There are quite many people who do not give rematch when they win, but ask for rematch when they lose. What do you think?
A good general recognizes when his enemy is goading him into a fight, and is willing to refuse to give battle until he knows he is ready.
Channeling your inner Sun Tzu, I see!
You can try to redefine it as luck,
That's comically ironic, given that, as I've already pointed out, it is Minarima (and by extension, you) who is trying to redefine the term "luck".
>but as you touched on, mistakes and their kin, blunders (stupid mistakes) are part of the game.
That's like saying that someone not showing up at all, and thus, losing by forfeit (which is a lucky way to win a game) is "part of the game". Also, I didn't say anything about "mistakes". At this time, no human or computer can play a perfect game of chess, and anything less than perfect could be considered a mistake on some level. I'm talking about major blunders.
>Blunders and mistakes are expressions of skill; skill is not a constant but fluctuates with time, even on a moment to moment basis.
No, Ivanchuk's skill level didn't magically drop to that of a first-time chess player. Rare oversights are not considered skill losses.
>For the player who is able to capitalize on their opponent's mistakes and blunders, it is not luck but the flexing of their skill. For the player unable to capitalize on them, it is also an expression of their skill.
It takes no meaningful amount of skill to capitalize on a major blunder. Many first-time players have enough "skill" to see that an e.g., a blundered queen can be taken freely. And it takes zero skill to just sit there and not get checkmated by someone who didn't see a mate-in-one.
>The bit about any play below the best of one's ability amounting to luck is nonsensical. You might as well make the claim that *all* play is luck at that point.
False. There are plenty of games played in which neither player ever makes a move which is blatantly below his ability.
>While it is true that a variety of circumstances dictate how we play at any given moment, including distractions, mental laziness, poor training, diet, etc., each of these things are able to be controlled. The highly skilled player is able to control more of these factors, and more often. This extends to any activity which takes skill to perform.
When there's a slim chance that something good, which is beyond your control, will happen (such as your grandmaster opponent missing a mate-in-one), and it happens, that's lucky for you by definition.
Then we are in agreement. I’m not sure why you’re behaving as though we’re not.
Then we are in agreement. I’m not sure why you’re behaving as though we’re not.
No, we're not in agreement, because you don't think that Anand was lucky that Ivanchuk didn't checkmate him, even though he was, by definition. Luck can factor into the results of any competitive game or sport, regardless of whether they are inherently games of chance or not.
No, we're not in agreement, because you don't think that Anand was lucky that Ivanchuk didn't checkmate him, even though he was, by definition. Luck can factor into the results of any competitive game or sport, regardless of whether they are inherently games of chance or not.
A chess move is either good or it is bad, with various shades of each in between. By comparison a chess move cannot be lucky or unlucky.
It seems we’ll have to agree to disagree. (although my gut is telling me you like to disagree simply for the sake of disagreeing.)
A chess move is either good or it is bad, with various shades of each in between. By comparison a chess move cannot be lucky or unlucky.
A chess move is an event. Events can be assigned likelihoods of occurrence. When a low-likelihood event occurs which is in your favor and over which you have no control (such as your grandmaster opponent missing an obvious mate-in-one), it is called "good luck" (when it is not in your favor it is "bad luck"). The only way that will ever change is if the definition of "luck" changes, and for that to happen, the English-speaking world would have to come to a new consensus on the meaning of the word "luck", which I doubt will happen in any of our lifetimes.
A chess move is either good or it is bad, with various shades of each in between. By comparison a chess move cannot be lucky or unlucky.
A chess move is an event. Events can be assigned likelihoods of occurrence. When a low-likelihood event occurs which is in your favor (such as a grandmaster missing an obvious mate-in-one), it is called "good luck" (when it is not in your favor it is "bad luck"). The only way that will ever change is if the definition of "luck" changes, and for that to happen, the English-speaking world would have to come to a new consensus on the meaning of the word "luck", which I doubt will happen in any of our lifetimes.
I'm afraid your logic is flawed because 'the event', or 'the chess move', is not an event based on chance, but on skill.
Now whether or not probability is applied to this event is unrelated to the fundamental nature of the event itself.
For example one can stake a bet on the likelihood of an athlete winning a race, but that doesn't change the fundamental nature of the race being a measure of an athlete's speed, and not the athlete's luck.
Does nobody else agree with me?
I'm afraid your logic is flawed because 'the event', otherwise known as 'the chess move', is not an event based on chance, but on skill.
That only applies to moves which are not blatantly at odds with the player's level of skill. That's the reason the event is so unlikely in the first place, because a grandmaster's skill level is so far beyond the minimum level required to see an obvious mate-in-one. It was a freak occurrence, and freak occurrences which are in your favor are known as "good luck".
>For example one can stake a bet on the likelihood of an athlete winning a race, but that doesn't change the fundamental nature of the race being a measure of an athlete's speed, and not the athlete's luck.
If the winner of the race was losing by an insurmountable margin and he only won because his opponent e.g., got struck by lightning ten yards from the finish line, then he got lucky.
You must be great fun at parties.
You must be great fun at parties.
This isn't a party, and your tacit concession on the matter is noted, again.
The amount of people on this site that have this idiotic notion they are somehow entitled to a rematch is truly mind blowing. STFU ya big bunch of babies!
+1000000000000
your tacit concession on the matter is noted, again.
*facepalm
You must be great fun at parties.
Nobody would invite him and nobody would accept his invitation. ;-)
You must be great fun at parties.
Nobody would invite him and nobody would accept his invitation. ;-)
Before playing the cliche "You must be great fun at parties" card, you should be in some sort of position that doesn't make it unintentionally hilarious coming from you. You two realize that you're on a chess forum, right?
I think the word ‘luck’ in this thread is being misused instead of ‘fortunate’.
Luck within the context of games has very precise usage, and refers specifically to chance based events that result from a random process, such as the throwing of dice, or the flipping of a coin.
Those are known as games of chance, or sometimes games of luck. I've already pointed out that chess isn't a "game of luck", i.e., I said that luck isn't inherently part of chess. But luck can and does play a part in the results of some games of chess, and I've already given examples. If someone said to Anand after that game, "You were lucky he didn't see that mate-in-one," that's a perfectly valid statement.
>Even outside of this specific usage it feels odd to me to call miscalculations/blunders good luck/bad luck, as by extension you would have to call Magnus Carlsen very ‘lucky’ to always win his games, when in fact he wins more often than most due to his superior ability and skills of calculation.
No. As I've already said, luck only applies when someone plays blatantly below their ability, i.e., a major blunder that they wouldn't normally make. If someone plays the best game they can, and they still lose, there's no luck involved.