Winter Olympics as a game of chance

luck (lŭk) n. The chance happening of fortunate or adverse events; fortune: "They met one day out of pure luck." Good fortune or prosperity; success: "We wish you luck." One's personal fate or lot: "It was just my luck to win a trip I couldn't take." Yes, chess takes vast amounts of skill, foresight, and knowledge, but, I still think you are "lucky" if the other guy screws up before you do, thus you win and not vice versa.

I was watching women's slalom last night and thought that was a classic case of luck factoring into a timed race. If you saw any of it, the fog was pretty heavy, and heavier for the early skiiers than for the skiiers who ran later. Now how much that affected the early runs, I don't know, but surely something like that could make a difference. I would think wind conditions would be another "luck" factor that could affect someone's time in an outdoor sport. p.s. I saw in an interview that Shani Davis started out racing short track but switched to long track because of his body type and height. So I expect there's something to the idea of shorter skaters having an advantage in short track.

You're lucky if the other guy screws up a move? originally posted by Jim Clemmens about luck in chess Actually that is a little ambiguous IMHO for several reasons.....let me just elaborate a little on the main reason though:......What exactly does "scew up" a move mean anyway?......Most Grandmaster chess palyers believe that if neither player makes any mistakes on any moves (i.e. niether player screws up at least one move on some level) then the game will always end in a draw BOTTOM LINE.....No one can win a game of chess unless at least one of the players "screws up" at least one move.....Emanual Lasker (famous Chess Champion) was quoted once as saying something to the effect that the one who wins in chess is just the one who screws up the least..........If two players are of a sufficiently high skill level (and aren't playing 5 minute blitz chess....but regular tounament rules chess in which they each have something like 2 hours or so to make the first 40 moves), it is almost impossible to believe that either player would ever "screw up" a move in any "obvious" way....unless (as I stated before) they accidently put a piece on the wrong square (i.e. a square different from the one they intended to put it on) without thinking and removed thier hand from the piece before they realized thier mistake....something that I have done before....but also is very unlikely to occur. Newmastersswimmer p.s. Just in case anyone may think this is interesting (and probably you don't ...so then simply skip my extra comments below): The reason that my ascertion that at least one player has to screw up at least one move before anyone can win a game of chess cannot be rigorously mathematically proven as of yet has mainly to do with the enormous number of different possible legal chess configurations that could potentially arise in a game of chess (so too many to count and catalogue).....so many in fact that no supercomputer in existence today could ever count them all in any reasonable amount of time.....it has been estimated that the total number of different chess configurations is on the order of 10 raised to the 40th power.....the total number of atoms in the entire universe (which contains an estimated 50 billion or so galaxies ....most of which contain millions of solar systems) is believed by most cosmologists to be somewhere on the order of 10 to the 50th power......another way of trying to understand how large 10 to the 40th power is as a number is based on how long it takes to count to a number that big....For example: If a computer could theoretically count and catalogue at a rate of a trillion different chess configurations per second (on average), then it would still take well over 20 billion years to count them all based on the estimate of 10 to the 40th power I gave....this is a span of time that most cosmologists believe to be longer than than the entire lifespan of the universe (from the big bang up untill today!!)

Originally posted by craiglll@yahoo.com Three, The number of curling clubs inthe US is exploding, umlike I am firmly of the opinion that curling started as a drinking game. Just watching it makes me want to drink, not that it takes much to induce that feeling for me.

Curling...I used to swim at a pool where there was a licensed lounge overlooking both the pool & a curling rink. After swimming we would retire to the lounge for wine and/or beer, much energy & laughter; the curlers would come up scowling & start throwing down the rye like it was going to run out.

Originally posted by Newmastersswimmmer: when someone said that every sport has elements of luck in them on some level...it depends on whether or not you accept chess as a sport....where's the possible elements of luck in a chess match? You're lucky if the other guy screws up a move?

First, is diving a sport? Second, Koreans are into short track not because they are little but probably because of some cultural significane of the sport to them. Why through this definititon, would so many Janpanese women run marathons? Three, The number of curling clubs inthe US is exploding, umlike bowling which is losing participants at high rates. It still seems very boring to me. It seems to me to be more like chess or a board . Four, I know lots of guys my age and slightly younger who started swimming because of Mark Spitz. Five, to argue that judges are in swimming to detect cheating is only have of the point. Judges in sport are there to maintain the rules and how the rules are followed by participants. Everytime a swimmer goes off of a block at the begining of a race, that swimmer is being judged. The judge may not appoint a value to the start dive by a judgement is being made. Six, just how tall is janet Evans? If I understand correctly, for an event to be in the Olympics, there must be an international federation that establishes and maintains rules and requirements for the specific sport.

I mean the Koreans like the short track and do good in it. You can be shorter in height unlike swimming where you have to be over 6' foot for a guy. I was replying to Bryan Gumbel that made a remark about the winter olympics being too lily white. I was saying that short track has a lot of different people and there are a look of Koreans and others good at it.

Before you rip on Bode too much take his childhood into account. He grew up in a cabin with no electricity or running water with totally hippie parents. Material possession (medals included) aren't important in that culture. Now add in the environment of competitive skiing where material possessions are prized. Bode wants to ski not be a star. He wants the bucks because he doesn't want a "real job". He is not a "real job" kind of guy. He has some really great and really healthy philosophies. He skis because he loves the speed, the challenge, the rush and all that. He races the clock not his opponents, much like swimming. He realizes he cannot control what anyone else does so he focuses on himself. I also think Bode is trying to sort out the two lifestyles right now and figure out what works for him and who he wants to be. He is a great guy!

Originally posted by SwiminONandON Before you rip on Bode too much take his childhood into account. He grew up in a cabin with no electricity or running water with totally hippie parents. Material possession (medals included) aren't important in that culture. Give me a break! The guy grew up in a cabin is the reason for his odd behavior? He's an elite athlete in his sport. He obviously loves competition and the perks he gets from being at the elite level. He doesn't seem to mind flying all over the world, partying his ass off and enjoying the good life but yet we should say he doesn't do as well as we would like because he grew up in a cabin.