Clearly i'm not a superior chess player hahah. You got it backwards, but when I point out to people like you why its wrong to think chess is too hard for society to understand, or that speed chess is not real chess, or that players should resign and not flag, or that lower skilled players only win by luck, or that chess is not a sport, its to point out that you are the one with a superiority complex that is evil and clouding your judgement. And its to help support these false beliefs that people claim there is luck in all sports. When you do it, like others, its to relieve yourself from guilt for disrespecting the game and disparaging its players and fans.
Now the reason why I like optimissed more then you, is because they actually play games on their account and don't just come here to personally troll people on the forums, although unfortunately she does that too.
Read carefully. I did not say you consider your a superior chess player. You consider yourself morally and emotionally superior to the entire chess community, though.
The reason you like Optimissed better might be because you still haven't figured out he's male despite countless references and clues.
. You can dig up my opinion on this in many "who's the hottest female chess player" or "how do I find a girlfriend on chess.com" threads over the years...
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.
The same can be said to you, and why i refer to you as chasing your own tail. The reason for this is as I stated above. Learn the definitions of the words and how they apply to gaming, otherwise you must give your own. You are continuing to claim different words mean the same things, and failing to understand that certain words do. And I don't think it is your lack of comprehension, I think it is your dishonesty with yourself.
Just so you know, i'm not here to fix your superiority complex or convince your of anything related to chess. I'm only here to counter your false narrative on a public forum for all those who don't know any better reading in the shadows and will continue to do so. They should know chess is a game with no elements of luck and is based on excercised skill is what makes it sporting and different from other board games. Coming up with other reasons for why players win or lose is a problem people have dealing with this fact, and unfortunately its far too common in a community ridden with ego maniacs and personality disorders, which stem from 100s of years of poor tradition and indoctrination.
None of "those for whom you heroically correct my false narrative" agree with your laughable stuff. Chess is a more complex conversation but you deny the simplest of facts.
You think it's based on skill rather than luck for a soccer player to miss hit a pass to another player that accidentally goes straight in the net. I'll let you have your strange opinion but atleat understand that nobody agrees with you, it's not about my evil narrative lol