Again, a lesser player would not have such a successful mistake, no matter how much you think he miscalculated.
Wrong.
In soccer especially you will find the better players get unintended goals more often thAn those of lesser skill.
Right.
thats because their own actions is the sole determining force.
Wrong.
So you are telling me in the same situation i could score a goal? Wrong. hahah.
And thankyou for saying i'm right on the second point. Which is a simple way of proving my argument. Which i have said multiple times to koshmot and which he denied and mpaetz pretending I didn't reply with.
And as for the 3rd point. Please tell me what other force was there besides the players?
The second point the way you put it here is correct but it has nothing to do with your argument, let alone proving it.
Best players get more unintended goals, because their skill allows them to be at the right areas more and score more in total. A lesser skilled player will score less in total, but a bigger % of those goals scored will in the long run be unintended goals. This is what actually is relevant to your point.
Why this doesn't help your argument? Again, skillful actions leading to a lucky event does not undo the luck.
I mean, btickler agrees with you, and that's certainly a bad sign.
Your memory is failing you again.
Btickler argues, imperfectly, that luck doesn't exist in chess but I don't believe hes ever made the even more insane claim that there is no luck in sports.
it all depends on who btickler is dishonestly trolling in the moment. Look at his most recent post and you will see he is contradicting your assertion. He will argue there is luck in chess when arguing with me. lol
But my friend. You sound somewhat contradicting yourself, when you say its crazy to argue there is no luck in sports, but its not crazy to argue there is no luck in chess. First of all, you are diminishing your own arguments regarding chess. Secondly, chess is another sport and you are confirming one of the most common motives many have in this thread. You are simply not competitive and lack any sports sense, resenting those that do.
Luck and chess is a more complex debate and it's more difficult to distinguish skill from other variables, that's why I have more understanding if someone makes the claim that luck doesn't exist in chess. In fact chess does the best job of minimizing the element of luck out of any game/sports.
In sports like soccer it is incredibly easy to tell apart which event is caused by skill, and where luck is in play.
The example Ive given before is good. A player attempts a pass to his teammate, but a failed kicking technique results in the ball going straight in the net. No soccer player would ever claim that they scored by skill when this happens. Their level of skill did not have an effect on this finish. This is an easy argument.
Chess is no different then any sport, you tell yourself otherwise which is an obvious motive now. You probably think flagging someone is lucky, and that players should resign in losing positions. You probably think chess is too hard for society to understand, you probably think speed chess is not real chess compared to classical, etc.. etc..
For example, you think any player can accidentally pass a soccer ball into a goal, when I gave you the example of myself as someone who never could. The players put themselves into the position for that to happen, like good players put themselves into winning positions in chess when not planning for them. Its very simple to understand that human ability is skill, and any result from any action determined to be from it, whether conscious or not, is not luck by definition of the word itself.
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.
And what I am saying is you only believe it is more difficult, because you don't consider chess a sport. Its not a failed kick if it ended up being a goal. Its only luck to you because it was not planned for by the player even though that contradicts the definition of luck since it was his own action that caused it. And what I have repeatedly said to you is better players will always get lucky according to your logic more often then lesser skilled players, which is why we can conclude no force of luck plays a role.
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.
Any failure resulting from a kick is simply an unskillful kick, not an unlucky one, which is probably something you would admit. But for you its out of sheer selfish convenience the winner is always lucky, which is a contradiction to the technical definition of the word.
"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?
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.
These "what if" arguments do absolutely nothing. For the arguments sake you have to assume it was misshit when I say so for the practical example lmao, you can't just say "well maybe not, then it's not luck". The fact that you resort to this kind of nonsense hints to me that you don't believe yourself.
Whether they we're in position or at the hot dog stand when the incident happened, as I stated before it doesn't matter. If skillful actions lead to a lucky event, it's still lucky.
I do agree that in terms of humans, our attempts are skill or lack thereof. But if only skill is determining what FOLLOWS your action, then a failed attempt would always lead to a bad outcome. Otherwise again, we would have to say "He scored by his lack of skill" instead of "it was a lucky shot". Clearly this is not the case.
Yes you can train your passing to develop your skill, there is no luck there. But where the luck comes in is when you have failed your attempt. AFTER the failed kick, you're not in control of the ball. How do we know this? You have no idea where it will go after the failed kick.