I like subterfuge:

NOUN

1.0 deception by artifice or strategem in order to conceal, escape, or evade

2.0 a deceptive device or stratagem

In this context the etymology suggests secretly fleeing the truth beneath the surface of the true statement:

1570s, from Middle French subterfuge (14c.) or directly from Medieval Latin subterfugium "an evasion,"

from Latin subterfugere "to evade, escape, flee by stealth,"

from subter "beneath, below;" in compounds "secretly"

(from PIE **sup*-ter-, suffixed (comparative) form of *(s)up-; see sub-) + fugere "flee" (see fugitive (adj.)).

Lawyers say: suppressio veri, which is Latin for suppressing truth, and is considered a false statement.

This is what can be referred to as a lie of omission.

"Also known as a continuing misrepresentation, a lie by omission occurs when an important fact is left out in order to foster a misconception. Lying by omission includes failures to correct pre-existing misconceptions. When the seller of a car declares it has been serviced regularly but does not tell that a fault was reported at the last service, the seller lies by omission. It can be compared to dissimulation."

These are somewhat different in that it's not an active lie, and everything stated is accurate, but allows the listener to draw their own (likely erroneous) conclusions.

Since Newton's statements were made, they have been determined to be truthful (not half-truths, subterfuge, or deceptive) with qualifications.

The intentional omission of the qualifying conditions that make a statement true might be considered a deception, but generally, when it comes to facts like you give in your example, this isn't the case.

Statements made with no qualifications as said to be absolute, unqualified, or unequivocal.

I'm more interested in the chess example.

I don't consider "I've never lost a game of chess" when you haven't played a game of chess, to be a half truth at all. I believe it is the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

However, I still think it is misleading.

But I think it is the standard assumptive social norms that people habitually intuit that cause them to be misled. People mislead themselves by being presumptuous about the purpose of the speaker.

Basically: It is merely due to the fact that most people when they say "I have never lost a game of chess." do so in reference to games they have already played. It's simply weird and socially abnormal and quirky to say "I've never lost a game of X" where X is a game one has never actually played.

It's implicit bias in favor of social norms and against social quirks or abnormalities that causes this.

Nothing wrong with being socially abnormal (or rather, non-normal considering the negative connotation of 'abnormal')... provided that you are not being anti-social

It's possible to be pro-social but still socially abnormal. I do it all the time.

As long as the speaker isn't intentionally trying to mislead by saying "I've never lost a game of chess" when they haven't played, and as long as soon as they realize the listener is being misled by what they've said, they follow it up with "But of course that's because I've never played a game" (and such an odd and quirky/non-socially-normal statement can actually lead to laughter on behalf of the listener and hence be both socially odd and thankfully prosocial) then it is fine.

Lots of love from,

Mike the dude who probably has Aspergers Syndrome and is getting tested for it soon

P.S. I like being me.

I think it is called a hyperbole... or an overstatement.

specious - superficially plausible, but actually wrong.

Chicanery.

1. Deception by use of trickery, quibbling, or subterfuge.

2. (countable, law) A slick performance by a lawyer.

Note that this doesn't apply in all cases.

---

Discussion.

Sometimes when someone does something wrong, it's hard to firmly establish what happened or/and their intent. Accusing them of a specific wrong-doing can give them an opportunity to establish doubt by arguing that that specific wrong-doing isn't provable.

For example, say a politician has a habit of making dubious statements in loose language. It might be dangerous to accuse them of lying, because sympathetic observers might feel it unfair to call someone a liar when:

• it's possible to interpret a statement as true;

• the politician may've been trying to tell the truth but made an honest mistake;

• the politician may've been trying to say something true but accidentally misworded something;

• the politician may've been speaking hyperbolically or otherwise loosely rather than literally.

If the politician's words reach a large audience, then different segments of that audience may prefer different explanations, making it hard to sustain a generally agreeable accusation of a specific explanation.

Hence the definition chicanery broadly referring to the general practice of trickery, quibbling, subterfuge, or sophistry^(source). This allows us to say, e.g., that a politician is chicanerous without having to debate whether they're lying, deceiving, misleading, miscommunicating, etc., or some combination thereof.