Is there such thing as "luck" in chess?

lucky

When I said earlier you ramble, that first paragraph is it. Just total garbage lmao. I dont care to compare chess to another sports what I said is its a more difficult discussion in terms of luck. Flagging isn't lucky, players can resign when they want. Chess is hard for some people, easy for some. We done with this? Wasting time in this, deflecting the relevant points is why I dont like to have this one sided debate with you.

And you're right, it is skill to be well positioned to score a goal. All of this leading up to the moment can be skill, but still a failed kick that leads to a good outcome is luck. Your argument here is "there were many skillful actions done leading up to that lucky action, so it can't be luck". No, because goal still wouldn't be scored without the failed, lucky kick, so your argument is wrong.

There was no human ability involved in the goal scoring moment, because the kick FAILED, but goal was still scored. Same goes with chess but with different examples.

     You are both correct. It was a gross mistake by Ivanchuk--human error giving him a deserved loss. As Patriot pointed out, it was a lucky break for Anand because 99%+ of the time a GM will instantly find any mate in one. Anand was lucky to be there the one occasion out of hundreds where such a mistake would occur.

    Bad "skill" by Ivanchuck but a lucky break for Anand--certainly his allowing a mate-in-one situation wasn't superior skill.

Vague recollections is all you ever seem to have...

You always have a litany of reasons why your memory could not be at fault...but anyone could ask themselves based on the boasts and exaggerations of your body of posts as a whole whether it seems likely I am the compulsive liar here.

You've never gotten the best of me.  That's wishful thinking and revisionist history.  Keep writing long and convoluted posts trying to reason your way out...

I don't think I have ever claimed to have "quick wits"...that is something *you* say to justify why you can't make any headway.  I can't really count the number of times you have said something along the lines of "you have a way with words sometimes, and less intelligent posters can be fooled by this, but to someone more discerning, your words are empty..." yadda yadda yadda.  The "my friends know I can handle myself which is why they don't speak up" rationale is somewhat newer.  Must be nice to have a ready-made reason to assume why people might agree with me, but not with you, on any given subject .

As I said, many posters here are imprecise.  We don't agree.  My opinions on this subject predate your arrival here by years, as I already documented earlier in the thread.  

Professional help is needed for at least 3 posters I could name here, but I'm not one of them.  You'll note that I verified the truth of your position on Poker being a sport because I don't need to contort things to be right.

But my dad can beat up your dad...

Lol.  Why would I care about any of your blitz games?  You really need to get over your little vendetta.  Just because you can't get any satisfaction in our exchanges does not mean you are as important to me as I apparently am to you...

No, dictionaries list definitions that people believe, not to "keep them happy", but to reflect actual word usage.  See:  "irregardless".  If people mis-use a word often enough for long enough, it will end up in the dictionary.

As for making it seem I am more clever...even if that were my goal, I don't really have to.  You do all that work for me.

Case in point. Sport. The word had a broader range of meanings before the dictionaries decided that it essentially meant athletics.

"Its not a failed kick because it ended up being a goal"

So a kick that was meant to be a pass, but was misshit to another direction, cannot be considered failed just because there was a great outcome? Thats just fundamentally wrong thinking (consistently bad with the other stuff tbf).

"Winner is always lucky"

No, this is just your assumption based on nothing. Luck as I describe it is completely random and doesn't correlate with winning or losing. A losing team could get a lucky goal, a lucky block, anything and still lose the game. Someone who fails a kick 3 times in a game and still doesn't lose the ball still might be on the losing side. So I don't know where you're going with this? Just lost I guess with desperate rambling?

"This should already be common sense and self evident,  but the word exists as it applies to gaming to differentiate between human force of action,  and other forces out of ones control,  specifically for people like who you lack a comprehension of this simple distinction.   This is to prevent sore losers and poor sports like yourself,  from diminishing rightful human achievement.   "

When you roll the dice, its not in your control which number you land. When you fail your kicking technique, it is not in your control where the ball goes.

In a succesful attempt you control what happens but in a failed attempt you have lost control of the outcome. In a succesful attempt, will you get the desired outcome? Yes. In a failed attempt will you get the desired outcome? Yes or no, there is no way for a human to know because you've lost control of the situation. Therefore a positive outcome following a failed attempt must be considered luck.

When people agree, threads die.

The care and feeding for your Optimissed Turing Test Bot:

Base premises:

1. Never use links or sources, these can be refuted.

2. Use circular arguments, but escalating ones that obfuscate your repetitiveness

   - Refer to your own intelligence as a source of authority/expertise

   - Denigrate the intelligence of those opposing you

   - Use your family for escalation...if arguing philosophy/psychology, use own degree, then escalate to wife's career...if arguing science/logic, then use own studies prior to switching majors, then escalate to son's career

Emergency measures:

1. If intelligence is threatened by use of other authorities, disparage and dismiss (Wikipedia, dictionaries, Einstein, Hawking, Thermodynamics as a branch of science...whatever it takes)

2. If further threatened, use direct namecalling (idiot, imbecile, et al)

3. If further threatened, question mental stability and/or invent psychological diagnoses, back up with wife's career as needed

Throwing off the scent:

1. Sprinkle in anecdotes that aggrandize yourself periodically

2. Make periodic appeals to people's better natures directly following the worst usages of emergency measures outlined above

3. Tell other posters they used to be likable, or would be likable, etc. if they were not doing XYZ.  Escalate to telling them everyone does not like them, as needed.

4. Cast periodic aspersions regarding opposing posters integrity/morality if you get caught in a mistake...accuse other posters of making things up.

Bail Out:

1. When completely cornered, blame other posters for being unreasonable and driving you from thread, then go away for 3-5 days, rinse and repeat whole process

----

I will issue a challenge here. 

- Pick any Optimissed reply of over 10 lines in length that is not in agreement with the person being replied to and I will map the techniques above to the reply.  I score one point for each technique so mapped.

- Post any one paragraph claim you like, and I will refute it in Optimissed style by either modifying an actual Optimissed reply (names changed to protect the innocent type stuff), or I will fabricate one entirely using the above Turing Test-ish parameters.  You have to tell me if the reply is modified from an actual Optimissed reply, or if I made it up.  If you guess right, I again score 1 point for each technique used, if you guess wrong I score double.

- If you manage to stump me and I score zero, I will refrain from posting for 24 hours for each occurrence.

- If I score more than 5 points, you must post the line "Damn, Btickler is right.", alone and otherwise unadorned in a single post.

Losing a game of chess is ALWAYS ones own fault, or, luck. This specific game seems to be both. Of course it was Ivanchuks own fault he lost, but it was good luck on the part of Anand. Nobody expects a grandmaster to miss a simple mate in one. Just because one person is at fault doesn't mean the other person doesn't benefit from luck. 

I'm glad you brought up animals eating balls. Today there was a story from Florida. Ormond Beach. An alligator came out of the water, wandered onto the green, and snatched up a golf ball. It's newsworthy because it was an alligator. Usually it's a fox, coyote, bird, raccoon, or bobcat. But it can be other animals as well. You said such a scenario is, and I quote, "unthinkable". Yet it happens literally every single day. Which is why rules are in place to deal with unlucky situations. They are part of the game, and so rules exist to deal with those situations when they arise. 

The other examples are luck as well. And people just have do deal with them. 

To be clear, I didn't misquote anything. I quoted EXACTLY the dictionary definition. What you are all bent out of shape over is that I didn't quote ALL the definitions. And why should I? Lots of words have multiple definitions. And there are many sources for all those definitions. It's pretty absurd that you would expect me to quote all definitions, from all sources.

I quoted ONE definition of luck, and accurately.  There are several others. If you think that's "dishonest" then to be perfectly honest, you are nuts. 

And becomes even more diffuse since many languages and countries use sport for both physical and mental activities, so in today's global world people from those places tend to stick with their local variations instead of current, english definition. 

Let's be more precise.  Turing is *now* held in high regard.  But he was chemically castrated and driven to suicide by a backwards and repressed society as the reward for his contributions in a travesty that defies belief in its sheer injustice.  But hey, at least they left him alone long enough to finish his work before screwing him over .

The reason for his Turing Test was that he considered there to be no good way to directly prove that a machine can think rather than just follow its programming, ergo his Turing Test was something he considered to best indirect proof.  He can hardly be faulted for not knowing better, given that his "computer" was incredibly rudimentary.

Please just stop trying to talk about programming.  Whenever you talk about "Boolean code", it's cringeworthy.  There are Boolean data types and Boolean expressions, and there is binary code.  

Any astute observer would have divined my position about the potential validity of Turing Tests in determining intelligence by my premise of creating a Turing Test that shows how predictable and bereft of actual thought and content your posts are.

See?  Happily refuted.

You know when you lose an argument, but you just refuse to admit it to yourself.  It's sad, ultimately...because you're going to shuffle off this mortal coil never having unburdened yourself of your ego and insecurities.  Quite a poignant lesson to others who observe your flailing about trying to hold your delusional vision of yourself together.  It's only going to get worse as your cognitive decline becomes more pronounced.  Why your wife hasn't been able to help you come to terms with this, I cannot say...but perhaps you stonewall her the same way you stonewall everyone else.  I wish you luck in life...but not in chess.

     Again you arrogate unto yourself sole authority to define "luck" and "chess". Throughout this thread several other definitions of both terms have been given. Your crazy convolutions of logic to claim there is no form of luck in any sport, or that things that happen very rarely aren't actually part of the game lead people to have grave doubts about anything you say. And regularly claiming others believe things they have never said, and even expressly denied further undermines your credibility.

     Awaiting another diatribe simply repeating that your opinions are fact and those who disagree are fakes, trolls or intellectually incapable of understanding the enlightened view you offer them.