Is there such thing as "luck" in chess?

And I do know that in your belief, calling something "pure hogwash" is a refutation. I didn't expect anything else.

I read posts by people I like and have respect for, because I assume they may be interesting. I don't read most posts and that includes those who mention me written by you and one or two others.

I know you pretend to debunk misinformation and you use that as an excuse to be hostile to others. The trouble is that misinformation, to you, is anything that your single brain cell can't handle.

Most people who are fairly bright know that you aren't. Some people who aren't may believe that you are the biggest pygmy in sight. Now say your little piece and get lost, because you boasted that you could refute any argument. Clearly you were lying again and you would only wish to do that behind my back, like on that Covid thread where you routinely abuse others who disagree with you and whom you have blocked, so they can't answer you. You're a troll.

No, please explain.

I'm waiting for your explanation of why psychic powers are unreal, o feeble-minded one.

first of all it wasn't necessarily mishit,  it could be the receiver who missed the ball or wasn't in the proper place to receive the setup.  It could of been the poor skill of the goalie.    If you want to see a real mishit put me in that situation lol. But the reason they were in those positions in the first place was by design.  This is why according to your false logic good players always get luckier then bad players,  because the truth is even when not precisely planned they put themselves in better positions just like chess pieces on a chessboard.      Second of all absolutely YES.     Because no other force of action hit the ball except the player himself.

Nothing is completely random in your scenario for the reasons I have described above.  It seems you don't even know what "completely random" means.  

Excuse me for laughing (at you) but I imagined you were going to go into the complexities of why "science" denies something that, to others, is true. I know that it's because scientists have become incapable of designing workable experiments on the subject, due to unreasonable constraints they impose on themselves, whereas in the early 70s, many experiments were devised, which appeared to support what the majority of people in the World believe to be true. You claim there's a consensus between science and something called "society at large". Well, at one time, "science" thought that if we travelled at more than 50 miles per hour, we would asphyxiate. So much for "science's" views in general. They aren't always right. (I think you mean "many scientists", because science is a methodology, without personal opinions and of course, many scientists are religious and so believe in the supernatural.)

So you're just taking the safe option, which you believe makes you look respectable, in the eyes of "science and society". Not interested in truth, of course. That's dangerous, esecially to you. So there's no burden of proof, partially because I know you couldn't follow a proof in any case. If scientists are incapable of desgning experiments that allow the effects they are hoping to monitor, it's a bit like going to the moon to analyse atmospheric hydrogen. Every experiment I've looked at for the past 20 years has been unfit for purpose due to bad experimental design. By and large they're only humans, with IQs less than 150.

You aren't. Stop obsessing over IQ and stick to the topic.

I have to admit that, occasionally, I have mentined things to wind little old you up. Your brain'll explode one day. Anyway, forget Einstein, Hawking and whever else you've mysteriosly conjoured up and try to do something that in my experience you've never done before. Stick to the subject and don't sidetrack. A bit difficult for you? Make something up like you usually do. I must say I'm disappointed in you. I hoped I might see your brain cell glimmer slightly. It can be invented or dishonest as usual but stay on topic. You're so easily distracted. I just have to write "IQ" and you're off into one of your paroxisms.

Regarding thermodynamics, it is my personal suspicion that "entropy" is not a truly universal phenomenon, because there are two contrasting processes at work in our steady state universe. Entropy is the most importsnt in its way because it governs localised phenomena ... specifically, phenomena that are dominated by the presence of mass. In plain talk, that's the Sun, the Earth and us.

I think it is an absolute necessity that there is a more dominant, universal process, which is dominated by the presence of space. It hasn't been discovered as yet. It will only be dicovered when the Big Bang is thrown in the bin. That isn't likely to happen inside 25 years, before the present generation of dominat theorists has retired. Then, my son's generation will be dominant. Things will change. They are characterised by much more curiosity. The present generation of scientists is a product of the 1980s, which had its good points but which was very conformist and conservative. Soon, they will be gone.

I keep typing an i when it should be a y. It's a recent phenomenon. Thanks for the correction. I don't use a spellchecker and many of the symbols have worn off the keys. I'm deliberately continuing to use it because I'm slowly learning to touch type, as a result.

There's no turtle shell here. I'm expecting you to answer my last two posts in some fashion, before I continue. And it has to be relevant. I don't expect ability but I'm trying to help you develop something called intelligence.

     I doubt anyone could stop you. Just ignore any other posts and continue sniping at each other.

No because to you, it's untrue. Just engage with it.

I understand you are what they call a "naturalist". Used to be "logical-positivist". A positivist is someone who depends on positive evidence only. That's material evidence. "Logical" refers to logical constructions on it. It's out of date because it's understood to be insufficient and incomplete but a determinist might go in for it, because they basically believe in endless trains of mechanical causality.

There's an organisation called "The Brights". Richard Dawkins is a member. They might interest you, whereas to me they are off the map. I was brought up to be a logical positivist, because my father's ideas were dominated by it. I was inflenced by a brilliant girlfriend when I was 18 or maybe 19. She got me to suspend my disbelief. Things started to happen and it turned out I'm a powerful psychic. I always had extraordinary concentration and a near-photographic memory, which I think are necessary. Especially the concentration but also the memory is a very important factor.

I'm going to legitimately talk about IQ. I don't know if you're ever done any IQ tests but extreme concentration is necessary to achieve an extremely high score, because you have to do the test questions fast, so you can't get lost and have to start again. And quite often, strong powers of concentration are just as necessary as strong, deductive powers. I haven't done any IQ tests since about 1978.

I get what you're saying, of course. IQ tests are most reliable for the normal run of average people. Brilliant people, they are not going to assess accurately. I also agree that it's obsolescent. Not obsolete entirely because it's still used. I think that personality profiling is a lot more dangerous and useless because that has very little basis in fact.

Even so, your  constant attacks and sniping just make you look really stupid and basically completely outclassed. I mean, you are but that rubs it in and makes it clear. And I was talking about the concentration necessary in doing such a test, which I presumed you have never soiled yourself by doing.

In my experience, the online IQ tests do not go up to 160. I scored both 135 and 85 on one by first getting every question right, and then deliberately getting every question wrong. Note that the range is skewed above average.

Yes, many online IQ test sites give high results...what better way to get more hits?

As I mentioned, the extremes of the scale are very inaccurate.  The difference between 140 and 160?  0.61%  The difference between 160 and 170?  0.008%.  So, unless the IQ test you are taking has thousands of questions on it ...that difference represents a single question.  Most IQ tests have 100 questions or less.  Ergo, the results cannot be remotely accurate past the 99th percentile.