in my opinion, there were orders of medieval Christianity that definitely did use such methods and there is another, present day religion that does also, to the present day.
Maybe you should have said "In my opinion" to begin with.....but then you were "making a point". I see. "In my opinion" isn't so persuasive, is it? If you want to influence someone, throw out an opinion disguised as a fact.
in my opinion, there were orders of medieval Christianity that definitely did use such methods and there is another, present day religion that does also, to the present day.
Maybe you should have said "In my opinion" to begin with.....but then you were "making a point". I see. "In my opinion" isn't so persuasive, is it? If you want to influence someone, throw out an opinion disguised as a fact.
And no mention of which medieval orders and present-day religion. Nonetheless I agree with Optimissed that such orders exist(ed)--Jesuists come to mind--but disagree about who "turned this into a discussion about religion".
Imagine two guys on two corners of a block furthest from one another. Now both decide to walk around the block. Will they meet? It depends. If both walk the same way round, they won't, if they walk one clockwise, one counter-clockwise, they will. There is no pair of dice involved, yet there is randomness.
What is a game based on luck? A lottery, let's say. Let's not pick numbers, let's draw lots. We grab a certain lot and win or lose.
In chess, if we pick a certain continuation, unless it is a forced win, we draw a lot that will later unfold as a blank or as a prize or even a jackpot.
It matters that our skill increases our chances not to draw a blank. -What kind of lottery is that, you will ask. But who said luck in chess is a question of all or nothing? There is luck, pure lottery luck involved, but it comes in degrees.
The more people know, the less luck. But if two opponents know most angles of the game, luck may be the most likely factor to yield a decisive game.
It's like a lottery where most lots draw and some are uncertain and you can try your luck with them. Regardless that you do that for reasons and not randomly, here you often have to roll your dice and see what it's good for.
If chess was solved, there would be no more lottery, but ir isn't. The average wood-pushers cannot help testing rheir luck. But even for us, sometimes all reasonable stuff remaining is drawish, and sometimes you can decide to play it safe or go all-in for uncertainty.
"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.
Some religious doctrine states that it is perfectly acceptable to be dishonest, if the result is conversion.
That certainly explains most of what has been happening in America the past fifty years.
You are not a random generator though, everything you do is based on your human ability, your knowledge and your practice, Whether you realize it or not.
You are arguing that the outcome of a dice roll or wheel spin are a result of the person's skill.
That is why I say in my post #3333 that your real definition of luck is the second half of the definition that you (and you alone, apparently) use: "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."
I arguing the opposite my confused friend. I can't believe you just said that lmao. The real definition of luck already has the words ones own actions, abilities, or efforts. I'm simply explaining to you what that means. Your definition of skill is simply "doing something well" and I also explained what that means for you.
What you are doing here and now, once again, is showing you can't even distinguish between dice rolls and playing chess. Do you not see the problem with that or how it makes you look to others who can? IT should be so obvious, that it seems very disingenuous that are you refusing to.
You have said:
1) "...everything you do is based on your human ability." (post #3345)
2) "what you call a guess, is still based on human ability" (post #1950)
3) "...its very obvious that if ones own actions are causing the results, regardless of how you interpret it, then it is not luck by definition" (post #3276)
So you must believe:
1) Flipping a coin that lands heads is just a reflection of ones ability to flip a head.
2) Guessing the right suitcase in Deal Or No Deal is based on a contestant's ability.
3) A person who spins a roulette wheel (since the result of the wheel spin is only determined by the person's actions) and hits green is not lucky.
Then you either:
1) Really do believe those things
or
2) You do not mean what you wrote, and instead are actually relying on the second half of your definition ("[not] being able to increase ones success from practice or knowledge") to determine if something is luck or not. Like I wrote in my post you are replying to.
1) There is no ability to increase ones chances of success in flipping a coin especially when done in a way to ensure this as intended.
2) There is no ability to increase ones chances of success in picking a suitcase in deal or no deal
3) There is no ability to increase ones chances of success in spinning a roulette wheel as another poster just commented in the thread stating the same.
I really believe these things, which are important distinctions you stubbornly refuse to admit. The problem is you are pretending to not know what I meant, which is obvious. just like Patriot pretends to be dumb to get sympathy from people like optimissed, I'm simply not buying it. For you to admit there is no luck in chess, will not satisfy your ego and superiority complex that lower skilled players only win by luck, that speed chess is not real chess, that it is poor etiquette to flag players or not resign in losing positions, that chess is too hard for society to understand, that chess is not a sport, etc... All or some of these are your obvious motives to me.
Again, you have agreed that skill is the opposite of luck, So replace human ability with the words skill, which you also agreed is part of ones skill-set. It doesn't change anything I said bud. Do you not realize how obviously facetious you are being. And how dishonest that makes you look? Keep trying to play gotcha, you only got yourself got.
Apparently you didn't realize that you are proving LeeEuler's point that your whole argument is based on the "not being able to increase your chances through practice" part of your definition of luck. This is something you invented yourself. Why should you get to make up your own definition and rage against anyone who uses a definition they prefer? Can I say luck means "any positive or negative result of an action that was not intended or forseen" and force you to abide by it? You really have nothing to back up most of what you have repeated for the 100th time.
Which is what you call skill, which Lee Euler admitted is the opposite of luck. Hence I'm proving how he constantly contradicts himself. My friend, you ignorantly accused me of inventing the words action and ability being in the definition and i had to literally link the definitions of luck from dictionary.com and cambridge for you. There is no definition that does not apply as I explained in detail to patriot. When I say the definition that is applicable, i mean the one more specific to the context of gaming. Go ahead, link any definition of luck and I will show you how to apply it to gaming for you. The way I will do that, is define every word in any definition you put forward, with other dictionary definitions of those words. easy pz. Go for it.
Total garbage. No reply to the point that Mr. Cool blatantly added the parts about the "ability to increase your chances" to his definition of luck. This is in no dictionary definition that he has cited. It is his own invention. It is unrelated to the topic of this forum. Yet he has made it the lynchpin of his argument and "refutes" any arguments he cannot otherwise counter by saying this bit of hokum proves him to be correct.
Also, Coolout's proclamation that only his chosen definitions apply to gaming is preposterous. Others have cited different dictionary definitions that do not match his, and he has called them dishonest, cowardly, shameful, enemies off the game of chess, and more because they do not acknowledge him as the infallible judge of the only true meaning of words.
And of course his generous offer to "interpret" any definition of luck to match his viewpoint is laughable.
No lol, I did not say that, lol.
Did you know that btickler claims that <<<countering the trolls false narrative in public for all to see for the benefit of those who might believe them otherwise>>> is also btickler's stated motivation? Do you see the two of you as similar?
You absolutely did say that. And I see you as more similar to him then me, because I promote the sport, you both do the opposite. Which do you see as more noble?
Still can't stop talking about me...you guys need to get laid.
You are an idiot.
If I were the moderator, I would ban anyone who calls another an idiot, psychopath, or other inflammatory name. Not relevant or kind, that's for sure.
Someone needs to enforce some standards of decency.
Post a definition of luck and lets debate it.
This comment wasn't aimed at me, though I do find it a reasonable request.
So let's look at three sources and their (primary) definitions of "luck":
Merriam-Webster: "a force that brings good fortune or adversity"
Dictionary.com: "the force that seems to operate for good or ill in a person's life, as in shaping circumstances, events, or opportunities"
Cambridge Dictionary: "the force that causes things, especially good things, to happen to you by chance and not as a result of your own efforts or abilities:"
All three definitions mention a "force" that "brings", "operates for", or "causes" things to happen.
So if we're going to abide by this dictionary consensus, then we must accept that this "force" exists. Not a fictional superstition - but an actual thing. (Otherwise, if we choose to reject that this "force" exists, then we are choosing to reject the usefulness of these definitions, as well.)
So, if we want to use these definitions, then we must agree that this force exists.
Cambridge Dictionary is the only one of the three that stipulates that luck must occur "by chance and not as a result of your own efforts or abilities".
The tricky part of this stipulation is that we cannot know what amount of luck this "force" may exert on something (like a chess game).
Even if we are moving the pieces through our "own efforts or abilities", this "force" might still be exerting its influence upon us, and the game.
There is nothing in these definitions that declare that "this force will diminish or abandon its influence in the presence of our efforts or abilities".
It seems safe to conclude that the "force" of luck is an external phenomenon (as opposed to an internal phenomenon that somehow radiates outward, from humans bodies).
Therefore, we can conclude that the "force" of luck is external to our "own efforts or abilities" - not connected to them.
Which means we can also conclude that the "force" of luck can, and perhaps will, exert its influence regardless of our "own efforts or abilities".
Yes, we can use our efforts and abilities to influence a chess game in a clear "cause and effect" manner. But the "force" of luck can still exert itself upon the game, simultaneously, in whatever manner it happens to.
Perhaps this "force" causes a player to blunder in an uncharacteristic way. They may feel confused and bewildered afterward. "How could I possibly have missed that? It makes no sense. I must be losing my mind, or something."
This confusion could be explained by the player being unaware that an external "force" was acting upon them.
(Perhaps we're now straying into the metaphysical realm ...)
...
But again no, for the reasons you say it can be pointed to as existing, means you can't contradict yourself by saying we never know when it exists. That doesn't make sense. We know when it exists per the definition, when ones own force of action is not a factor and we take into account the random chance and the results.
...
Arguing that "maybe" luck is there, so you can claim such whenever you feel it convenient is not just confusing yourself. It is simply being dishonest.
I didn't say that "we never know when it exists".
We already know that the "force" of luck exists. (If we are choosing to accept the dictionary definitions, that is.) It's right there, in the definitions quoted.
All three dictionaries declare that luck exists, that it is a "force", and that it "brings", "operates for", or "causes good fortune or adversity".
So ... it's not so much a question of "when does luck exist?", but a question of "how much does it influence our chess games?"
My statement was: "we cannot know what amount of luck this 'force' may exert on something (like a chess game)."
The key word there is "amount". We have already established that the "force" of luck exists, and that it exerts an influence.
But unless we have a reliable way to measure this "force", we cannot know the amount of luck it's exerting on a chess game, the circumstances surrounding the game, or its players.
Our inability to measure it does not disprove its existence, though. It simply proves our inability to quantify it.
Here is Ian Nepomniatchi, in a post-game interview, after his infamous World Championship match, Game 9:
Notice his responses, when asked about his surprising blunder.
He says things such as, "I was like, 'Oh, come on. Not again.'"
and, "... c5 was sort of a - sort of a - bad luck."
and, "It's hard, like, it doesn't matter what position I get, I ..."
He is describing the incident as if something has happened to him. As if some unfortunate pattern is plaguing him. "Bad luck", he declares, in an apparent loss for words. He struggles to find a clear explanation for it.
He feels like it "doesn't matter" what he does - something still goes wrong.
Now we could conclude that he simply lacks the self-awareness to know why he blundered. Though that seems unlikely. He is an experienced professional player. He would certainly understand the nature of blundering.
It would be no mystery to him - no inexplainable phenomenon.
He has been playing competitive chess for decades.
Yet he behaves, here, as if his blunder lacks any clear explanation. Baffling.
Perhaps we should give him the benefit of the doubt, and assume that his words have merit? If he says it was "bad luck", perhaps we should consider the possibility that he's right.
Though, those who disbelieve in luck (regarding chess) would refuse to accept this. Because it suggests something undefinable, something unscientific (or something beyond the reach of current science) - which can be an uncomfortable notion.
We don't want to accept the possibility that there may be "forces" acting upon us, beyond our control. Especially when we are chess players. We like the wonder and the logic of those 64 squares. The beauty of clear and definable cause and effect.
We don't want to hear the suggestion that a mysterious "force" might be influencing our games. We won't tolerate the idea.
We will argue it away.
You are an idiot. Accept the offer, which is still open. Rejecting the offer, which you did, saying nothing will prevent you making what posts you want ...well, that works both ways. I'll mention you when I like, if the context is relevant. Accept my offer and I won't. Pretending I wouldn't stick to it (as you did) is irrelevant and just an excuse.
And I doubt anyone wishes to know about your sex life.
Every time you resort to idiot/imbecile, you just come off looking like a sore loser. Maybe try for something more creative.
I didn't say anything about my sex life, for the record.
This was asked before by someone else, but if there is no luck in chess, why do two computers, both having an identical rating of 3400 not always draw?
The reason the highest level computers don’t always draw is because of the Horizon Effect (computers cannot analyze a position all the way to the end so there is always a level of uncertainty that eventually gives one side an edge). However, that doesn’t change the fact that within every position, you have full control over what is played, thus, determining the outcome of a position without any element of chance. If there is no random chance in chess, then how can there be luck?
"If there is no random chance in chess, then how can there be luck?"
A beginner can calculate the position wrong, and still make the best stockfish move without any idea why the move works. This is indeed random chance.
This is very true, however, a better player will still be able to win because they have full control over their next move. In a true game of luck/chance (such as roulette) the better player is the person who gets lucky, not the person who has more skill (such as in chess).
In your scenario, the best move wasn’t chosen at random. The move itself was chosen on purpose, hence, there was no random chance that this move was selected. You could say that there is a random chance that your selected move is the best move according to whatever engine, however, this does not mean that there is random chance in the game of chess. Every move is deterministic, thus, every position is deterministic, thus, the outcome of the game is deterministic.
That makes sense. However, even a game where two grandmasters play there can be an element of luck. Every move could be made to the best of their ability. Except one. For one move one (or both) grandmasters could randomly pick a move (close their eyes and reach out on to the board and whatever piece gets touched is the one they have to move). They both do that, then continue the game, to the best of their ability from there.
This is a variation of what Koshnot said. They aren't beginners, where a beginner might randomly pick any move, and it happens to be a good one, but the point is it's totally random, with equal chances of it being a great move or a terrible move.
I think most everyone agrees chess is almost all skill, with very little luck. But the question isn't if there is a small amount of luck in chess, it's if there is such a thing as luck in chess. So even if it's a very, very small amount, and even if it's in situations that are rare or whimsical, the answer would have to be yes. Because rare counts.
The reason why you can't identify such a force in chess, is because none exist in it. The reason those definitions exist, is because you can indeed make the distinction between a force that is not human, and human force. But you are contradicting those definitions by also claiming you can't.
...
And yes indeed, it is an external phenomenon and again not a human force. ... ...
And yes force of luck is not connected to our abilities. exactly. ...
Arguing that "maybe" luck is there, so you can claim such whenever you feel it convenient is not just confusing yourself. It is simply being dishonest and failing to take into account the reason for the word existing. As well as contradicting your very first statement.
If we agree that luck is not caused or affected by humans, then we can go back to my example of computer chess. Statisticians have a definition of luck:
"Rosenthal describes random luck as events that are outside of our control or knowledge — you can't predict it, but you can notice it in hindsight."https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/the-current-for-october-9-2018-1.4854745/is-luck-real-a-probability-expert-untangles-the-difference-between-fate-and-chance-1.4850859
We can analyse whether there are events outside the control of humans or the best engines that cannot be controlled or predicted. That is why computer chess is essential for determining whether there is such a thing as luck. If we remove all human elements and as many mistakes as possible from the game and there are still random results in chess (not connected to power outages or other outside forces), then we can say there is luck in chess.
I know, it's boring to know beyond a doubt that there is luck in chess when this thread has been going on for years and thousands of posts. But there you have it. Luck, as defined by statisticians, does exist in chess.
That's a definition I have not heard before. "Rosenthal describes random luck as events that are outside our control or knowledge-you can't predict it but you can notice it in hindsight".
If luck is described as events outside our knowledge then there is definitely luck in chess. Because I have played at least 4 games where I did not know how it was going to end.
That's a definition I have not heard before. "Rosenthal describes random luck as events that are outside our control or knowledge-you can't predict it but you can notice it in hindsight".
If luck is described as events outside our knowledge then there is definitely luck in chess. Because I have played at least 4 games where I did not know how it was going to end.
Remember, there’s also the control issue. The better we get at chess, the more control we have over what happens.
Engines often play 100 game matches. We can predict that there will be some decisive games even between identical computers, but we can’t predict which games will be decisive.
That's a definition I have not heard before. "Rosenthal describes random luck as events that are outside our control or knowledge-you can't predict it but you can notice it in hindsight".
If luck is described as events outside our knowledge then there is definitely luck in chess. Because I have played at least 4 games where I did not know how it was going to end.
Remember, there’s also the control issue. The better we get at chess, the more control we have over what happens.
Engines often play 100 game matches. We can predict that there will be some decisive games even between identical computers, but we can’t predict which games will be decisive.
That's what I was wondering about too. Not the worlds best computers, but two identically rated computers of say, 3400. Super good, but not the best. It seems like they will not draw every single game. And maybe the same thing could happen with two identical 2000 rated computers. Maybe they would not draw every single game. So something is happening, somewhere, that makes a difference.
The hindsight argument lends itself to the "luck is just human perception applied to unknown outcomes after the fact" definition. That being said, there are few people arguing that there is zero luck in chess, and only one that is saying that there's no luck in sports and that human beings control the weather 
.
On the engines argument...this has been explained before. Only people that don't understand how the software/hardware work and how the engines' calculations are constantly "interrupted" by OS processes, etc. think that engines should play the exact same game every time. Engines can and do have variations in play, and effectively suffer from "loss of focus", just not in the same way humans do.
For the purposes of this topic, there's no significant difference between engines and human players. And if one's argument is that luck only applies to humans, then that's a loss for the "is there luck in the game of chess?" side...
When I win my games, I am a good chess player and the way I think is good.
When I lose, I am unlucky and have excuses.
Secondly, luck depends on which situation are you in while playing chess.
Don't be a dishonest coward. Post a definition of luck and lets debate it. Patriot already tried and failed, you afraid to be next? I have posted the definitions from cambridge and dictionary.com already to prove I have made nothing up when you claimed I inserted the words actions and abilities. lmao. Now you are claiming the definition of skill i add along with it is changing something when the definition of luck I have posted is word for word from those dictionaries. You are the one making things up...lol All one has to do is look at your fake profile and then look at mine to know who is who.
More cowardly evasions and outright lies. Shameful and dishonest. I never disputed your use of dictionary definitions of luck. I pointed out that there are many other dictionary definitions that many others in this forum have posted that you say are invalid because they don't say exactly what you believe. Those dictionary definitions are every bit as valid as the ones you cite. You can't seem to understand that most words in the English language have multiple meanings and/or shades of interpretation. Your arrogant proclamation that you are more qualified than any one else to decide which are appropriate here due to your superior "sporting sense" is a joke, and your claim to know exactly what the OP meant while other opinions are invalid is worthless.
What I have pointed out in my last few posts is that you have repeatedly used the "can be increased by your own abilities" as part of your definition when this bit of malarkey is your own invention and appears nowhere in any definition of luck anyone has posted. Cite the source of this unsupported claim--tell us where you found this in any dictionary definition of luck. You have freely admitted that this is something you added yourself. You had to do this as otherwise your contention that there can be NO luck in any skill-based sport falls on its face. It is an untenable standard that only you believe in. Prove otherwise.
<<3) There is no ability to increase ones chances of success in spinning a roulette wheel as another poster just commented in the thread stating the same. >>
How do you know that??
Right? And idk what this extensively long arguement is about, but it certianly is true that there are people who spend thousands of hours practicing rolling dice and can *increase* the likelyhood of them rolling certian numbers. Just the same as flipping a coin. If someone were to practice for thousands and thousands of hours it is certianly true that they could increase their chances of flipping a desired side of a coin. Key part here being increase their chances. Obviously these sort of things are still statistically impossible to *master* , but one can certianly increase their chances. Especially flipping a coin. Its simply a repetitive action with a constant object being the coin. Think of shooting a basketball. Its a consistent ly shaped and weighted object i which through good bodily mechsnics and through thousands and thousands of repetions you increase the likelyhood of making shots by using a repetitive motion on said object. While there are always shots people call lucky and some *luck* surely must play a part. Stephen curry through thousands of repetitions of shooting a basketball with consistent mechanics and a constsnt object and goal has significantly i lroved his chances of making shots. Essentially the exact same process of flipping a coin. Especislly the amount of backspin etc...