Akuni wrote:
careyfan wrote:
A grandmaster would shred almost all of us 100 out of 100 times. Is that luck?
Yes.
no
Chess: A Game of Luck?
Sort:
Phelon wrote:
Akuni wrote:
careyfan wrote:
A grandmaster would shred almost all of us 100 out of 100 times. Is that luck?
Yes.
no
no, 99 times out of 100 yes, !! everyone has a off day!! even GM
Kepler wrote:
Brandobras wrote:
Kepler wrote:
.... In the game mentioned in the original post, Korchnoi did not notice the winning move. He was unlucky because he failed to take the opportunity presented top him. On the other hand, Karpov was lucky because he gave Korchnoi that opportunity but survived! Both players had a measure of control over the situation but both failed to notice something in the position that was critical. Luck not chance.
But then you can say that Korchnoi was unlucky or that was not as good player as to see the best move in this case and because of that he could not mate Karpov...
I think that if you miss the best move, it's just because your level in chess is not so strong, and it's not a matter of chance or luck.
regards
Kramnik misses mate in one because he is a bad player or because he was "unlucky"? In a sense luck translates into ability to spot an opportunity. That may well be affected by other factors such as tiredness, time pressure and so on. Those are not things due to chance but they are factors that are not necessarily linked to playing ability.
Napoleon said that he preferred lucky generals to good generals. A good but unlucky general might well miss an opportunity because he would not expect the enemy to do a particular thing (my opponent is too good to blunder so that hanging queen must be a cunning sacrifice) while the lucky general is watching for those opportunities.
Luck refers to factors that are outside of your control. Not missing a mate in one is within your control. It's not that Kramnik's a bad player, to the contrary, but he certainly made a bad move on that occasion. No luck involved.
As to my hypothetical "perfect player", I wasn't suggesting that such a player exists, but constructing such a player to illustrate that luck can theoretically be eliminated as a factor in chess.
Luck does not refer to factors outside your control, it refers to factors about which you have imperfect information, and as such you cannot make an accurate prediction.
I choose "factors outside of your control" in recognition that ther is some luck involved (particularly when your opponent blunders). Using the "factors about which you have imperfect information" leaves no room for luck in chess, because it's a complete information game. This was the point I was trying to make with the "perfect player". The difference is actually very subtle, but even with perfect information, your opponent's choice of move is outside of your control.
Akuni wrote:
Luck does not refer to factors outside your control, it refers to factors about which you have imperfect information, and as such you cannot make an accurate prediction.
So the outcome is luck, not the game.
Your opponents moves are part of luck, but your own aren't.
The future of the game is luck, the present isn't
Nobody can say there is no luck in chess. The game itself combines skill and good fortune in equal measure. Of course, to be able to hold on in a complex game or finish off winning positions require a lot of skill, but only an inaccurate move or series of moves by your opponent can make such a winning position possible, and that's where the luck comes in.
I don't believe in luck, I believe in good moves (when I can find them, if not of course I'll be willing to believe in luck)
chess is a skill there is no luck in chess i believe 
When you say pre-quantam, presumably you are refering to Hesienberg's uncertainty principle or a similar concept, the observer effect maybe, or. But this is a coin, not an electron, the chances of it or a large number of its constituent particles acting in a way inconsistent with Newton's Laws are small enough to be disregarded. And I think we can do away with the notion that the coin may be travelling at speeds of 0.1c or higher.
I can't think of anything else you might mean by that, it is macroscopic, the laws of physics still apply, mostly at least. Close enough that we could say how it will land.
I can just feel the whole argument crumbling beneath me, but the analogy is only a way of making my thoughts clearer, now it's been muddled.
Basically, imperfect information is what leads to what we perceive as chance, that and (arguably) sentient interference. Both of which are present at the board.
...Can we all atleast agree that it was a nice anecdote.
tonydal wrote:
"This is because the tossing of a coin, whether it lands on heads or tails, is not really a matter of chance, only statistically so, in reality, from the moment it is tossed (And allowed to fall minus interference) the is only one side on which it could conceivably land, the forces applied to it by the air, gravity and the hand will allow for only one outcome. The only reason we perceive it as random or full of chance is because we have imperfect information, we don't know the magintude of all the forces and so we cannot predict how it will fall. So it is both random, and not."
All seems a bit mechanistic and pre-quantum to me (like some thought relic from the 19th century).
Like the cat in the box, when the coin is between your hands and has not yet been revealed that it is in a superposition of both heads and tails, and each of the players are in a superposition of both winner and loser.
The real problem, though, is that it's not an apt analogy for any aspect of the game of chess.
Jan 17, 2009
0
#53
All of us here are fortunate (lucky?) enough to be in a time and place in the world where we can spend our time arguing about such trivial matters as whether or not chess is a game of luck. There's your luck right there...
Ok Chess is in no way a chance of luck. It involves skill and who is more prepared for the match. The comparison with the coin is so stupid. There are 2 pssible outcomes of a coin; Heads or tails. In chess there are 3 outcomes;win,loss, or draw. Try telling a grandmaster today the chess is a game of luck. You will be called an moron.
shovingwood wrote:
Nobody can say there is no luck in chess. The game itself combines skill and good fortune in equal measure. Of course, to be able to hold on in a complex game or finish off winning positions require a lot of skill, but only an inaccurate move or series of moves by your opponent can make such a winning position possible, and that's where the luck comes in.
when an opponent messes up it is not luck. They messed up because they were not prepared or where distracted. Magical pixies don't move pieces and let the other person win and say you are a victim of luck today,enjoy.
Look, luck or skill....it comes down to this:
Chess is a thinking game.
If you can't think, you can't play.
spoiler wrote:
Look, luck or skill....it comes down to this:
Chess is a thinking game.
If you can't think, you can't play.
u have a point there.
aabbccdd wrote:
spoiler wrote:
Look, luck or skill....it comes down to this:
Chess is a thinking game.
If you can't think, you can't play.
u have a point there.
Yes but thinking is also intricately tied to luck. Such as the length of time it takes for your brain to process information, make connections. This is a factor that is neither predictable nor controllable, hence it goes down to chance.
There is also on thing that I don't think anyone has mentioned, and that is the clock. In all dealings with the clock there is certainly an element of luck, how long it takes for you to spot the crucial elements, sure you can train yourself to be quick, but you can't train yourself to be absolutely consistent, nor can you make yourself see everything.
Someone said that if I told a Grandmaster that chess involved luck I'd be laughed at, perhaps they should read the anecdote at the beginning of this thread.
You can train yourself to perform better in those areas.
Akuni wrote:
aabbccdd wrote:
spoiler wrote:
Look, luck or skill....it comes down to this:
Chess is a thinking game.
If you can't think, you can't play.
u have a point there.
Yes but thinking is also intricately tied to luck. Such as the length of time it takes for your brain to process information, make connections. This is a factor that is neither predictable nor controllable, hence it goes down to chance.
There is also on thing that I don't think anyone has mentioned, and that is the clock. In all dealings with the clock there is certainly an element of luck, how long it takes for you to spot the crucial elements, sure you can train yourself to be quick, but you can't train yourself to be absolutely consistent, nor can you make yourself see everything.
Someone said that if I told a Grandmaster that chess involved luck I'd be laughed at, perhaps they should read the anecdote at the beginning of this thread.
perhaps that person to read that this person said " If you asked a grandmaster TODAY!!!!!! they would laugh, they would understand better
A grandmaster would shred almost all of us 100 out of 100 times. Is that luck?
Yes.