Is there such thing as "luck" in chess?

Sort:
Mike_Kalish
Optimissed wrote:
mikekalish wrote:

By the way, I have no idea whether there is luck in chess. But lately, if there is any, I could sure use some. It's been a rough spell for me. 

But it wasn't the lack of luck, it was stupidity. If there was a thread titled, "Is there stupidity in chess", I don't think there'd be much debate going on. 

Can we talk later, another time? It's late here and I have some things to do before I can go to bed.

Of course.

lfPatriotGames

There is probably a lot of stupidity in chess, and there is at least some luck. It might be sometimes difficult to distinguish between the two. 

not_cl0ud

bruh 4000 posts XD

btw yes, you can risk things and just hope ur opponent doesn't see it 😋

not_cl0ud
ChessFlair01 wrote:

bruh 4000 posts XD

btw yes, you can risk things and just hope ur opponent doesn't see it 😋

happens to me

got forced cmate fromwhen my opponent was winning lol

I won

DiogenesDue
Optimissed wrote:

No, you misunderstand the nature of what's being discussed. You imagine that luck is some kind of power (like Thor). Luck is nothing different from random chance.

Anyway,  a few posts ago I posted an argument that cannot be refuted, that luck plays a part in chess. That was the argument from mental control. I note that you dodged that one fairly adeptly and prefer to concentrate on the arguments you believe you can cope with.

I called out a personification of luck.  That being quite literally analogous, it seems I understood it better than you have.

Your argument is irrelevant.  It's based on the same stuff you have always posted.  I was talking to a new poster, who seems less upset than you about my reply to his post wink.png.

Lastly, you're not the "leader" of one side of this debate, in spite of your belief.

not_cl0ud

This is luck

 

not_cl0ud
btickler wrote:
Optimissed wrote:

No, you misunderstand the nature of what's being discussed. You imagine that luck is some kind of power (like Thor). Luck is nothing different from random chance.

Anyway,  a few posts ago I posted an argument that cannot be refuted, that luck plays a part in chess. That was the argument from mental control. I note that you dodged that one fairly adeptly and prefer to concentrate on the arguments you believe you can cope with.

I called out a personification of luck.  That being quite literally analogous, it seems I understood it better than you have.

Your argument is irrelevant.  It's based on the same stuff you have always posted.  I was talking to a new poster, who seems less upset than you about my reply to his post .

Lastly, you're not the "leader" of one side of this debate, in spite of your belief.

am i new?

DiogenesDue
ChessFlair01 wrote:

am i new?

Does it matter?  You were not being referred to here.

SmyslovFan

For the record, a dictionary that defines luck as "fortune" isn't a dictionary, it's a thesaurus. 

DiogenesDue
Optimissed wrote:

"Called out" indicates that you think such a personification was immoral or maybe irrational. It was, in fact, a rather fun and rhetorical way of making a point. It isn't for us to disagree with someone's preferred method of making an argument. It's up to us to understand it.

You don't cause upset when you write something stupid. Take note: that is not you being called "stupid". By this time, you usually cause resigned acceptance of the inevitable. Logically, you're incorrect, as well as understanding very little.

Despite your apparent belief, I am not the leader of this side of the debate. A good debate doesn't have leaders or people who do what they are told and think as they are told.

Anyway, the personification of luck was metaphorical and it was a reasonable way of making a point. Grammatically, it may have been a simile, rather than a metaphor: I'll have to read it again, to see what I think. You made a logical error in assuming that you were addressing the origination of luck. Luck is chance, from a human or subjective perspective. It cannot be wholly eliminated from human endeavour, despite the protestations of a strangely absent Coolout.

Are you clearer?

Again...not the leader.  You can ask if I am "clearer", but it doesn't mean anything coming from you, since I wasn't even talking to you.

I was not actually addressing the origin of luck, just a historical trend for the discussion, so the error in logic is yours.  Perceiving nuance is something you could improve upon.

LeeEuler
CooloutAC wrote:
LeeEuler wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
mpaetz wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:

 

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.


I'm still waiting for you to post a dictionary definition of luck so we can debate it.   What are you afraid of?   I think you know that Patriot has already done just that,  so did another poster just yesterday,   and I have shown how they were omitting parts of it,  while failing to define the words within them,  which lead to their contradiction of them.   Patriot did so purposely and dishonestly,  while the other poster did subconsciously,  both trying to suit their own false narratives.

You want to step up to the plate now bud?  Try to gather the courage to do so.   I know you are too afraid to even play chess games on this site,  but why post and make claims if you are afraid to debate them? 

Like I keep saying this is extremely easy for me,  because I'm simply going by the technical definition of the word itself and and if you acknowledge those definitions as your definition,  then you are already losing the debate and proving yourself wrong.

It would be pretty easy for you, when you invent your own definitions and pretend they mean something, wouldn't it?

All you have to do is keep saying the same thing and hope someone who doesn't know you comes along, because they might think you're being honest.


But thats the opposite of my point.  Again,  you live in the world of reverse reality.   I'm saying post a dictionary definition,  which is what I go on,  which is why its so easy for me to debate the topic.  I'm the only one, NOT making up my own definition.  lol

This is demonstrably false, see my post #906 where I replied to you: "Oh! Wow! Okay, I had no idea that you were freely admitting that you took the definition I used from google, and added a whole sentence at the end of the definition based on what you felt like the definition should be. Yes, taking a dictionary definition and then adding a whole clause or sentence at the end of it is unreasonable"

And my post #3436 where I point out that your definition of luck is necessarily "not being able to increase ones success from practice or knowledge". Since of course the result of a roll of a dice, flip of a coin, spin of a wheel, etc. are all only the result of a person's actions too.

In contrast to you, you will notice that I have been very consistent:

-my post #780: "I will use any reasonable definition, but I've been using luck ='success or failure apparently brought by chance rather than through one's own actions'"

-my post #899: "You are not understanding the definition of luck, which I have as something akin to 'success or failure apparently brought by chance rather than through one's own actions'."

-my post #948: "...I don't think the second half of your definition is reasonable. I mention it in my reply to Optimissed, but I haven't found anybody other than yourself who includes or insinuates anything like the whole second half of your definition ('or not being able to increase ones chance of success with practice or knowledge') in theirs. By including it, you are almost defining the word as the conclusion of your argument...For reference, my actual definition of luck is something akin to: 'success or failure apparently brought by chance rather than through one's own actions'."

-my post #993: "If you have an alternate definition, that is fine. But there is no evidence that your definition is shared, supported, or implied by anybody else. You can say the definition of dog is 'a four wheeled motor vehicle powered by an internal combustion engine' but that doesn't mean others use dog the same way...I have not seen anyone else define luck as anything like 'not being able to increase ones chance of success with practice or knowledge'."

-my post #1033: "So you are willing to define luck as exactly the following: 'success or failure apparently brought by chance rather than through one's own actions.'?"

-my post #3333: "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."

 

Exactly.  I changed nothing you quoted from google, and simply added the definition of skill as an antithesis.  All you keep doing is showing you never understood the definition of skill anymore then you did luck,  except to rightly conclude they are opposites of each other,   or you would of already known this fact.

1) Skill is not the antithesis of luck. See my post #3417: "As is always the case with Coolout, unless he is quoting someone verbatim, you can assume he is just making things up to argue against. In this case, you can see my post #709 where I explicitly said the exact opposite of what Coolout claims. I wrote: '...luck and skill are not "opposite words with opposite definitions."'" 

2) Skill and luck might be crudely thought of as existing at opposite ends of a spectrum, but that doesn't make them opposites. Usain Bolt and an SR71 are on opposite ends of a speed spectrum, but "Usain Bolt" is not the opposite of "plane", for example.  

3) You tack on your or-statement (which I have seen nobody else use), since that is your real definition of luck. See my post #3436 where I say your definition of luck is necessarily "not being able to increase one[']s chances of success from practice or knowledge". If I say the definition of a chair is "a four legged place where people sit" and you say a chair is "a four legged place where people sit or any living creature", obviously you did change the definition to add a pretty big hammer of which you can hit many nails. 

Mike_Kalish
Optimissed wrote:

You should stop calling people "my friend" and then calling them dishonest. That in itself is dishonest.


Calling people "my friend" can either be quite affectionate, or it can be condescending.  When you follow it up with a suggestion of dishonesty, it's most likely not the former. 

Mike_Kalish
LeeEuler wrote:
 

1) Skill is not the antithesis of luck. See my post #3417: "As is always the case with Coolout, unless he is quoting someone verbatim, you can assume he is just making things up to argue against. In this case, you can see my post #709 where I explicitly said the exact opposite of what Coolout claims. I wrote: '...luck and skill are not "opposite words with opposite definitions."'" 

2) Skill and luck might be crudely thought of as existing at opposite ends of a spectrum, but that doesn't make them opposites. Usain Bolt and an SR71 are on opposite ends of a speed spectrum, but "Usain Bolt" is not the opposite of "plane", for example.  

3) You tack on your or-statement (which I have seen nobody else use), since that is your real definition of luck. See my post #3436 where I say your definition of luck is necessarily "not being able to increase one[']s chances of success from practice or knowledge". If I say the definition of a chair is "a four legged place where people sit" and you say a chair is "a four legged place where people sit or any living creature", obviously you did change the definition to add a pretty big hammer of which you can hit many nails. 

Hey, Lee....this is a brilliant post. It will probably go over Coolout's head, or he'll distort it, but I wanted you to know I really appreciated the provocative wisdom you took the time to share. 

(For anyone unfamiliar with the SR71, coolest plane ever made. This video tells it, but the story of Brian Shul is even more impressive that the aircraft. This is SO worth the time)

watch

DiogenesDue
Optimissed wrote:

Talk about "random word-salad". You're incapable of arguing or discussing coherently.

Coherent is not something you personally have the ability to arbitrate...your overreaching tidal wave of posts on various threads makes that pretty clear.

Everything I wrote is quite clear and easy to understand.  This is just your go-to response when you have no answers.  

mpaetz
SmyslovFan wrote:

For the record, a dictionary that defines luck as "fortune" isn't a dictionary, it's a thesaurus. 

     Which just illustrates the point that picking out one dictionary definition from the many that exist and proclaiming that that is the one "true" meaning that everyone in this forum must acknowledge is asinine.

lfPatriotGames
mpaetz wrote:
SmyslovFan wrote:

For the record, a dictionary that defines luck as "fortune" isn't a dictionary, it's a thesaurus. 

     Which just illustrates the point that picking out one dictionary definition from the many that exist and proclaiming that that is the one "true" meaning that everyone in this forum must acknowledge is asinine.

I figure it's always best to consider all of them. Sort of like taking an average. Combine all of them and take the average. What do they usually say the most? There is always going to be some offbeat random definition that is hardly ever used, but for most words (like luck) there seems to be a very small number of definitions that are commonly used by most dictionaries. 

All the definitions I've seen, and the ones posted here all seem pretty acceptable.

mpaetz
CooloutAC wrote:

 

First of all,  that is the topic of this thread,  to distinguish chess between other games.  many games do indeed have luck written into the rules.   

     Wrong. It doesn't matter how many differences we can discover between chess and hopscotch, blackjack, go, or any other games. That has no bearing on the actual topic here--whether or not there is any bit of luck in chess.

mpaetz
lfPatriotGames wrote:
mpaetz wrote:
SmyslovFan wrote:

For the record, a dictionary that defines luck as "fortune" isn't a dictionary, it's a thesaurus. 

     Which just illustrates the point that picking out one dictionary definition from the many that exist and proclaiming that that is the one "true" meaning that everyone in this forum must acknowledge is asinine.

I figure it's always best to consider all of them. Sort of like taking an average. Combine all of them and take the average. What do they usually say the most? There is always going to be some offbeat random definition that is hardly ever used, but for most words (like luck) there seems to be a very small number of definitions that are commonly used by most dictionaries. 

All the definitions I've seen, and the ones posted here all seem pretty acceptable.

     This would only work if everyone agreed to it. We know that there are some here who insist that only one definition--including elements they invented themselves--is truly meaningful in "the context of gaming".

lfPatriotGames
mpaetz wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:

 

First of all,  that is the topic of this thread,  to distinguish chess between other games.  many games do indeed have luck written into the rules.   

     Wrong. It doesn't matter how many differences we can discover between chess and hopscotch, blackjack, go, or any other games. That has no bearing on the actual topic here--whether or not there is any bit of luck in chess.

At first I thought maybe my eyesight was going bad. So I just now quickly looked at the topic, the title. Fortunately my eyesight is just fine. It didn't say "what's the difference between chess and other games". From the best I can tell it says "is there such thing as luck in chess"

mpaetz
CooloutAC wrote:

None of the definitions conflict my friend.  And words exist for a reason.  Its extremely dishonest to debate a topic of luck,  if you can't even define the word and how it applies to gaming and why that is important.

    Then be honest and quit your cowardly evasions. Show us where "chances can be improved through practice" appears in any dictionary definition of luck, or admit that this is your own invention and most of what you have said in this forum is worthless.