Any loss of any GM to any real beginner is going to be due to lapse of skill on the GM's part (such as missing a back rank mate in one or the like), not because the beginner choose the top engine moves "randomly" for 40 moves in a row.
Of course. But this theoretical thinking will help you materialize the role of luck in chess. There is a realistic probability for any beginner to play one stockfish move in a game without understanding the true effects of the move. This means a probability (alltho unrealistic) exists for a beginner to hit your example of 40 engine moves in a row. Im sure everyone would agree this would showcase extreme luck. We might not see this happen in a couple life times, but more common examples of this same effect happen in every game, maybe not always in decisive fashion.
The reason humans have streaks and slumps is not because they go on lucky streaks, its because our ability ebs and flows which is what makes us human. A player getting 40 stock fish moves in a row does not mean some force of luck determined his moves. He determined those moves himself and was simply a genius playing at a high skill level for a day even if he does not know why he was doing them or remembered why afterwards.
You seem to be stuck on this notion that anything one does not plan for is luck. Yet you agree intuition is skill which contradicts your very point and I will keep reminding you of this. As well as exercised skills like reflexes and muscle memory.
According to your logic, the better players get lucky more often. But the truth is that is because no other force but their own actions is playing a role in their success, hence the definitions of the words.
The only thing I care for you to pick up from my post is that it is a fact that a beginner can play 40 stockfish moves in a row. That concludes that a beginner that normally plays at the level of a 700, can beat Magnus.
Now wether you want to think thats luck or not, is up to you. But objectely we can easily break this down and compare this to other real life examples and prove it should be called luck.
For anyone who understands probability this is clear as a day but Im putting in effort to force you to understand as well lol
Are you even listening to what you are saying. The only thing you want me to pick up from your post is "a beginner can play 40 stockfish moves in a row". Are you saying this with a straight face? hahahaahaaa. And if he did it you are asking me if I think that is luck? Absolutely not if he was the one determining the moves. Plain and simple. The player would have had to have a stroke of genius my friend, not some force of luck. lmao.... I can't believe how crazy people are in this thread. I guess thats what happens when we are debating something that can't be seen or measured, or as Patriot called it an "unseen supernatural force".
The problem is in the context of the game, we can clearly identify and point to elements where it can exist. Human ability is not one of them, and is its antithesis by definition and which your whole argument contradicts. You talk of probability, which is not luck. Chance and luck are two different things. So I still don't' understand how you are arguing a word you don't even bother to define. Nothing is more dishonest.
You can't force Coolout to make any logically sound conclusion because whatever he reads, the same response is always the same.
"Ahah I think like this so you stupid, ahah." *Random rambling, random rambling.*
I guess we aren't continuing this for now.
is that what I said? really? lol wow bud, you do realize people are reading these comments right? It seems you have conceded the argument.
Yea, I will concede the argument after proving my point about 12 times. You've won as there is no way to force you to logical thinking. You're a star now in the eyes of these people.
I will comment if something relevant comes up
.
Any loss of any GM to any real beginner is going to be due to lapse of skill on the GM's part (such as missing a back rank mate in one or the like), not because the beginner choose the top engine moves "randomly" for 40 moves in a row.
Of course. But this theoretical thinking will help you materialize the role of luck in chess. There is a realistic probability for any beginner to play one stockfish move in a game without understanding the true effects of the move. This means a probability (alltho unrealistic) exists for a beginner to hit your example of 40 engine moves in a row. Im sure everyone would agree this would showcase extreme luck. We might not see this happen in a couple life times, but more common examples of this same effect happen in every game, maybe not always in decisive fashion.
The reason humans have streaks and slumps is not because they go on lucky streaks, its because our ability ebs and flows which is what makes us human. A player getting 40 stock fish moves in a row does not mean some force of luck determined his moves. He determined those moves himself and was simply a genius playing at a high skill level for a day even if he does not know why he was doing them or remembered why afterwards.
You seem to be stuck on this notion that anything one does not plan for is luck. Yet you agree intuition is skill which contradicts your very point and I will keep reminding you of this. As well as exercised skills like reflexes and muscle memory.
According to your logic, the better players get lucky more often. But the truth is that is because no other force but their own actions is playing a role in their success, hence the definitions of the words.
The only thing I care for you to pick up from my post is that it is a fact that a beginner can play 40 stockfish moves in a row. That concludes that a beginner that normally plays at the level of a 700, can beat Magnus.
Now wether you want to think thats luck or not, is up to you. But objectely we can easily break this down and compare this to other real life examples and prove it should be called luck.
For anyone who understands probability this is clear as a day but Im putting in effort to force you to understand as well lol
Are you even listening to what you are saying. The only thing you want me to pick up from your post is "a beginner can play 40 stockfish moves in a row". Are you saying this with a straight face? hahahaahaaa. And if he did it you are asking me if I think that is luck? Absolutely not if he was the one determining the moves. Plain and simple. The player would have had to have a stroke of genius my friend, not some force of luck. lmao.... I can't believe how crazy people are in this thread. I guess thats what happens when we are debating something that can't be seen or measured, or as Patriot called it an "unseen supernatural force".
The problem is in the context of the game, we can clearly identify and point to elements where it can exist. Human ability is not one of them, and is its antithesis by definition and which your whole argument contradicts. You talk of probability, which is not luck. Chance and luck are two different things. So I still don't' understand how you are arguing a word you don't even bother to define. Nothing is more dishonest.
You cant even hand feed Coolout any logically sound conclusion because whatever he reads, the response is always the same.
"Ahah I think like this so you stupid, ahah." *Random rambling, random rambling.*
I guess we aren't continuing this for now.