Good grief. Luck is now "a force, just like wind, gravity". I'm not a nerd, but I'll bet there are plenty of nerds here who can explain things like gravity with some sort of mathematical equation. I would love to see the mathematical explanation describing luck.
There is probably another mathematical equation that describes how some people just get dumber and dumber.
You are the first one to bring to our attention the word force in many of the definitions of luck. And you literally asked why the word is used in them. And ironically it is because of you I now speak of it and have been for over a week now. Every day you get more and more dishonest in my eyes. Now you are pretending this is the first time you are hearing of it? Shame on you.
How about instead of skirting around the issue, address the matter being discussed. You said luck is a force like gravity or the wind. So, what is the mathematical equation for luck? In other words, how, specifically can it's affect be predicted? I don't mean generally, I mean speciically.
What is the equation that will predict the EXACT amount of luck for any given event?
it can't, thats what makes it luck.
Well then which is it? First you say luck is a force, like gravity. From what I understand gravity is predictable, there are math equations to describe it and measure it accurately. Now you say you can't predict luck or define it with an equation.
You are saying two opposite things, at the same time. So is luck a force, like gravity, or not?
I'm just using gravity as an example of an unseen force. And apparently it is debateable according to others in the thread. So yes. Your example in golf was the wind. I said kinetic force in dice, but you must realize that the action has to increase your chances and that the results are also part of the definition of luck. You are once again pretending not to know what I mean, like a dishonest person. Shame on you.
I also explained that once human action is what influences your chances, any force similar to gravity or any randomizing device, is not a factor because it is skill that is determining your success or failure and every action on the board.
For example in chess the random unseen, unknown and inhuman random force that determines your color selection, does not determine your success or failure, they are not inherently bad or good, because every move is determined by your own actions. Therefore it is not luck.
I'm not pretending to not know what you mean. I still don't know what you mean. You say two opposing things, at nearly the same time. I know what you say, of course, but I have absolutely no idea what you mean. Probably only you know what you mean.
So back to the question. You said luck is a force, like gravity. Which can be expressed using math to make predictions and measurements. But then you said you can't give an equation for it, because that's what makes it luck. All within the last few days, you have said both. So which one is it?
Today you are saying any force similar to gravity or randomizing device is not a factor. So yeah, I have absolutely no idea what you mean by that, or most things you say for that matter.
So state what two things you claim I am contradicting. Address the points I have made instead of constantly making blank dishonest claims, that everyone reading will assume of you at this point. It will come as no surprise to them once they see your profile has no games played here for 4 years. Your ill motives and intentions are clear.
Again, YOU are the one who bought the word force into this discussion, when YOU stated many definitions of the word luck used it, and YOU questioned why. Now you are pretending this is the first you are hearing of it, waiting days before bringing it up again. Shame on you.
Again, its not a factor to consider as luck when it is intended in the game, when all players play in the same wind conditions, and when your human ability is what is increasing your chances of success or failure. What is hard to understand about that? Good golfers consistently perform better then bad golfers in windy conditions for these reasons and skill levels are measured over time. But skill is always present in every human action, which constantly ebbs and flows. In chess the only element of random chance, color selection, does not determine success or is considered inherently bad or good, since every move depends on the skill of the player regardless of color.
I"ll state them again. The two things you are claiming is that luck is a force, like gravity. So when I asked for the equation for luck (like gravity) you said you can't, because it's luck. So, which is it? Is luck a force like gravity, like you said, OR is luck not a force like gravity, like you said. Which one is it?
Are you now saying gravity is a "randomizing device"? Because sometimes it's very difficult to decipher what you mean.
Good grief. Luck is now "a force, just like wind, gravity". I'm not a nerd, but I'll bet there are plenty of nerds here who can explain things like gravity with some sort of mathematical equation. I would love to see the mathematical explanation describing luck.
There is probably another mathematical equation that describes how some people just get dumber and dumber.
You are the first one to bring to our attention the word force in many of the definitions of luck. And you literally asked why the word is used in them. And ironically it is because of you I now speak of it and have been for over a week now. Every day you get more and more dishonest in my eyes. Now you are pretending this is the first time you are hearing of it? Shame on you.
How about instead of skirting around the issue, address the matter being discussed. You said luck is a force like gravity or the wind. So, what is the mathematical equation for luck? In other words, how, specifically can it's affect be predicted? I don't mean generally, I mean speciically.
What is the equation that will predict the EXACT amount of luck for any given event?
it can't, thats what makes it luck.
You've got everybody confused because you say one thing to refute a point and then something contradicting to refute another point. We are at a stalemate.
It would only be a stalemate if I also stopped addressing your points. It seems you dont' know how a debate works, just like you don't know the difference between luck vs skill, games based solely on skill vs games based solely on luck vs games that have elements of both. You don't know the difference between chance vs luck. Don't know the different between human force of action vs random force of action. Don't know what a sport is, don't know what competitive means. Don't know why the words skill and luck exist because you can't determine what is fair and sporting, etc....
Well to be exact you would be in a check mate but you're type of guy who keeps playing and claims there was no mate.
Your aggression and made up claims (don't know this, don't know that) is a sign that youre perfectly aware you have nothing else.
HEre is a past of my last post to you, and you decided to stop addressing my points. Give it another shot.
"
you are the one who is unable to point to anything. and I'm constantly pointing to examples of luck in every post I reply to you with. Yet you ignorantly block all out of your mind. Are you not aware of this fact about yourself? I said kinetic force in dice rolls or slot machines, I said Patriot had a better argument then you because she at least cited the wind. It is simply any randomizing device playing a role. But again, there are many factors that define luck, not simply an inhuman force, chances and results also matter as I have explained many times.
But do you see why you are forced to call human action both luck and skill, because you have no other force of action to point to as an example of luck and you need something to prove your false narrative. You don't even understand what luck is. That is worse then others in this thread, who understand luck, but still dishonestly try to point to examples of luck outside of chess to prove it is in chess. Yet You have been in this forum for a week, with no examples at all.
Are you waking up yet? This is why I constantly told you to look up the definition, because if we go by what you imply luck to be, then yes in fact, Luck does not exist in your world. As I have said directly to you many times.""
Anyone who reads your last post that you cited here will come to the same conclusion. You don't say anything specific there that I should respond to, it's just random rambling and going backwards in the argument.
For example I've also used the wind example as an external force but your response to it was that there is still no element of luck in play, even tho it was proven there is.
In chess, yes it is only human moving the pieces and no other force, but this is no proof that there is no luck involved. If you lose your keys and find them after a week because you step on them, theres only human force in play here. Yet you should agree its a lucky incident. Not even an analogy to chess necessarily, but just against this specific argument that there needs to be another force to allow the element of luck.
I explained to you why the wind in golf is not lucky or unlucky. Its an intended part of the game and unlike dice rolls for example, you human ability can increase your chances in the wind. Very simple to explain because I'm simply going off the definition of the word you are attempting to argue.
Again, Luck is "without ones own action". again very simple to understand. I've never agreed to anything about losing ones keys. Why lie? First of all, If you lose them it was your own fault, not unlucky. Second of all that is not a multiplayer competition. LIke i keep trying to get across to you. Chess is. Stay on the topic of luck as it applies to gaming and chess.
Again, it doesn't matter if you can affect the outcome in the wind. This only proves theres is skill involved. Just like wind can affect the outcome out of your control, this proves there is luck also. Neither force can prove the other element doesn't exist. There is no definition in the world you can cite in your reply and prove otherwise.
I never said you agreed, I said you should agree. Another ridiculous answer, you think stepping on keys to find them is not lucky.
"It's not a multiplayer competition"
So what? Examples out of context of games can still prove your argument does not work. Luck applies to life and gaming the same, as opposed to what you claim without any reasonable argument.
Also I never said losing keys was unlucky, I said finding them was lucky. You threw in a strawman argument once again to deflect the real stuff.
You can't identify the wind affecting the ball, but you can identify his human ability affecting it which is all that matters. Again, there is a reason the better players always get "luckier" then worse players according to your logic. For example better golfers scoring consistently better in gusty conditions more then lesser skilled golfers. But If the winds are so strong that they are drastically affecting the golfers play beyond what is intended, the tournament may be postponed and or partial scores for some players erased as has happened in the past but its rare. Usually only happens in certain areas if at all. Much like rules being in place for animals taking balls like Patriot wrongfully claimed was bad luck for a player. Its simply not, because it is not part of the game.
I think stepping on keys, disregards why they were lost in the first place. Much like you talking about soccer players scoring goals, disregarding the rest of his team and the goalies actions. Much like how you treat chess as if it is not even a competitive sport and like others judge accuracy as if it's not a number in direct relation to the opponent. You call this a strawman argument, yet it seems you are the one with strawman, much like patriot leaving out parts of the definitions of words when they don't suit her narrative. Or Mpaetz talking about mass shootings at country music concerts. Or the fact you have totally deflected from chess and are talking about wind in golf...lol
I've talked about luck in chess plenty here and proved it atleast in two different ways. You didn't understand what I said so we have to gather easier examples outside chess to help you understand.
"You can't identify wind affecting the ball"
What does this mean? With human eyes? With calculation according to laws of physics we can absolutely identify that a strong wind does affect the trajectory of the ball. It's another nonsense claim from you to stall the argument.
Another good one there:
"Stepping on your keys to find them cannot be lucky because it was you at fault to lose them"
Losing and finding the keys are two independent incidents and luck can be determined in both incidents individually. This is common sense for anyone with a healthy working mind. I'm sure it would be for you as well if you didn't feel cornered.
The level of this debate is so terrible.