Forums

Is there such thing as "luck" in chess?

Sort:
lfPatriotGames
lfPatriotGames
Jun 9, 2022
0
#1801

But google didn't say it, you said it. We all know tournaments get canceled or postponed or delayed due to weather. But you said scores get adjusted or partially erased. I've never heard of that. 

Your examples have nothing to do with my question. The PCC is for adjusting scores to protect against cheaters and sandbaggers. They will use the playing conditions as an excuse to score really high or really low. But even still, this only applies to regular players, IF there are extreme circumstances This does not apply to professionals, which is what you were claiming about tournaments. Do you have ANY example of a tournament where the score was "erased" or "adjusted" due to weather? Not delayed, not postponed, not canceled, but scores erased or adjusted.

Oh, and your Korea LPGA example, also has nothing to do with my question. That was a rules violation that resulted in controversy and even resignation. It had absolutely nothing to do with adjusting or erasing scores due to windy conditions or bad weather. I'm going to assume this is just another one of your lies, because you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I will expect NO examples for your claim. 

lfPatriotGames
lfPatriotGames
Jun 9, 2022
0
#1802
CooloutAC wrote:
IronSteam1 wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:
IronSteam1 wrote:
SacrificeTheHorse wrote:

 

That wasn't luck. He was intentionally aiming for the other player's ball. In pool (billiards), this is called a "carom".

He merely pretended it was luck, so that they wouldn't discover the aim-bot implanted in his left eye.

I was thinking the same thing. All skill, no luck. Because, you know, it's a lot easier to hit that 1/100th of an inch spot on the ball for the favorable ricochet than it is to hit the 4 inch cup in the first place.  

But of course. The cup is too easy to hit.

The real pros like to ricochet off things, to add that "luck" element back in. They aim for turtle shells, golf carts, or endangered birds, mid-flight.

 

Doesn't matter,  because it was their own action that caused the result.   The words skill and luck exist to determine what is fair and sporting because it is a competitive game between players.   Something it seems many chess players have no concept of,  especially old traditional ones,  which is why society has never taken their communities seriously especially in the US. 

Golf carts,  turtle shells, birds all intended in the game.   I believe if you are making an approach shot though and it hits a bird,  you get a rehit.  If a seagull takes your ball you get a drop.   Great discussion about chess btw.... Deflecting is conceding.

Why would a rehit be allowed? Hitting a bird is just bad luck. 

lfPatriotGames
lfPatriotGames
Jun 9, 2022
0
#1803
CooloutAC wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:

But google didn't say it, you said it. We all know tournaments get canceled or postponed or delayed due to weather. But you said scores get adjusted or partially erased. I've never heard of that. 

Your examples have nothing to do with my question. The PCC is for adjusting scores to protect against cheaters and sandbaggers. They will use the playing conditions as an excuse to score really high or really low. But even still, this only applies to regular players, IF there are extreme circumstances This does not apply to professionals, which is what you were claiming about tournaments. Do you have ANY example of a tournament where the score was "erased" or "adjusted" due to weather? Not delayed, not postponed, not canceled, but scores erased or adjusted.

Oh, and your Korea LPGA example, also has nothing to do with my question. That was a rules violation that resulted in controversy and even resignation. It had absolutely nothing to do with adjusting or erasing scores due to windy conditions or bad weather. I'm going to assume this is just another one of your lies, because you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I will expect NO examples for your claim. 


Ohhh,  now you know its due to weather,  aka wind conditions,  and not just for health reasons?   about time,  thankyou for that concession .   

Oh and so now the PCC is only for the USGA and not for PGA so that changes the argument?  lmao.  what about abnormal course condition rules?   Ever hear of that?   You already admitted tournaments get postponed due to unintended wind.   so you just continue on reaching for anything you can eh?   I still laugh about your first example of an animal taking a ball as bad luck....when again,  rules are in place so that does not negatively affect the golfer.

the KLPGA issue had to do with a course condition, period.  You can google yourself for examples of scores being partially erased for bad wind.  But this answers your questions or who would make those decisions.  Which should of been common sense to someone more honest with themselves.  

So how bout chess?  Still desperately deflecting away from the thread topic like a troll?  You seem not understand what it means to be sporting,  or why certain games are considered sports.   For one thing,  luck cannot be a deciding factor in sports as mpaetz and koshmot have now conceded.   But yet you still stubbornly act as if it is.

Actually I was just pointing out another one of your lies. You did not provide any examples, because you don't have any. The KLPGA issue was a RULES violation, it had NOTHING to do with windy conditions or bad weather. Which is why you cannot, and will not, provide any examples of tournaments where scores were "adjusted" or "partially erased" due to windy conditions. Or even bad weather. 

lfPatriotGames
lfPatriotGames
Jun 9, 2022
0
#1804
CooloutAC wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
IronSteam1 wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:
IronSteam1 wrote:
SacrificeTheHorse wrote:

 

That wasn't luck. He was intentionally aiming for the other player's ball. In pool (billiards), this is called a "carom".

He merely pretended it was luck, so that they wouldn't discover the aim-bot implanted in his left eye.

I was thinking the same thing. All skill, no luck. Because, you know, it's a lot easier to hit that 1/100th of an inch spot on the ball for the favorable ricochet than it is to hit the 4 inch cup in the first place.  

But of course. The cup is too easy to hit.

The real pros like to ricochet off things, to add that "luck" element back in. They aim for turtle shells, golf carts, or endangered birds, mid-flight.

 

Doesn't matter,  because it was their own action that caused the result.   The words skill and luck exist to determine what is fair and sporting because it is a competitive game between players.   Something it seems many chess players have no concept of,  especially old traditional ones,  which is why society has never taken their communities seriously especially in the US. 

Golf carts,  turtle shells, birds all intended in the game.   I believe if you are making an approach shot though and it hits a bird,  you get a rehit.  If a seagull takes your ball you get a drop.   Great discussion about chess btw.... Deflecting is conceding.

Why would a rehit be allowed? Hitting a bird is just bad luck. 


See the last statement in my previous post as to why.   Its not surprising why you can't understand that though.  It is a question why it is only allowed on approach shots and not drives for example.   Most likely reason is because the ball is travelling higher in the air at a slower velocity and higher angle making it more likely to hit a bird and be halted..   But it should indeed be a rule,  because luck being a deciding factor is not sporting and defeats the purpose of a sport. Something you have shown you have no concept of.  

OK, do you have any examples of someone being allowed a rehit because they hit a bird midflight? No? Well that shouldn't stop you from saying it again. 

mpaetz
mpaetz
Show your flair!
Jun 9, 2022
0
#1805
CooloutAC wrote:

 

You ever hear an announcer say oh too bad that guy got unlucky he had to play in those gusty wind conditions.    No,  because they are all playing in the same conditions bud on the same course.  It is something that is common in golf.    You are in denial.  And its usually a 4 day tournament,  the better golfers win tournaments consistently.  NO idea what you are even talking about players playing on different courses.  Do you even watch golf?  


 

 

     So you want us to believe that the wind never changes from morning to evening. It's exactly the same at each hole on the course all day long while the tournament is being played so everyone gets the same conditions no matter when they play. You need to get outside more and feel the difference in the wind at different times of day.

     I have little interest in golf but the AT&T Pebble Beach Pro-Am tournament (formerly known as the Crosby Clambake) held in Monterey, CA every year gets a lot of publicity in local media, and is held on three golf courses Pebble Beach, Spyglass Hill and Monterey Peninsula Country Club--other courses than this last were used in earlier years). Because of the large field, all three courses are used on the first three days, everyone playing each course once before the field is cut down and finished at Pebble Beach. Will you insist that wind conditions are static on all the courses for three days so "everyone plays in the same wind conditions" or admit that some players get a break by avoiding Pebble Beach--right on the ocean--on windy days or in late afternoon when the offshore breezes always increase?

     I know there are many resorts that have more than one golf course and it's certain that some other tournaments, professional or for local amateurs, that do the same sort of thing.

     Since you put so much stock in what TV sports announcers say, then of course you must agree that their mention of lucky bounces or bad breaks proves that there is luck in sports.

Kotshmot
Kotshmot
Jun 9, 2022
0
#1806
CooloutAC wrote:
Kotshmot wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
Kotshmot wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
Kotshmot wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
Kotshmot wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
Kotshmot wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
Kotshmot wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
Kotshmot wrote:
TheseCooloutAC wrote:
Kotshmot wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
Kotshmot wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
Kotshmot wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:

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.

 

 

You can't with your eyes,  or with any calculations.  You have a theory it can,  but you can't "prove" it like you keep claming you do.   Like many in this thread claim even gravity can't be proven .    What we can prove is the actions of the golfer with our own eyes,   and we know for a fact he is affecting his chances.   period.  

And let me repeat the part you are ignoring and cowering away from.   There is a reason the better players always get "luckier"  according to your flawed logic.    There is a reason the better golfers always score consistently better in windy conditions..    Because their skill is what matters when determining their success,  not the wind which takes a skill to master.  

And let me repeat the other part of my points you cowered away from.   If the wind was so strong that it was affecting the golfer's ball in an unintended way,   the tournament may be postponed, and some players may have their scores partially erased.   But its extremely rare.   Just like there are rules in place so animals taking players balls do not negatively affect them, which also can't be considered bad luck,  since  again it is not part of the game.  

Regarding your keys,     Losing and finding the keys are not two separate incidents, there would be no keys to find if poor awareness caused them to be lost in the first place.   Also this is not luck as it applies to gaming regardless, and is probably the most desperate deflection and concession of them all.         

 

Let me repeat my points you are cowering away from.  This is no different then you talking about soccer players scoring goals,  disregarding the rest of their 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.

So your argument here is simply that wind cannot have an affect on the trajectory of a ball. I don't know if you realize it but thats the only logical way to convert your argument. And it's just denial.

"Better players get luckier"

Not true in any way. Both good and bad players have equal chances to benefit from the wind conditions, therefore both have equal chances to be lucky. Winning =/= luck, benefitting from wind conditions, winning or losing, = luck. I don't cower away from this, I've just addressed it before and you didnt understand. I don't like to repeat myself, but there you go, you have an example showing why this is not the case.

The soccer stuff we went over many times, you didn't understand it either. I said "many skillful actions leading up to one lucky event do not undo the element of luck in this event". 

 

I never said anything so ludicrous,  but pretty shameful you would suggest I did lol.

That is your theory,  but what I'm telling you in reality is that better players score consistently better regardless of the wind.  You claimed everyone is playing in different wind conditions all the time,  so how would they have equal chances which would only support my point,  and contradict yours?  Now you are changing your whole argument conceding everything I said,  because you know by your flawed logic,  that would mean better players always get luckier.  lol   But all that means,  is it is their skill is increasing their chances and the wind is not a factor in their success.  Thanks for confirming and I accept your concession.  wow.

What you don't understand is that skill and luck cannot exist in the same action.   Its not lucky that the soccer players teamates were positioned to receive the pass where they were,  or that goalies unskillful play allowed the goal.  Don't you get it?   You are focusing only on the passer to suit your narrative. 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 don't realize all these things are indeed taken into account to determine luck.

Well if you're not saying that wind cannot affect the ball, your earlier argument that we cant confirm winds effect is useless.

Yes, better players score more consistently, because both good and bad players have an equal chance to get lucky. This is just backing up what I said. Players have a difference in skill level, but there is no difference in level of luck, therefore skill is the decisive factor. This is the function that does not contradict luck at all.

I fully understand your argument about soccer, but unfortunately it doesn't work. One lucky incident can occur after a 1000 skillful actions but it is still lucky. There is no need to keep coming back to this, you don't understand what Im saying so there is no progress. Stick to arguments where progress can be made.

 

You just conceded my argument by saying players have 50/50 equal chances from the wind.  Do you not realize that?    That means their skill is the factor and not the wind.  And the fact you admit it is the decisive factor,  IS the reason it negates luck.    You are drowning now my friend.  give it up because I'm feeling bad for you.

Just because you can't measure level of skill from a single action does not mean it is lucky.  And just because the results of an action are unplanned does not mean it is lucky.  The fact is it was the players own action is all that matters as luck applies to gaming.      Just like you admitted regarding the wind in golf.    There is no asterisk put next to the goal stat of that soccer player because it is a competitive team game. 

Again,  these words exist to determine what is fair, sporting and competitive,  so that poor sports can't diminish rightful human achievement that should be praised.   All things you seem to have no sense of.

"You just conceded my argument by saying players have 50/50 equal chances from the wind.  Do you not realize that?"

Lmao. If we roll the dice we will both have 50/50 chances to win, yet luck is obviously involved in determining who wins. I have no idea what your point is. This is because the factor is indeed random, it will give both players 50/50 chances. Yes I conceded this happily.

 

Yes but skill is not the deciding factor as you admitted regarding golf in wind my friend.   That is the difference.  Dice is based on luck, and your chances can't be increased by human ability or efforts.    Golf is different because it is based on skill as you just admitted, regardless of the wind.  That negates luck.  You definitely did concede,  and I happily accept your concession.  Thankyou.

Skill will most likely be the decisive factor in the long run because every player has an equal chance to get a favourable wind condition. But in individual games skill IS NOT always the decisive factor. 

If wind can effect a ball trajectory (which you agreed it does) this proves clinically that every individual result is not just based on skill, because one player can have more favourable conditions than the other.

"You definitely did concede"

I'll concede that you have no idea how probabilities work, hence why you were so happy with the 50/50 chance argument. I don't know what I've conceded in terms of my argument because everything Ive said is common sense and basic logical thinking.


Oh now its only "most likely"  hahahah.    Did you just try to say individual golf games are not based on skill?   You are still desperately walking backwards my friend.  LMAO.   

You already said skill is the deciding factor.   Too late to save face now.   That is because to claim  it is not,  is foolish in the face of professional players scoring consistently better then those of lower skills regardless of the wind, even in individual games.  Which by your logic means "the winner always gets lucky"  LOL.    And as I have said before,  if the wind is so strong it is affecting golfers in a way not intended,  the tournament will be postponed or scores will be adjusted to keep games fair.   

A 50/50 chance is the same thing as saying no probability and simply random chance.  Which is what I say to people to explain them the difference between chances and why chance doesn't always mean luck.     Luck cannot be measured like skill can be,  even over time,  and that is what you are also admitting here.  I hope Lee Euler is paying attention.

"A 50/50 chance is the same thing as saying no probability and simply random chance."

This sentence means literally nothing. Why even bring up probabilities if you dont understand it?

"Did you just try to say individual golf games are not based on skill?"

No. I said they are not ALWAYS decided by skill. Big difference, you either did not understand this either or you misquoted me on purpose. And I can prove my point.

You have two golf robots that hit the ball the exact same way every single time. This means equal skill input in every hit. Now without wind they would end up with even score every time, but with wind it will randomly decide who gets the more favourable conditions and win the game.

This will apply to human play the exact same way. If you have individuals who are extremely close in skill, wind can easily be the decisive factor. There is no going around this.

 

You are showing YOU don't understand it my friend.  Unlike you I will attempt to better explain my point so others reading do.    Saying something is a 50/50 chance,  is the same as saying a random chance that cannot be measured or estimated.    Unlike the probable chances someone wins based on skill rating.    Luck cannot be measured,   but skill can.

My friend,  once you said "skill is the deciding factor"  you conceded the debate.   Trying to walk that back by saying sometimes they do and sometimes they don't,  is absolutely not true especially regarding the wind.  See my reply to Patriot. 

 

There is no way to prove the wind is affecting anything unless it is so drastic that the tournament will be postponed and scores adjusted,  you are going on a theory which you can't prove otherwise and which has no bearings because of that fact.  You can't say something is lucky if you don't even know if the luck exists in your example.    Because the results and affects of the actions must also be taken into account to determine that.   You don't get to choose to focus on just the action, or just the chances, or just the results at your own convenience whenever you feel like it to suit your false narrative. 

First of all humans are never exactly the same skill at any given time because our skill is never static. We are not robots or computer programs.   It is constantly ebbing and flowing as I have said repeatedly.   And Once you admit human ability is what is increasing ones chances as Mpaetz did,  or once you admit that skill is the deciding factor,   then luck simply is not.

 

"There is no way to prove the wind is affecting"

This is just desperate denial. I don't have to prove that wind is a factor in golf, plenty of sources do it for me. Common sense for that matter should be enough. Tournaments get postponed when conditions are unplayable, but they dont get postponed when there is slight effect. This argument goes in the bin.

"Luck cannot be measured"

This doesn't matter. If something can't be measured, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. But I'd say it can be easily measured by probabilities. Take lottery for example, we know exactly how likely winning is, therefore we know exactly how lucky the winner is. It's a waste of time to talk about probability or math with you tho, way too logical.

I'm taking a break from this conversation unless you or someone else comes up with something relevant.

mpaetz
mpaetz
Show your flair!
Jun 9, 2022
0
#1807
CooloutAC wrote

 

Again the topic is,  "is there luck IN chess"  You fail to make a distinction to luck that is incidental and outside of chess.  Because you don't want to distinguish chess from other games.  Your computer disconnecting is not intentionally part of chess,  a rare occurrence,  not part of the gameplay, game mechanics or design,   and not specific to chess.   That can apply to any game,  and if you think there is luck in everything and there are no distinctions to be made,  then there is no point in the words luck and skill  or this thread even existing in your world.  There would be no reason for the OP to even pose the question .   You can move along and stop your trolling.  Noone believes you, they just have to look at your account to see your whole reason for being here is insincere.

     Again, who wins and loses IS part of chess. No one appointed CooloutAC the official judge of what the OP means by "in chess". 

MaetsNori
MaetsNori
Jun 9, 2022
0
#1808
lfPatriotGames wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
IronSteam1 wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:
IronSteam1 wrote:
SacrificeTheHorse wrote:

 

That wasn't luck. He was intentionally aiming for the other player's ball. In pool (billiards), this is called a "carom".

He merely pretended it was luck, so that they wouldn't discover the aim-bot implanted in his left eye.

I was thinking the same thing. All skill, no luck. Because, you know, it's a lot easier to hit that 1/100th of an inch spot on the ball for the favorable ricochet than it is to hit the 4 inch cup in the first place.  

But of course. The cup is too easy to hit.

The real pros like to ricochet off things, to add that "luck" element back in. They aim for turtle shells, golf carts, or endangered birds, mid-flight.

 

Doesn't matter,  because it was their own action that caused the result.   The words skill and luck exist to determine what is fair and sporting because it is a competitive game between players.   Something it seems many chess players have no concept of,  especially old traditional ones,  which is why society has never taken their communities seriously especially in the US. 

Golf carts,  turtle shells, birds all intended in the game.   I believe if you are making an approach shot though and it hits a bird,  you get a rehit.  If a seagull takes your ball you get a drop.   Great discussion about chess btw.... Deflecting is conceding.

Why would a rehit be allowed? Hitting a bird is just bad luck. 

My facetiousness has somehow been absorbed into an actual argument.

mpaetz
mpaetz
Show your flair!
Jun 9, 2022
0
#1809
CooloutAC wrote:

 

When Capablanca said the winner is always lucky,  he was underhandedly scolding poor sports like your self and making fun of you in a sarcastic way not to be taken literally,  he was trying to encourage sportsmanship as an avid sportsmen himself.  In fact like Fischer,  he was constantly trying to improve the fairness and sporting of chess and feared it would eventually die out because he felt it was not as fair and sporting as it should be.  That in itself shows he did not really believe that statement.

     Capablanca said "The strong player is always lucky". I'd be interested in how you found out what he really meant, as he has been dead since before you were born. Do you claim to be able to communicate with the dead? His proposition that chess would die off was because he said the top masters of his time already knew everything there was to know about the game so new ideas could no longer be invented. It seems he was incorrect.

mpaetz
mpaetz
Show your flair!
Jun 9, 2022
0
#1810
CooloutAC wrote:

 

 You and mpaetz have literally claimed its not even possible to practice in windy conditions which I find extremely dishonest.    

     This is an outright lie. Typical of your dishonest and disgusting tactics. What I said is that it is not possible to practice in the EXACT wind conditions that might prevail when you take a particular shot. You have no way of knowing in advance what they will be, and you have no power to make the wind blow in that way. And it no amount of practice and expertise will allow a golfer to adjust their shot to account for a strong gust of wind that blows in AFTER the ball is already in the air. The method you suggested to practice this kind of shot--using a time machine--in not possible.

Kotshmot
Kotshmot
Jun 9, 2022
0
#1811
Optimissed wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
 

 

I want you to believe that skill is the deciding factor and there is a reason a tournament is 4 rounds.   You already conceded this when you said human ability is increasing the players chances regardless of the wind, because you must realize this is a competitive player verse player game.     I also want you to believe as Patriot now conceded,  that if the wind conditions were so drastic it affects play in an unintended way the tournament would be postponed and or  scores partially erased.


Without reading this conversation at all, because it's ridiculous and I can't work out why it even exists, If you wanted someone to believe that "skill is the deciding factor", then you want them to believe your ideology. The tournament is designed to try to minimalise the influence of luck or chance. It can't, however, cut it out entirely, because highly surprising and unplanned events can occur. Therefore nothing you say can make it seem to others that you're right that it's impossible for luck to play a role in a skill-based tournament. I can't really see why the discussion continues.

I also want the readers to realize,  that people like you who are on fake accounts with no games played here,  are simply insincere trolls who have resentful motives against the game of chess.

You should stop being silly. Not sure how it's possible to resent a game. A bit like resenting a crocidile that eats you. It's only doing its job.

 

Definitely agree that the conversation is an insane waste of time. I was sure that through practical examples even a simple person can be shown that luck exists practically anywhere, but the combination of denial and lack of logical reasoning is an unbeatable combination. 

mpaetz
mpaetz
Show your flair!
Jun 9, 2022
0
#1812
CooloutAC wrote:

What you don't understand is that skill and luck cannot exist in the same action.   


     This preposterous bit of illogic is at the heart of your argument that luck does not exist in "skill-based sports". As you have admitted no one but God almighty can achieve 100% perfection, so that no matter how skillful a player may be, his use of that skill will not invariably be effective.

     A basketball coach whose team is trailing  by one point with one second let in the game will choose his team's best free-throw shooter to  take a technical foul shot at that point to send the game into overtime. That player may have made more than 90% of their free-throws over a long career and thus a heavy favorite to succeed, but should that be the one time in 13 that they miss, that's a lucky break for the other team.

mpaetz
mpaetz
Show your flair!
Jun 9, 2022
0
#1813
CooloutAC wrote

 

I want you to believe that skill is the deciding factor and there is a reason a tournament is 4 rounds.   You already conceded this when you said human ability is increasing the players chances regardless of the wind, because you must realize this is a competitive player verse player game.     

     Another bald-faced lie, dishonestly used because you have no real answer. I said that NO amount of skill or practice can help a golfer adjust his shot to allow for a gust of wind that comes up AFTER the ball is struck.

mpaetz
mpaetz
Show your flair!
Jun 9, 2022
0
#1814
CooloutAC wrote:
mpaetz wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:

 

 You and mpaetz have literally claimed its not even possible to practice in windy conditions which I find extremely dishonest.    

     This is an outright lie. Typical of your dishonest and disgusting tactics. What I said is that it is not possible to practice in the EXACT wind conditions that might prevail when you take a particular shot. You have no way of knowing in advance what they will be, and you have no power to make the wind blow in that way. And it no amount of practice and expertise will allow a golfer to adjust their shot to account for a strong gust of wind that blows in AFTER the ball is already in the air. The method you suggested to practice this kind of shot--using a time machine--in not possible.

 

you absolutely did regarding football players kicking field goals lol.   Wind is always blowing after a golfer hits a ball or kicks a ball.  And I posted you a video of golfers practicing in gusty conditions.   So either they can't account for it all,  or they can according to your logic.  Which is it?  Tell me you didn't say that human ability increases ones chances for success.  Go ahead.   Which negates luck by definition.

     Lie upon lie. Your disgusting disrespect for the truth and repeated misrepresentations of others' statements is ample proof of your dishonesty. I said, referring to golf, football, soccer and any other example you crazily bring up, that you cannot practice in the EXACT conditions that might exist for one play. You can't know what they will be, you can't duplicate them. You can practice kicking footballs in a 20 mph wind all day and it won't help at all when a 60 mph gust blows through from a different direction AFTER the ball is in the air.

lfPatriotGames
lfPatriotGames
Jun 9, 2022
0
#1815
mpaetz wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:

 

 You and mpaetz have literally claimed its not even possible to practice in windy conditions which I find extremely dishonest.    

     This is an outright lie. Typical of your dishonest and disgusting tactics. What I said is that it is not possible to practice in the EXACT wind conditions that might prevail when you take a particular shot. You have no way of knowing in advance what they will be, and you have no power to make the wind blow in that way. And it no amount of practice and expertise will allow a golfer to adjust their shot to account for a strong gust of wind that blows in AFTER the ball is already in the air. The method you suggested to practice this kind of shot--using a time machine--in not possible.

There have been many, many outright lies. I'm beginning to think it might be a developmental reason. For which I now feel bad for saying some of the things I've said. 

LeeEuler
LeeEuler
Show your flair!
Jun 9, 2022
0
#1816

Coolout in April (see post #906, paraphrased): "Yes I can take a dictionary definition, add a whole separate and unrelated sentence at the end of it, pass it off as though it comes from a third-party source, and claim it is based on common consensus! How is that not reasonable?!?!"

Coolout now: "The most dishonest thing done in this thread was you posting half of [one of hundreds of dictionary definitions] ... It is something I will remember for the rest of my life."

lfPatriotGames
lfPatriotGames
Jun 9, 2022
0
#1817

"Wind is always blowing after a golfer hits a ball or kicks a ball."

I won't say who said this, but it's clearly a blatant lie, and it was said within the last few hours. I'm pretty sure if it's an obvious lie, everyone will automatically know who said it. I'm now thinking that the issue here is probably much worse than just a serial liar, or someone who feels a need to be right all the time, no matter what. I think it's not a good idea for me to expose those lies, as this just irritates the liar. I am going to listen to Koshnots advice. I am not helping the liar by giving him reason to lie even more. 

Luck in chess is a sensible subject, but when someone who is full of nonsense makes claims and analogies that are so dishonest and misleading, it doesn't contribute to the topic at all. 

I actually like the comment about computers playing, because it reduces the human element as much as possible. So that seems like a reasonable observation on luck in chess. 

LeeEuler
LeeEuler
Show your flair!
Jun 9, 2022
0
#1818
CooloutAC wrote:
LeeEuler wrote:

Coolout in April (see post #906, paraphrased): "Yes I can take a dictionary definition, add a whole separate and unrelated sentence at the end of it, pass it off as though it comes from a third-party source, and claim it is based on common consensus! How is that not reasonable?!?!"

Coolout now: "The most dishonest thing done in this thread was you posting half of [one of hundreds of dictionary definitions] ... It is something I will remember for the rest of my life."


First of all.  Adding the definition of skill as and antithesis to luck.  Is completely different then removing the definition.    You are another one who has a problem with the definition of luck,  because you also completely disregard it,  right after you quote it.  Shameful imo.

HEre is the very definition you quoted yourself "success or failure apparently brought by chance rather than through one's own actions"     You totally ignore the part about "ones own actions"   Which is why I had to also define skill for you.

Everybody I have seen you arguing with here has said some iteration of "the definition of luck is not really in question, most everyone knows what luck means, and any of the myriad of third-party sources (including the one you just gave) gets at the essence of what most people think luck means." 

You do not understand what the "one's own actions" means in the definition you use. It's already been pointed out to you: the person rolling a dice or spinning a wheel is also only using their own actions. There is no force from above that takes what would have been a 6 and turns it into a 1, for example. We do not call the result of the dice roll or wheel spin as stemming from a person's actions though, since it is unreasonable to categorize it that way.

If you are an absolutist in in terms of  "one's own actions" (which it seems like you are if you categorize a shanked golf shot that is suddenly thrown back into play by a 40mph gust of wind, bounces off a jagged rock, and is kicked by a passing deer into a hole as skill), I don't see how you can categorize a dice roll as luck. It is functionally the same thing to say a person is responsible for the exact position of their hands, how hard they spin the dice and in what direction, accounting for the bounce off a surface, etc.

lfPatriotGames
lfPatriotGames
Jun 9, 2022
0
#1819

Lee, that is the best laugh I've had today. That's quite a visual (and not too far off from a few of my shots). It's funny because it's true. Every time I've ever hit a tree and the ball bounced OB (or back into play) or had a putt lip out then fall (or stay out) I've always considered that luck. I've never considered it skill because there is no way to know which way it will turn out. 

I think the best visual example was the video posted about the ball ricocheting off another into the cup for a hole in one. I would say that's luck, by anyone's definition. 

LeeEuler
LeeEuler
Show your flair!
Jun 9, 2022
0
#1820

Ha! I have had similar experiences. When I played with a friend once we both hit it into the woods off the tee on consecutive shots. Only his bounced out. As we're walking up to get the ball, he winked and said "that's the home course advantage!"