move, doesn't mean a move wasn't based on skill by your own admission. Hence my examples of exercised skills like muscle memory or reflexes. But Skill and luck do not exist in the same action otherwise the words have no meaning my friend. Fact is, the move is determined by human force and not some force of luck. Two distinctly different things and the topic of this thread. You don't want to admit you are flat out contradicting yourself because you don't want to give up your flawed premise. You even replied to mpaetz that luck not in the game is not part of chess, yet you are making the same argument. At least he was identifying a separate force, you are referring to skill and luck as the same things or referring to nothing at all.
I've explained to you with practical examples how luck and skill can both be involved in a single action, everything is available in my posts to prove this. Your counter argument is "this can't be". Muscle memory is included in my definition of human ability.
What do you think about my soccer example, is it lucky or human ability if a kick meant to be a cross to your teammate goes straight in the net? Im asking because you say if you don't plan for the result of the move doesn't mean its not skill.
i'm claiming you have not. State otherwise here. Yes you keep saying you agree human ability, including intuition is part of ones skill set, yet you consider moves determined by them to come from forces of luck which is a contradiction. You are showing you don't understand the definition of the words.
I already answered your soccer example. But unlike you, i will prove it by repeating it again.
A much lesser skilled player would not even accidentally kick a ball into the net. As I said just because you can't measure level of skill from a single move, doesn't mean human ability is not the force determining the move. Skill is still present, but Levels of skill are measured over time. The reason why good players always seem to get "luckier" then bad players, by your logic, is because of their ability and no other force.
You realize the basic flaw in your argument and are now trying to say that human force and forces of luck are the same things when you imply that skill and luck exist in the same action. Again not only do you not understand the definitions of these words, you do not understand the purpose of them existing because you have no sense of sports in general. There is a reason we distinguish between the two and consider them an antithesis to each other. It is to determine human ability and fairness.
"A much lesser skilled player would not even accidentally kick a ball into the net."
You're saying this but I'm telling you it frequently happens in soccer. A player tries to cross a ball in but the cross is inaccurate, beats the goalie and goes in. You make a claim "this can't happen" but it does, this is a pattern in our debate (if you can call it that). Maybe I misunderstand your comment because I'm not sure why you would claim this kind of things don't happen.
So as it does happen for a fact, I repeat the question, do you consider this skill or luck?
I know it does, and I'm acknowledging it does, but what you are not understanding is that someone like me who has never played soccer would not even be able to pass the ball to another player, let alone in a spot that would go into the goal. Noone said it doesn't happen buddy, I'm saying it happens for a reason and its not luck. The reason this happens all the time, is because of these players awareness and skill even if not specifically planned.
I'm also saying, which you have ignored, is this is the reason better players get "luckier", according to your flawed logic, more often than worse players, because the fact is it is their human ability and force of action that causes the results and not a force of luck.
Okay, I got you. So you think a player accidentally scoring by failing a cross is not lucky, but instead the goal was due to the players skill. That I guess speaks for itself.
"Better players get luckier more often than worse players"
I haven't addressed the issue you mention because I don't know what you mean by this and it certainly doesn't follow my logic, heres why. A worse player will perform more actions on average, that result in an unplanned outcome. A better player will most of the time get an outcome they actually planned for, therefore less room to get an unplanned, lucky outcome.
Absolutely indeed. And please don't pretend you didn't think that is what I meant. Since we have been having this same conversation in circles for days...lol Its also the same reasons I used the examples of exercised skills like muscle memory and reflexes, or why I have constantly said actions from skill dont' even have to be conscious.
In fact your example of a soccer player is why ohters in this thread have pointed out it is skill for the chess player to bring himself to the position he was in on the board regardless of how precisely intended it was.
You don't know what I mean by better players get more lucky then others according your definition of luck? I think this is a case of you knowing indeed what I mean, but are once again pretending not to. lol
One getting to a winning position according to stockfish analysis means absolutely nothing if you're not aware that the position is winning and why, and how to convert it. Therefore this has no relevancy with my argument what so ever. If you understood what I've been talking about youd know this.
I actually don't know why better players would be luckier according to my definition, as I practically explained to you once again in my previous post why that is not the case. The higher the skill level, the less of a role luck has in your play. The higher the skill level, the more of your actions result in the outcome you planned, thus less room for unplanned lucky events. This is absolutely my stance. You must give a practical example if you want to say otherwise.
Wrong, good players will consistently get to winning positions even if they did not precisely plan them in the way they unfolded my friend. That is the proof it is there skill that brings them there and not an equal random chance. Your whole premise is flawed, and its why you have resorted to arguing luck and skill are the same things and exist together as the same force in the same actions.
your whole argument is that good players getting more consistent winning positions even if not precisely planned is luck. But then in the same breath you say that is less likely to happen. You are contradicting and confusing yourself. As even btickler told you, even the greatest skilled player cannot plan for all outcomes in a game. So are you saying Magnus gets lucky in every game he wins? Are you going to say that with a straight face?
I think you are once again confusing chance with luck. They are not the same things, luck is not just determined by the force of action, although you can't even define an action other then human ability ironically, but it also determined by the results my friend, and that is never known beforehand.
And I have given you practical examples, and you already agreed with them contradicting your whole argument. Intuition by definition, in its essence is unplanned, excercised skills like reflexes and muscle memory. This is why you have resorted to saying luck and skill are the same things and why you are no longer even having an honest debate. As far as I'm concerned you already lost by making this claim. Because you have already given up acknowledging any differences between them totally ignoring the definitions of the words and their reasons for existing.
If you have two 700 elo players playing against each other, every other move they end up in a winning position having no idea that its winning in any way. Two 2500 players will have much less of these moments and the position they end up in a much more precisely planned position. Again, this should be obvious but there you go. Just winning more doesn't mean you're getting luckier, it actually means you are more skilled.
Your thinking is way too topical here. Someone with a winning position can have made many more planned, precise moves, mean while his opponent who is losing couldve been frustrated and playing more random moves, but luckily escaping check mate. Winning does not equal lucky.
Intuition is something I include in the definition of human ability, this is all that matters. Human ability, intuition included will miss some functions of a move, or a sequence of x amount of moves. How these missed functions play out on the board I categorize as "unplanned". It is merely a word I need to use to distiguish from a move that human ability would have mapped entirely. Every time you claim my logic is flawed, you've misinterpreted what I said completely just like here.
The better players will end up in unplanned winning positions more, and will win more. This is why such a thing is not luck as you claim. period.
No my friend it is you who is thinking too topical. The point is that even when they don't plan their moves, their move determination is still from a force of human ability and skill, not some other force such as luck. Hence the definition of the word.
Yes, but you don't even know why it matters. If you consider intuition skill, then you consider something that is not planned for skill and it contradicts your whole argument. Furthermore again, humans can never map out everything entirely because they are not God and if they were able to do so the game would no longer be sporting. You are arguing something that is not reality and act as if humans are computer engines.
I think i have figured out your motive for lying to yourself now. Not only are you one of those who think lower skilled players only win by luck, You are probably another one who thinks skill is based on accuracy, and that only classical chess is real chess...lmao. Only a chess community would try to argue against what is common sports sense.
"If you consider intuition skill, then you consider something that is not planned for skill and it contradicts your whole argument."
There is no logical basis for this argument, this is just very topical word play that let's me know you are unable to follow.
There are two categories that I use for my argument. When you make a chess move, there are functions that this move has that human ability can account for (again, including intuition, mentioned just for you) and functions that human ability fails to account for. What human ability fails to account for Ive call unplanned but you can call it something else if this term contradicts with definition of intuition. You can call it an easter bunny for all I care, it doesn't matter for the logical basis of the argument.
Only thing that is needed to prove luck exists in chess is that human ability fails to account for all functions of a chess move you make.
Ps. Who are you tell me what I don't know and make up random motives for my arguments?
Optimissed wrote:
Which you're also doing at the moment. Probably best to stand back, rather than link yourself with whatever it is that you find unpalatable. I mean, for your own peace of mind. This situation ... having these public forums of chess.com ... is a strange situation and also a privilege that could conceivably be removed.
I think there was a time when I considered myself a "chess player" first and foremost ... maybe a couple of years after I took it up and I was improving and playing a lot in tournaments and club chess. I got to know a lot of people through chess, some of whom seemed to be quite "damaged" as people and some who were fine. Then, studying for a degree diverted my enthusiasm in the early 90s. Previously, I was doing a great deal of heavy labouring and work in various trades, because I was renovating a house we'd bought and the chess gave me a sort of counterpoise. Also doing a lot of buying and selling of old books.
Eventually, I realised that I didn't identify with chess players as a group. I'm balanced between intro and extrovert and am not one rather than the other. I saw that a lot of people who played chess seemed to repress their own thoughts .... I would say that, without chess, many of them seemed incomplete. Even with it, really.
These formuns are fascinating. As you will be aware, my wife's a psychologist. Previously she was a mental nurse but now she has a counselling and psychotherapy practice and also teaches it to degree level. There are some people here who obviously don't seem very balanced. That's to be expected and it fits wth my previous observations. Maybe there are, sort of, introverts who are using these forums to come out more and make connections they wouldn't normally make.
Anyway, there's an attempt to "police" the forums but it's only partially effective, because some of the most difficult people are not picked up on. By that, I mean "psychologically difficult for others". I may be wrong but I do not see Coolout as one. I genuinely think he is extremely likable. Even so, everything Patriot says about him is still true. It's really a fascinating situation. There are others whom I believe are more harmful, even if most of the harm they cause is to themselves.
I sometimes wonder what causes your occasional outbreaks of anger. It must be a kind of building up of emotional tension, until it becomes too much to bear and you have to let it out in a kind of verbal explosion, even though you may regret it later. And there are others who clearly do not inhabit a world which may be described, by any stretch of the imagination, as reality. It's a strange reality to inhabit; this online world.
On the whole, we all probably regret it when anger plays its part. If you believe that your own anger issues from genuine and honest motives then, most likely, so do those others who anger you. Yes, there are those who turn everything into a personal confrontation but maybe we have to stand up against them whilst trying not to become too personally involved. It's inevitable that moderators rarely or never get to the root causes of disharmony. So we have to be able to discuss these things between ourselves, don't we? I mean, in order to try to create a genuinely happy and friendly community, those who habitually denigrate and misrepresent others should be countered. It's difficult to know how. Some people seem to live in a world of their imagination. Coolout is a special case. That's the problem. I wouldn't wish anything bad to happen to him and I probably speak for many others.
Whether there is luck in chess seems such a simple subject. Chess is a structured game and much of its rules are designed to diminish the element of chance. Yet, as anyone who is at all sensible knows, chance can never be totally eliminated from life, even by trying to design an arena wherein it's substantially diminished, such as chess. Yet there seem to be people here who believe and would have others believe that there's no luck at all in chess. It's such a crazy notion, though. Why should they believe it?
The reason you like Coolout is clearly laid out in this post. You, like him, consider yourself superior to other chess players as a group, and are delusional about your own dysfunction and irrationality. This malady seemingly extends to all of the people you like on the forums.
Watching you go back and forth gossiping about other posters is amusing...the lack of awareness is kind of stunning .
CooloutAC wrote:
Kotshmot wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
Kotshmot wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
Kotshmot wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
Kotshmot wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
Kotshmot wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
Kotshmot wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
Kotshmot wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
Kotshmot wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
Kotshmot wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
Kotshmot wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:
WowThisIsWeird wrote:
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.
So you believe that intuition is part of a skill set, but you believe it plays no part in chess players guessing moves?
You contradict yourself, because intuition itself in essence is not knowing why something is "precisely" right or wrong. Again muscle memory and reflexes are not "planned", they are not always even conscious, but they are also part of human ability and exercised skills. A soccer player of lesser skill, would not even pass the ball into the net mistakenly. You will find better players, will consistently get "lucky" according your logic, more often then lower skilled players. That is because luck is not part of it, their own actions are. You cannot simply call human ability a "level" of skill. It is simply skill and we know it is present because its a human force of action, but you measure its "level" over time.
"Intuition plays no part in humans guessing moves?"
I think you wont comprehend if I explain bevause I've already done it so many times. Intuition, that I include ln the definition of human ability, is the reason why you end up making a move.
Human ability including intuition and everything your brain is capable of tho, cannot take into account all functions of a chess move or a sequence of x amount of moves. Therefore when YOU or anyone make a chess move, there can be functions this move causes in the game, that your human ability didnt account for. These functions can benefit you; Since human ability did not account for these functions of chess move, human ability is not responsible for them and cannot take credit. Credit goes to something we call luck.
It might not be a concept easy to understand for everyone.
"A soccer player of lesser skill would not pass the ball in the net mistakenly"
Explain what you mean by that? It happens frequently, that a player attempts to cross the ball to his teammate, but it goes straight in the net. At the very top level this happens.
Just because you don't account or plan for the results of a move, doesn't mean a move wasn't based on skill by your own admission. Hence my examples of exercised skills like muscle memory or reflexes. But Skill and luck do not exist in the same action otherwise the words have no meaning my friend. Fact is, the move is determined by human force and not some force of luck. Two distinctly different things and the topic of this thread. You don't want to admit you are flat out contradicting yourself because you don't want to give up your flawed premise. You even replied to mpaetz that luck not in the game is not part of chess, yet you are making the same argument. At least he was identifying a separate force, you are referring to skill and luck as the same things or referring to nothing at all.
I've explained to you with practical examples how luck and skill can both be involved in a single action, everything is available in my posts to prove this. Your counter argument is "this can't be". Muscle memory is included in my definition of human ability.
What do you think about my soccer example, is it lucky or human ability if a kick meant to be a cross to your teammate goes straight in the net? Im asking because you say if you don't plan for the result of the move doesn't mean its not skill.
i'm claiming you have not. State otherwise here. Yes you keep saying you agree human ability, including intuition is part of ones skill set, yet you consider moves determined by them to come from forces of luck which is a contradiction. You are showing you don't understand the definition of the words.
I already answered your soccer example. But unlike you, i will prove it by repeating it again.
A much lesser skilled player would not even accidentally kick a ball into the net. As I said just because you can't measure level of skill from a single move, doesn't mean human ability is not the force determining the move. Skill is still present, but Levels of skill are measured over time. The reason why good players always seem to get "luckier" then bad players, by your logic, is because of their ability and no other force.
You realize the basic flaw in your argument and are now trying to say that human force and forces of luck are the same things when you imply that skill and luck exist in the same action. Again not only do you not understand the definitions of these words, you do not understand the purpose of them existing because you have no sense of sports in general. There is a reason we distinguish between the two and consider them an antithesis to each other. It is to determine human ability and fairness.
"A much lesser skilled player would not even accidentally kick a ball into the net."
You're saying this but I'm telling you it frequently happens in soccer. A player tries to cross a ball in but the cross is inaccurate, beats the goalie and goes in. You make a claim "this can't happen" but it does, this is a pattern in our debate (if you can call it that). Maybe I misunderstand your comment because I'm not sure why you would claim this kind of things don't happen.
So as it does happen for a fact, I repeat the question, do you consider this skill or luck?
I know it does, and I'm acknowledging it does, but what you are not understanding is that someone like me who has never played soccer would not even be able to pass the ball to another player, let alone in a spot that would go into the goal. Noone said it doesn't happen buddy, I'm saying it happens for a reason and its not luck. The reason this happens all the time, is because of these players awareness and skill even if not specifically planned.
I'm also saying, which you have ignored, is this is the reason better players get "luckier", according to your flawed logic, more often than worse players, because the fact is it is their human ability and force of action that causes the results and not a force of luck.
Okay, I got you. So you think a player accidentally scoring by failing a cross is not lucky, but instead the goal was due to the players skill. That I guess speaks for itself.
"Better players get luckier more often than worse players"
I haven't addressed the issue you mention because I don't know what you mean by this and it certainly doesn't follow my logic, heres why. A worse player will perform more actions on average, that result in an unplanned outcome. A better player will most of the time get an outcome they actually planned for, therefore less room to get an unplanned, lucky outcome.
Absolutely indeed. And please don't pretend you didn't think that is what I meant. Since we have been having this same conversation in circles for days...lol Its also the same reasons I used the examples of exercised skills like muscle memory and reflexes, or why I have constantly said actions from skill dont' even have to be conscious.
In fact your example of a soccer player is why ohters in this thread have pointed out it is skill for the chess player to bring himself to the position he was in on the board regardless of how precisely intended it was.
You don't know what I mean by better players get more lucky then others according your definition of luck? I think this is a case of you knowing indeed what I mean, but are once again pretending not to. lol
One getting to a winning position according to stockfish analysis means absolutely nothing if you're not aware that the position is winning and why, and how to convert it. Therefore this has no relevancy with my argument what so ever. If you understood what I've been talking about youd know this.
I actually don't know why better players would be luckier according to my definition, as I practically explained to you once again in my previous post why that is not the case. The higher the skill level, the less of a role luck has in your play. The higher the skill level, the more of your actions result in the outcome you planned, thus less room for unplanned lucky events. This is absolutely my stance. You must give a practical example if you want to say otherwise.
Wrong, good players will consistently get to winning positions even if they did not precisely plan them in the way they unfolded my friend. That is the proof it is there skill that brings them there and not an equal random chance. Your whole premise is flawed, and its why you have resorted to arguing luck and skill are the same things and exist together as the same force in the same actions.
your whole argument is that good players getting more consistent winning positions even if not precisely planned is luck. But then in the same breath you say that is less likely to happen. You are contradicting and confusing yourself. As even btickler told you, even the greatest skilled player cannot plan for all outcomes in a game. So are you saying Magnus gets lucky in every game he wins? Are you going to say that with a straight face?
I think you are once again confusing chance with luck. They are not the same things, luck is not just determined by the force of action, although you can't even define an action other then human ability ironically, but it also determined by the results my friend, and that is never known beforehand.
And I have given you practical examples, and you already agreed with them contradicting your whole argument. Intuition by definition, in its essence is unplanned, excercised skills like reflexes and muscle memory. This is why you have resorted to saying luck and skill are the same things and why you are no longer even having an honest debate. As far as I'm concerned you already lost by making this claim. Because you have already given up acknowledging any differences between them totally ignoring the definitions of the words and their reasons for existing.
If you have two 700 elo players playing against each other, every other move they end up in a winning position having no idea that its winning in any way. Two 2500 players will have much less of these moments and the position they end up in a much more precisely planned position. Again, this should be obvious but there you go. Just winning more doesn't mean you're getting luckier, it actually means you are more skilled.
Your thinking is way too topical here. Someone with a winning position can have made many more planned, precise moves, mean while his opponent who is losing couldve been frustrated and playing more random moves, but luckily escaping check mate. Winning does not equal lucky.
Intuition is something I include in the definition of human ability, this is all that matters. Human ability, intuition included will miss some functions of a move, or a sequence of x amount of moves. How these missed functions play out on the board I categorize as "unplanned". It is merely a word I need to use to distiguish from a move that human ability would have mapped entirely. Every time you claim my logic is flawed, you've misinterpreted what I said completely just like here.
The better players will end up in unplanned winning positions more, and will win more. This is why such a thing is not luck as you claim. period.
No my friend it is you who is thinking too topical. The point is that even when they don't plan their moves, their move determination is still from a force of human ability and skill, not some other force such as luck. Hence the definition of the word.
Yes, but you don't even know why it matters. If you consider intuition skill, then you consider something that is not planned for skill and it contradicts your whole argument. Furthermore again, humans can never map out everything entirely because they are not God and if they were able to do so the game would no longer be sporting. You are arguing something that is not reality and act as if humans are computer engines.
I think i have figured out your motive for lying to yourself now. Not only are you one of those who think lower skilled players only win by luck, You are probably another one who thinks skill is based on accuracy, and that only classical chess is real chess...lmao. Only a chess community would try to argue against what is common sports sense.
"If you consider intuition skill, then you consider something that is not planned for skill and it contradicts your whole argument."
There is no logical basis for this argument, this is just very topical word play that let's me know you are unable to follow.
There are two categories that I use for my argument. When you make a chess move, there are functions that this move has that human ability can account for (again, including intuition, mentioned just for you) and functions that human ability fails to account for. What human ability fails to account for Ive call unplanned but you can call it something else if this term contradicts with definition of intuition. You can call it an easter bunny for all I care, it doesn't matter for the logical basis of the argument.
Only thing that is needed to prove luck exists in chess is that human ability fails to account for all functions of a chess move you make.
Ps. Who are you tell me what I don't know and make up random motives for my arguments?
You call it "topical wordplay" because you don't understand it. Any "human function" is part of "human ability" my friend. You keep referring to the same thing as different things, and the different things as the same things, showing your total lack of comprehension. Human function is the part of human ability, and skill is not the same thing as luck and are not the same force of action. The only thing human ability of the player does not account for is, For example rolling dice, or as crazy otpmissed said a grandmother shooting the player dead.
I am being nice when I say you are simply ignorant of these common sensical facts, because the truth is you are stubbornly ignoring it and only pretending to not understand what is so obvious, because you know admitting otherwise makes you look foolish and doesn't suit your false narrative.
But you have yet to point out anything that human ability does not account for in chess. What I have pointed out is the choosing of ones colors as the only element of random chance, but still not an element of luck. You are in essence arguing that the players themelves are not the ones determining the moves, depending on whether it suits your narrative or not, lol, and I don't know you do this with a straight face.
"Human function is part of human ability"
What on earth is human function in this context and why is it relevant in this conversation?
It's honestly very amusing to hear you doubting my understanding. You are way over your head in this conversation, first step for you would be realizing this to even take a part in the debate. You make conclusion based on your own misunderstandings over what I and others have said.
He just makes things up if things don't go his way. It's like asking someone why they didn't turn in their TPS reports. And their response is you don't know anything about art, because today is Thursday, and as he's explained to you over and over, human ability is the most important thing when determining solar cycles.
I would say there is definitely some element of luck to chess.
If there wasn't an element of luck to it, how could it be so predictable what score you would get against another person of a different rating? If one player can win 90% of the time, what happens the rest of the time? The rest of the time the other player has some element of luck, gets the position he wants to have and scrapes through.
It's a fundamentally different kind of luck to luck in card games or dice games, but it's there for sure.
It's more like the luck of a quiz - yes on a certain level a quiz is purely dependent on skill (knowledge), but if the other player manages discovers questions that you are weak on and asks them of you, you could be in trouble. And a lot of that can be down to luck. There is also the luck of gross mistakes or blunders. A 2200 player will extremely rarely allow a piece en prise, but when it happens, it's your lucky day.
CooloutAC wrote:
Kotshmot wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
Kotshmot wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
Kotshmot wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
Kotshmot wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
Kotshmot wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
Kotshmot wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
Kotshmot wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
Kotshmot wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
Kotshmot wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
Kotshmot wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
Kotshmot wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:
WowThisIsWeird wrote:
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.
So you believe that intuition is part of a skill set, but you believe it plays no part in chess players guessing moves?
You contradict yourself, because intuition itself in essence is not knowing why something is "precisely" right or wrong. Again muscle memory and reflexes are not "planned", they are not always even conscious, but they are also part of human ability and exercised skills. A soccer player of lesser skill, would not even pass the ball into the net mistakenly. You will find better players, will consistently get "lucky" according your logic, more often then lower skilled players. That is because luck is not part of it, their own actions are. You cannot simply call human ability a "level" of skill. It is simply skill and we know it is present because its a human force of action, but you measure its "level" over time.
"Intuition plays no part in humans guessing moves?"
I think you wont comprehend if I explain bevause I've already done it so many times. Intuition, that I include ln the definition of human ability, is the reason why you end up making a move.
Human ability including intuition and everything your brain is capable of tho, cannot take into account all functions of a chess move or a sequence of x amount of moves. Therefore when YOU or anyone make a chess move, there can be functions this move causes in the game, that your human ability didnt account for. These functions can benefit you; Since human ability did not account for these functions of chess move, human ability is not responsible for them and cannot take credit. Credit goes to something we call luck.
It might not be a concept easy to understand for everyone.
"A soccer player of lesser skill would not pass the ball in the net mistakenly"
Explain what you mean by that? It happens frequently, that a player attempts to cross the ball to his teammate, but it goes straight in the net. At the very top level this happens.
Just because you don't account or plan for the results of a move, doesn't mean a move wasn't based on skill by your own admission. Hence my examples of exercised skills like muscle memory or reflexes. But Skill and luck do not exist in the same action otherwise the words have no meaning my friend. Fact is, the move is determined by human force and not some force of luck. Two distinctly different things and the topic of this thread. You don't want to admit you are flat out contradicting yourself because you don't want to give up your flawed premise. You even replied to mpaetz that luck not in the game is not part of chess, yet you are making the same argument. At least he was identifying a separate force, you are referring to skill and luck as the same things or referring to nothing at all.
I've explained to you with practical examples how luck and skill can both be involved in a single action, everything is available in my posts to prove this. Your counter argument is "this can't be". Muscle memory is included in my definition of human ability.
What do you think about my soccer example, is it lucky or human ability if a kick meant to be a cross to your teammate goes straight in the net? Im asking because you say if you don't plan for the result of the move doesn't mean its not skill.
i'm claiming you have not. State otherwise here. Yes you keep saying you agree human ability, including intuition is part of ones skill set, yet you consider moves determined by them to come from forces of luck which is a contradiction. You are showing you don't understand the definition of the words.
I already answered your soccer example. But unlike you, i will prove it by repeating it again.
A much lesser skilled player would not even accidentally kick a ball into the net. As I said just because you can't measure level of skill from a single move, doesn't mean human ability is not the force determining the move. Skill is still present, but Levels of skill are measured over time. The reason why good players always seem to get "luckier" then bad players, by your logic, is because of their ability and no other force.
You realize the basic flaw in your argument and are now trying to say that human force and forces of luck are the same things when you imply that skill and luck exist in the same action. Again not only do you not understand the definitions of these words, you do not understand the purpose of them existing because you have no sense of sports in general. There is a reason we distinguish between the two and consider them an antithesis to each other. It is to determine human ability and fairness.
"A much lesser skilled player would not even accidentally kick a ball into the net."
You're saying this but I'm telling you it frequently happens in soccer. A player tries to cross a ball in but the cross is inaccurate, beats the goalie and goes in. You make a claim "this can't happen" but it does, this is a pattern in our debate (if you can call it that). Maybe I misunderstand your comment because I'm not sure why you would claim this kind of things don't happen.
So as it does happen for a fact, I repeat the question, do you consider this skill or luck?
I know it does, and I'm acknowledging it does, but what you are not understanding is that someone like me who has never played soccer would not even be able to pass the ball to another player, let alone in a spot that would go into the goal. Noone said it doesn't happen buddy, I'm saying it happens for a reason and its not luck. The reason this happens all the time, is because of these players awareness and skill even if not specifically planned.
I'm also saying, which you have ignored, is this is the reason better players get "luckier", according to your flawed logic, more often than worse players, because the fact is it is their human ability and force of action that causes the results and not a force of luck.
Okay, I got you. So you think a player accidentally scoring by failing a cross is not lucky, but instead the goal was due to the players skill. That I guess speaks for itself.
"Better players get luckier more often than worse players"
I haven't addressed the issue you mention because I don't know what you mean by this and it certainly doesn't follow my logic, heres why. A worse player will perform more actions on average, that result in an unplanned outcome. A better player will most of the time get an outcome they actually planned for, therefore less room to get an unplanned, lucky outcome.
Absolutely indeed. And please don't pretend you didn't think that is what I meant. Since we have been having this same conversation in circles for days...lol Its also the same reasons I used the examples of exercised skills like muscle memory and reflexes, or why I have constantly said actions from skill dont' even have to be conscious.
In fact your example of a soccer player is why ohters in this thread have pointed out it is skill for the chess player to bring himself to the position he was in on the board regardless of how precisely intended it was.
You don't know what I mean by better players get more lucky then others according your definition of luck? I think this is a case of you knowing indeed what I mean, but are once again pretending not to. lol
One getting to a winning position according to stockfish analysis means absolutely nothing if you're not aware that the position is winning and why, and how to convert it. Therefore this has no relevancy with my argument what so ever. If you understood what I've been talking about youd know this.
I actually don't know why better players would be luckier according to my definition, as I practically explained to you once again in my previous post why that is not the case. The higher the skill level, the less of a role luck has in your play. The higher the skill level, the more of your actions result in the outcome you planned, thus less room for unplanned lucky events. This is absolutely my stance. You must give a practical example if you want to say otherwise.
Wrong, good players will consistently get to winning positions even if they did not precisely plan them in the way they unfolded my friend. That is the proof it is there skill that brings them there and not an equal random chance. Your whole premise is flawed, and its why you have resorted to arguing luck and skill are the same things and exist together as the same force in the same actions.
your whole argument is that good players getting more consistent winning positions even if not precisely planned is luck. But then in the same breath you say that is less likely to happen. You are contradicting and confusing yourself. As even btickler told you, even the greatest skilled player cannot plan for all outcomes in a game. So are you saying Magnus gets lucky in every game he wins? Are you going to say that with a straight face?
I think you are once again confusing chance with luck. They are not the same things, luck is not just determined by the force of action, although you can't even define an action other then human ability ironically, but it also determined by the results my friend, and that is never known beforehand.
And I have given you practical examples, and you already agreed with them contradicting your whole argument. Intuition by definition, in its essence is unplanned, excercised skills like reflexes and muscle memory. This is why you have resorted to saying luck and skill are the same things and why you are no longer even having an honest debate. As far as I'm concerned you already lost by making this claim. Because you have already given up acknowledging any differences between them totally ignoring the definitions of the words and their reasons for existing.
If you have two 700 elo players playing against each other, every other move they end up in a winning position having no idea that its winning in any way. Two 2500 players will have much less of these moments and the position they end up in a much more precisely planned position. Again, this should be obvious but there you go. Just winning more doesn't mean you're getting luckier, it actually means you are more skilled.
Your thinking is way too topical here. Someone with a winning position can have made many more planned, precise moves, mean while his opponent who is losing couldve been frustrated and playing more random moves, but luckily escaping check mate. Winning does not equal lucky.
Intuition is something I include in the definition of human ability, this is all that matters. Human ability, intuition included will miss some functions of a move, or a sequence of x amount of moves. How these missed functions play out on the board I categorize as "unplanned". It is merely a word I need to use to distiguish from a move that human ability would have mapped entirely. Every time you claim my logic is flawed, you've misinterpreted what I said completely just like here.
The better players will end up in unplanned winning positions more, and will win more. This is why such a thing is not luck as you claim. period.
No my friend it is you who is thinking too topical. The point is that even when they don't plan their moves, their move determination is still from a force of human ability and skill, not some other force such as luck. Hence the definition of the word.
Yes, but you don't even know why it matters. If you consider intuition skill, then you consider something that is not planned for skill and it contradicts your whole argument. Furthermore again, humans can never map out everything entirely because they are not God and if they were able to do so the game would no longer be sporting. You are arguing something that is not reality and act as if humans are computer engines.
I think i have figured out your motive for lying to yourself now. Not only are you one of those who think lower skilled players only win by luck, You are probably another one who thinks skill is based on accuracy, and that only classical chess is real chess...lmao. Only a chess community would try to argue against what is common sports sense.
"If you consider intuition skill, then you consider something that is not planned for skill and it contradicts your whole argument."
There is no logical basis for this argument, this is just very topical word play that let's me know you are unable to follow.
There are two categories that I use for my argument. When you make a chess move, there are functions that this move has that human ability can account for (again, including intuition, mentioned just for you) and functions that human ability fails to account for. What human ability fails to account for Ive call unplanned but you can call it something else if this term contradicts with definition of intuition. You can call it an easter bunny for all I care, it doesn't matter for the logical basis of the argument.
Only thing that is needed to prove luck exists in chess is that human ability fails to account for all functions of a chess move you make.
Ps. Who are you tell me what I don't know and make up random motives for my arguments?
You call it "topical wordplay" because you don't understand it. Any "human function" is part of "human ability" my friend. You keep referring to the same thing as different things, and the different things as the same things, showing your total lack of comprehension. Human function is the part of human ability, and skill is not the same thing as luck and are not the same force of action. The only thing human ability of the player does not account for is, For example rolling dice, or as crazy otpmissed said a grandmother shooting the player dead.
I am being nice when I say you are simply ignorant of these common sensical facts, because the truth is you are stubbornly ignoring it and only pretending to not understand what is so obvious, because you know admitting otherwise makes you look foolish and doesn't suit your false narrative.
But you have yet to point out anything that human ability does not account for in chess. What I have pointed out is the choosing of ones colors as the only element of random chance, but still not an element of luck. You are in essence arguing that the players themelves are not the ones determining the moves, depending on whether it suits your narrative or not, lol, and I don't know you do this with a straight face.
"Human function is part of human ability"
What on earth is human function in this context and why is it relevant in this conversation?
It's honestly very amusing to hear you doubting my understanding. You are way over your head in this conversation, first step for you would be realizing this to even take a part in the debate. You make conclusion based on your own misunderstandings over what I and others have said.
Oh Jeez now you are acting like Patriot. I am pointing out the only thing determinizes a players moves is human function my friend. You just claimed some other "function" is, and if so then point it out...lol Explain what this other force of action is, because none exists in the game of chess! The reason why you sound confused and ignorant, is because you are trying to say luck and skill are the same thing, and are now claiming certain functions of the players determinations are not part of their human ability. You are a walking contradiction.
Again for the love of all that is honest, at least look up the dam definitions of the words luck and skill and at least try to debate that before you continue to chase your tail not even knowing what you are saying at this point.
How ironic you talk to me of how to properly debate, when you ignore the topic of the thread and the definitions as of the very words skill and luck as they apply to gaming...
Rather than repeating my points for the 5th time in a row just for you I'll save some time for both of us and quit until something relevant comes up. All questions you have would be answered just by reading and actually comprehending what Ive written before.
CooloutAC wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:
He just makes things up if things don't go his way. It's like asking someone why they didn't turn in their TPS reports. And their response is you don't know anything about art, because today is Thursday, and as he's explained to you over and over, human ability is the most important thing when determining solar cycles.
The way you get someone to believe your claims, is by proving them. Who made what up? Sounds like you are the one making stuff up, just like you left out the part about Success or failure, or ones own efforts and abilities, from the cambridge definition you posted to try and argue that chance and luck are the same things. <<<< see what I did there? Give it a try, or continue to concede.
I don't think proof would make any difference in this case. You've already been shown, many times, examples of luck in chess, as well as other pursuits. You don't like it, so you come up with all sorts of diversions. It's ok. It's just what you do.
I have no problem with people saying luck and chance are the same thing. People might say there is a chance they could win the lottery, and it would take luck to do it. Just like there is a chance I could hit the flagstick playing golf from 100 yards, but it would take a lot of luck to do it. Things that happen in the world aren't always caused by people, so whether it's called chance or luck (or fortune or other synonym) it really doesn't matter when it comes to the common every day understanding of the word. When people say "good luck" before a chess game or some other encounter it doesn't mean there should be an argument that luck doesn't exist, it just means they wish you well. Or if people say you got lucky at some particular thing, it just means they did. Something happened that is unusual and beyond the scope of just skill or talent. If you want to convince yourself otherwise, go ahead, but you are just swimming upstream.