LeeEuler wrote: (to Coolout)
"You consistently seem offended by an insinuation that isn't being made by anyone you're arguing with."
"I did not say that."
Get used to it, Lee. It's what he does.... he misquotes. I said, "The brain burns fuel to create chemical energy and muscles burn fuel to create mechanical energy", and he responds, "You said the brain is a muscle".
Either he doesn't understand English, or he is manipulative and deceitful, but either way he will distort what you say, and then accuse you of distorting what he says.
I have no idea if he's aware of it....or if there's any self awareness going on at all.
You consistently seem offended by an insinuation that isn't being made by anyone you're arguing with. Nobody is using luck as a crutch to explain away bad performances against lesser rated players.
The author wrote "...if we restrict our scope to only the best players, we will usually find that the outcomes are determined mostly by luck..." So he is saying that once you condition the population to the highest level, any outcome (win/lose/draw) can largely be attributed to luck. i.e. the most readily available explanation for a 2500+ player who wins against a similarly rated opponent is that they experienced good luck.
so now you went from one of your previous posts saying it must be a luck that a player who singlehandedly won a tournament but slumped in another one must be due to some luck you can't explain. To now saying anytime equally rated opponents win or lose its only because of luck? Again you're saying NOTHING. what is the luck? Where? how? when? why?
What is offensive by you, is you literally quoted the dictionary.com definition of luck that applies to gaming, you called it reasonable, and then you constantly contradict and disregard it in everyone of your posts.
Are you not paying attention when I tell you that a 2500 rated player is never 2500 rated? Do you understand what I mean by that? That is simply an estimation, and on any given day they can be way higher or way lower because they are human beings, not robots or computer programs, so their rating is never constant or static. Its ever changing at all times because their mental and physical states always are. Thats why we only estimate their skill over time to a general chance. The reason why you say it must be luck even though you can't point to anything else existing, is because it is based on their human ability and nothing else. There is nothing else to point to.
Again, the only time their own actions can be "lucky", is when it benefits others besides themselves.
I did not say that. Former World Champion Steinitz (correctly) saw evidence that a player's own ability did not rapidly change from one event to the next, but their results did. In other words, every change in outcome is not attributable to a change in skill. (see my post #3033).
The quote from Steinitz is in the following link: https://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/luck.html
As for the definition I choose: "success or failure apparently brought by chance rather than through one's own actions" yeah I consider that perfectly reasonable. As I've explained before, you misinterpret what "one's own actions" means, which is why you need to add your second statement--"or being able to increase ones success from practice or knowledge"-- to make your worldview work. It should be noted that nobody else uses this second statement, as far as I can tell.
So when you say:
The problem with some like Lee, is he keeps saying something must be from luck, but can't even explain why he believes that other then saying a player did not perform up to his expected rating. He is confusing chances with luck, but chances are only lucky based on the action and results. And if he can't point to anything other then human ability causing them, it is skill.
You are being imprecise, since a dice roll or spin of the wheel is exclusively the result of one's own actions, and yet we do not attribute the result of the roll or spin to the actions or ability. What you really mean is that your definition of luck is "[not] being able to increase ones success from practice or knowledge". If you remove that, then your worldview collapses.
Obviously, if you say that anything you can improve through practice has no elements of luck, then any skill based game will not have luck. But nobody besides yourself views or uses luck that way. In fact that ludometrics paper specifically addresses this when they write "We insist on a broader definition of luck, because an extra-agential concept of luck is neither authentic nor useful."