The lower the skill, the greater the luck element in the game; the greater the skill, the better the luck.
I dont quiet agree on that, even the best players in the world get lucky sometimes. But yeah, luck is always there for the trained aye, I mean, you can get lucky if your opponent blunders mate in 1, but if you are not capable to see it then how can you say you got lucky? xd
In that case it would be your opponent that was lucky.
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but this "debate" isn't really about luck, nor is it even about chess.
I think it's degenerated to where it's just people trying gratuitously to impose their will on others.
As i have repeated over and over, the skill of the team purposely positioned on the field as a whole and the poor skill of the goalie my friend. The problem we are getting at, is you must account for both the action and the result, not just one at your own convenience. This how dishonest patriot was by omitting these two things from the cambridge definition of luck. Which is why you totally disregard any definition of the word altogether.
The position of the other players on the field and the goalie's play might be perfect but whatever went wrong with the passer's unskillful play defeated them. The kick may have hit a divot or the passer's foot twisted and sent the ball on a path that he could not duplicate if he tried. Kotshmot repeatedly reminds you that he is talking about circumstances where all the players are playing correctly, according to coaches' instruction, but a bad mistake in kicking the ball--a failure of skill--neveretheless resulted in a positive outcome. No, that was not the result of the player's skill, something very different from what he intended happened. It was what you call the opposite of skill--luck.
Your contention that "you must account for both the action and the result" is ridiculous. If the action is unskillful and the result unintended, skill plays no part in the result. Should a child playing with matches burn down the family's garage, that would be a bad result. You might say it was ineptitude on the child's part. However, if clearing out the debris reveals a stash of rare old gold coins worth a fortune buried by a previous miserly owner, that would be a good result, a stroke of good luck. Yet the child's mistake, like the soccer player's kick, was a failure.
Funny how that happens . This is where I was stationed in the late 80s:
...and this is the site now:
My dad was at Indian Mountain radar site north of Fairbanks in the mid-1970s. He also had a year in Labrador.
Well I have never heard of anyone claiming there is no luck in golf. Or any sport for that matter. You are the first. It's a unique position, given all the things that can happen that people have no control over.
anyone who knows the difference between games based on luck and games based on skill absolutely will claim such. Including the dozens in this thread you pretend don't exist. Because the topic of this thread poses a question to distinguish between them, and it seems you can't comprehend the distinction.
Give me an example of something you had no control over in your golf game. Are you going to bring up an animal eating your ball again? Which would not affect your score since you are allowed to drop the ball where it was picked up? Are you going to tell me about the wind and trees which are accounted for by the golfer? Here is a test to see if a shot is truly random or controlled by you, if you were to go back in time and replay the shot again can you increase your chances of success or failure? Then it was by your own actions and nothing else.
Wind. Wind is something you have no control over. Many golf courses have what are called microclimates. conditions can change, sometimes drastically, in as little as 200 yards. So a person can hit their best shot possible, and while the ball is in the air, a gust of wind picks up and sends the ball in a vastly different direction than planned. Sometimes it can be a good result, sometimes it can be a bad result. It all comes down to luck.
To answer your question about going back and hitting that lucky shot again, it would probably take at least 20 tries, maybe 50, good shots to get it that close again. But it was the one bad shot that actually got it that close. That's luck.
Wind is part of the game design and every other player is playing in the same conditions. And you do have control over it, again the test is if you can go back and time and replay the shot can you better account for the wind? The answer is yes. If it was luck, no amount of skill could change things. That is an important distinction when applying the word to games.
The fact you admit with practice you could get it that close again, shows it was your own actions that got it there. No other force of luck, you can't even point to wind as the cause.
I'm sorry if I confused you. I gave two examples, one hypothetical where a person hit a shot and then afterward the wind picks up and affects it. Nobody has any control over that, so that would be luck.
The other example is one I experienced recently, where a mishit was so bad that it bounced off a spot so small nobody in the world is good enough to do it on purpose. But the result was good. That too is luck. That is the one where I would need probably 50 more good tries to even come close to duplicating the result.
At least you admit "if it was luck, no amount of skill could change things". Well that is exactly the case when it comes to wind picking up AFTER the shot is made. It's literally impossible for any amount of skill to change the shot AFTER it's been made. It doesn't matter if a person goes back and plays the shot again, as the wind may die down, it may pick up, it may change directions, etc. That's why it's luck. There is no possible way to control the effect it may (or may not) have.
As i have repeated over and over, the skill of the team purposely positioned on the field as a whole and the poor skill of the goalie my friend. The problem we are getting at, is you must account for both the action and the result, not just one at your own convenience. This how dishonest patriot was by omitting these two things from the cambridge definition of luck. Which is why you totally disregard any definition of the word altogether.
The position of the other players on the field and the goalie's play might be perfect but whatever went wrong with the passer's unskillful play defeated them. The kick may have hit a divot or the passer's foot twisted and sent the ball on a path that he could not duplicate if he tried. Kotshmot repeatedly reminds you that he is talking about circumstances where all the players are playing correctly, according to coaches' instruction, but a bad mistake in kicking the ball--a failure of skill--neveretheless resulted in a positive outcome. No, that was not the result of the player's skill, something very different from what he intended happened. It was what you call the opposite of skill--luck.
Your contention that "you must account for both the action and the result" is ridiculous. If the action is unskillful and the result unintended, skill plays no part in the result. Should a child playing with matches burn down the family's garage, that would be a bad result. You might say it was ineptitude on the child's part. However, if clearing out the debris reveals a stash of rare old gold coins worth a fortune buried by a previous miserly owner, that would be a good result, a stroke of good luck. Yet the child's mistake, like the soccer player's kick, was a failure.
Yea I think this covers it, I don't have to say anything. I think it's clear this debate can't go on with such denial or inability to understand.
title is messed up
The coding displays certain expressions as the coding.
Of course there is, you cannot rely on it, but it may determine one game or another.
Thank you, Ziryab!
Thank you, Captain Obvious!!
Wind is part of the game design and every other player is playing in the same conditions. And you do have control over it, again the test is if you can go back and time and replay the shot can you better account for the wind? The answer is yes. If it was luck, no amount of skill could change things. That is an important distinction when applying the word to games.
A couple of thoughts:
Wind is not part of the game design of golf. Golf tournaments are postponed or canceled due to high winds or other weather conditions. The reason is that in such circumstances the contest is not as clear-cut a measure of the golfers' skills.
What other players might do in the same conditions has nothing to do with the fact that what a skilled player thought was a perfect shot was ruined by an unknowable weather phenomenon.
The "test" will always fail--no one can go back in time. Events happen. If something unpredictable occurs and alters the outcome of the player's skillful endeavors the Time Lords are not going to show up to fix things. Would things have gone differently had the golfer known there was to be a sudden gust wind that would affect their shot? Very likely. You are suggesting that skill can win out in such situations only through the use of psychic powers to see the future or sci-fi impossibilities.
Wind is part of the game design and every other player is playing in the same conditions. And you do have control over it, again the test is if you can go back and time and replay the shot can you better account for the wind? The answer is yes. If it was luck, no amount of skill could change things. That is an important distinction when applying the word to games.
A couple of thoughts:
Wind is not part of the game design of golf. Golf tournaments are postponed or canceled due to high winds or other weather conditions. The reason is that in such circumstances the contest is not as clear-cut a measure of the golfers' skills.
What other players might do in the same conditions has nothing to do with the fact that what a skilled player thought was a perfect shot was ruined by an unknowable weather phenomenon.
The "test" will always fail--no one can go back in time. Events happen. If something unpredictable occurs and alters the outcome of the player's skillful endeavors the Time Lords are not going to show up to fix things. Would things have gone differently had the golfer known there was to be a sudden gust wind that would affect their shot? Very likely. You are suggesting that skill can win out in such situations only through the use of psychic powers to see the future or sci-fi impossibilities.
I was going to say much the same thing, but we all know it would just prompt another nonsense response that has nothing to do with reality. I don't know where he got the idea that wind is part of the game design of golf, but it probably came out of the same bin where most of his other ideas are stored.
It my opinion it's not just golf, but many other activities where unforeseen environmental conditions affect the outcome after a person has executed their turn or play. Like baseball, football, archery and probably many dozens of other sports.
I don't think environmental surprises play much of a role in chess, but the principle is the same. Any situation where someone does something completely random, with no plan, idea, strategy, or predictability would probably be considered luck.
Of course the other poster will never be able to admit being mistaken and will always find some "justification", however outlandish, to claim "victory" and will usually throw in a few insults. Sometimes I feel the urge to point out how ridiculous some of his ramblings are.
"Ci-gît le Seigneur de La Palice: s'il n'était pas mort, il ferait encore envie."
Cool...."Is wind part of golf?" You never know what you might learn on chess.com.
Maybe someone here can tell us what a woman is.....
I think he's coming around. "If it was based on luck, no amount of practice would change your probability of making the shot".
When luck intervenes, that's exactly what happens. It doesn't change the shot normally, although it can. It changes the RESULT of the shot. So a person can still make the shot just fine, maybe the best shot a person could ever make. But then luck intervenes. A gust of wind, the humidity changes, the sun goes behind a cloud. All AFTER the shot is made. The difference of even a 1/10 of a millimeter from any of those luck factors can affect the result of the shot. I'll bet some other sports, like car racing or shooting the margin could even be smaller.
And almost every single week, a golf announcer will comment on the good or bad result from a gust of wind that picked up after the shot was hit. It's pretty common, even if someone who doesn't know what they are talking about hasn't heard it.
Where is that? Thule, Greenland?
That is actually a mountaintop in Italy, you could see Vesuvius from there: