Chess is just a Game of luck

Sort:
BigChessplayer665
HeckinSprout wrote:

Okay. I go to a casino and play the slots. There's no skill there. I have a fixed probability. Chess isn't a fixed probability. I can increase my probability through playing more games, studying, puzzles, etc. Therefore it isn't all luck. Skill is a factor.

And a very important factor it's only consistently 50/50 because it's designed to be able to play against people at the same SKILL level as you consistently

jcidus
BigChessplayer665 escribió:
jcidus wrote:
BigChessplayer665 escribió:
jcidus wrote:
StandStarter escribió:
jcidus wrote:
StandStarter escribió:

Chess, the game itself, is not luck based. It's skill based. Build up ideas, learn, etc, and you'll improve. Improvement comes from gaining skill, and gaining skill comes through learning.

But what I'm saying is that skill is also a form of luck.

Therefore, in the end, the result in chess is always determined by luck.

How is skill gained through luck?

with good genetics (an efficient brain) or having free time to study chess.

ugg genetics is only part of it goof even with good genes there are just as many people with those"good genes" you have to compete against anyway so it doesn't matter that much in the grand scheme of things and even then genes still don't determine everything how you learn chess from the start is also important if you learn chess a bad way you could stagnate alot more even if your so called "good genes " exist .

When I refer to 'good genes,' I mean the brain's capacity of each individual.

For example, Magnus has the best brain in history for a chess player because he has an impressive memory.

Even at his elite level, no one has that incredible ability to remember past games, to recall patterns he might have studied 20 years ago.

No matter how hard the great Hans Niemann tries, he will never reach the level of the Norwegian

Niemann doesn't have the luck of having superior genetics like Carlsen

why would hans neimann need to get to the level of Magnus he already got the compliment of Magnus calling him a cheater since hans beat him besides hans neimann is actually fairly close even tho he's like 10 years younger its not completely unrealistic to say Hans could get better than Magnus at some point even if its unlikely he still has ten years of practice to catch up on

At Hans Niemann's age, Carlsen already had an Elo of 2800, the American doesn't stand a chance, we have to be realistic.

Hans has great talent, but Carlsen's ability, especially in the way he plays endgames, is something no one can reach in terms of brilliance.

jcidus
HeckinSprout escribió:

Okay. I go to a casino and play the slots. There's no skill there. I have a fixed probability. Chess isn't a fixed probability. I can increase my probability through playing more games, studying, puzzles, etc. Therefore it isn't all luck. Skill is a factor.

The problem with all of this is that, ultimately, everything is predetermined.

It doesn't matter how many games you play, study, or solve puzzles, it's already written. Chess, like the slots, is just a game within a system that follows deterministic laws.

Deep down, there is no true choice.

Even though you may think your skill can influence your probability, everything is conditioned by factors you can't control.

Your success or failure was already determined before you started playing.

StandStarter
jcidus wrote:
StandStarter escribió:
jcidus wrote:
StandStarter escribió:

Chess, the game itself, is not luck based. It's skill based. Build up ideas, learn, etc, and you'll improve. Improvement comes from gaining skill, and gaining skill comes through learning.

But what I'm saying is that skill is also a form of luck.

Therefore, in the end, the result in chess is always determined by luck.

How is skill gained through luck?

with good genetics (an efficient brain) or having free time to study chess.

with enough effort anyone can improve their chess and their mind simultaneously. free time is on you, clean your itinerary if you want to improve.

jcidus
StandStarter escribió:
jcidus wrote:
StandStarter escribió:
jcidus wrote:
StandStarter escribió:

Chess, the game itself, is not luck based. It's skill based. Build up ideas, learn, etc, and you'll improve. Improvement comes from gaining skill, and gaining skill comes through learning.

But what I'm saying is that skill is also a form of luck.

Therefore, in the end, the result in chess is always determined by luck.

How is skill gained through luck?

with good genetics (an efficient brain) or having free time to study chess.

with enough effort anyone can improve their chess and their mind simultaneously. free time is on you, clean your itinerary if you want to improve.

Free time doesn’t depend on you if you’re not a millionaire and you have to work to pay the rent.

Crispysrisp
crystal0192 написал:

if they played a quadrillion games, do u really think magnus would lose to a 100 elo player.

Probably, Because the 100 elo player will have a quadrillion games to improve with. With the worlds best player. That's like, Super training. I bet it won't take 10k games to train up to get a win!

StandStarter
jcidus wrote:
StandStarter escribió:
jcidus wrote:
StandStarter escribió:
jcidus wrote:
StandStarter escribió:

Chess, the game itself, is not luck based. It's skill based. Build up ideas, learn, etc, and you'll improve. Improvement comes from gaining skill, and gaining skill comes through learning.

But what I'm saying is that skill is also a form of luck.

Therefore, in the end, the result in chess is always determined by luck.

How is skill gained through luck?

with good genetics (an efficient brain) or having free time to study chess.

with enough effort anyone can improve their chess and their mind simultaneously. free time is on you, clean your itinerary if you want to improve.

Free time doesn’t depend on you if you’re not a millionaire and you have to work to pay the rent.

free time isn't as luck based as you make it out to be...
you have days off for work or school, a set schedule
you have free time when you're at home lying around watching tv
never said you need to be a millionaire

BigChessplayer665
jcidus wrote:
StandStarter escribió:
jcidus wrote:
StandStarter escribió:
jcidus wrote:
StandStarter escribió:

Chess, the game itself, is not luck based. It's skill based. Build up ideas, learn, etc, and you'll improve. Improvement comes from gaining skill, and gaining skill comes through learning.

But what I'm saying is that skill is also a form of luck.

Therefore, in the end, the result in chess is always determined by luck.

How is skill gained through luck?

with good genetics (an efficient brain) or having free time to study chess.

with enough effort anyone can improve their chess and their mind simultaneously. free time is on you, clean your itinerary if you want to improve.

Free time doesn’t depend on you if you’re not a millionaire and you have to work to pay the rent.

You can find an hour a day to practice lol even if you work you can practice just not endless hours (also you usually don't need more than an hour or two worth of practice a day to get better at something )

StandStarter
BigChessplayer665 wrote:
jcidus wrote:
StandStarter escribió:
jcidus wrote:
StandStarter escribió:
jcidus wrote:
StandStarter escribió:

Chess, the game itself, is not luck based. It's skill based. Build up ideas, learn, etc, and you'll improve. Improvement comes from gaining skill, and gaining skill comes through learning.

But what I'm saying is that skill is also a form of luck.

Therefore, in the end, the result in chess is always determined by luck.

How is skill gained through luck?

with good genetics (an efficient brain) or having free time to study chess.

with enough effort anyone can improve their chess and their mind simultaneously. free time is on you, clean your itinerary if you want to improve.

Free time doesn’t depend on you if you’re not a millionaire and you have to work to pay the rent.

You can find an hour a day to practice lol even if you work you can practice just not endless hours (also you usually don't need more than an hour or two worth of practice a day to get better at something )

even reading a book on your 15 minute break is a form of gaining skill.

jcidus
StandStarter escribió:
BigChessplayer665 wrote:
jcidus wrote:
StandStarter escribió:
jcidus wrote:
StandStarter escribió:
jcidus wrote:
StandStarter escribió:

Chess, the game itself, is not luck based. It's skill based. Build up ideas, learn, etc, and you'll improve. Improvement comes from gaining skill, and gaining skill comes through learning.

But what I'm saying is that skill is also a form of luck.

Therefore, in the end, the result in chess is always determined by luck.

How is skill gained through luck?

with good genetics (an efficient brain) or having free time to study chess.

with enough effort anyone can improve their chess and their mind simultaneously. free time is on you, clean your itinerary if you want to improve.

Free time doesn’t depend on you if you’re not a millionaire and you have to work to pay the rent.

You can find an hour a day to practice lol even if you work you can practice just not endless hours (also you usually don't need more than an hour or two worth of practice a day to get better at something )

even reading a book on your 15 minute break is a form of gaining skill.

wrong , a waste of time read a book to learn anything

Read the Lem's law

"No one reads; if someone does read, he doesn't understand; if he understands, he immediately forgets"

jcidus
BigChessplayer665 escribió:
jcidus wrote:
StandStarter escribió:
jcidus wrote:
StandStarter escribió:
jcidus wrote:
StandStarter escribió:

Chess, the game itself, is not luck based. It's skill based. Build up ideas, learn, etc, and you'll improve. Improvement comes from gaining skill, and gaining skill comes through learning.

But what I'm saying is that skill is also a form of luck.

Therefore, in the end, the result in chess is always determined by luck.

How is skill gained through luck?

with good genetics (an efficient brain) or having free time to study chess.

with enough effort anyone can improve their chess and their mind simultaneously. free time is on you, clean your itinerary if you want to improve.

Free time doesn’t depend on you if you’re not a millionaire and you have to work to pay the rent.

You can find an hour a day to practice lol even if you work you can practice just not endless hours (also you usually don't need more than an hour or two worth of practice a day to get better at something )

I only study crap openings to surprise my opponents, but then I forget everything when I haven't studied anything for a month. I don't have as privileged a memory as Carlsen, for example.

BigChessplayer665
jcidus wrote:
StandStarter escribió:
BigChessplayer665 wrote:
jcidus wrote:
StandStarter escribió:
jcidus wrote:
StandStarter escribió:
jcidus wrote:
StandStarter escribió:

Chess, the game itself, is not luck based. It's skill based. Build up ideas, learn, etc, and you'll improve. Improvement comes from gaining skill, and gaining skill comes through learning.

But what I'm saying is that skill is also a form of luck.

Therefore, in the end, the result in chess is always determined by luck.

How is skill gained through luck?

with good genetics (an efficient brain) or having free time to study chess.

with enough effort anyone can improve their chess and their mind simultaneously. free time is on you, clean your itinerary if you want to improve.

Free time doesn’t depend on you if you’re not a millionaire and you have to work to pay the rent.

You can find an hour a day to practice lol even if you work you can practice just not endless hours (also you usually don't need more than an hour or two worth of practice a day to get better at something )

even reading a book on your 15 minute break is a form of gaining skill.

wrong , a waste of time read a book to learn anything

Read the Lem's law

"No one reads; if someone does read, he doesn't understand; if he understands, he immediately forgets"

Actually reading is incredibly helpful lol but you still have to practice you goof and it also depends what you read plus to remember something a good chunk of the time you have to repeat it (not all the time just most) that's why PRACTICE is important

StandStarter
jcidus wrote:
StandStarter escribió:
BigChessplayer665 wrote:
jcidus wrote:
StandStarter escribió:
jcidus wrote:
StandStarter escribió:
jcidus wrote:
StandStarter escribió:

Chess, the game itself, is not luck based. It's skill based. Build up ideas, learn, etc, and you'll improve. Improvement comes from gaining skill, and gaining skill comes through learning.

But what I'm saying is that skill is also a form of luck.

Therefore, in the end, the result in chess is always determined by luck.

How is skill gained through luck?

with good genetics (an efficient brain) or having free time to study chess.

with enough effort anyone can improve their chess and their mind simultaneously. free time is on you, clean your itinerary if you want to improve.

Free time doesn’t depend on you if you’re not a millionaire and you have to work to pay the rent.

You can find an hour a day to practice lol even if you work you can practice just not endless hours (also you usually don't need more than an hour or two worth of practice a day to get better at something )

even reading a book on your 15 minute break is a form of gaining skill.

wrong , a waste of time read a book to learn anything

Read the Lem's law

"No one reads; if someone does read, he doesn't understand; if he understands, he immediately forgets"

so just because a philosopher/sci-fi writer says it, means that it is immediately true?

jcidus
StandStarter escribió:
jcidus wrote:
StandStarter escribió:
BigChessplayer665 wrote:
jcidus wrote:
StandStarter escribió:
jcidus wrote:
StandStarter escribió:
jcidus wrote:
StandStarter escribió:

Chess, the game itself, is not luck based. It's skill based. Build up ideas, learn, etc, and you'll improve. Improvement comes from gaining skill, and gaining skill comes through learning.

But what I'm saying is that skill is also a form of luck.

Therefore, in the end, the result in chess is always determined by luck.

How is skill gained through luck?

with good genetics (an efficient brain) or having free time to study chess.

with enough effort anyone can improve their chess and their mind simultaneously. free time is on you, clean your itinerary if you want to improve.

Free time doesn’t depend on you if you’re not a millionaire and you have to work to pay the rent.

You can find an hour a day to practice lol even if you work you can practice just not endless hours (also you usually don't need more than an hour or two worth of practice a day to get better at something )

even reading a book on your 15 minute break is a form of gaining skill.

wrong , a waste of time read a book to learn anything

Read the Lem's law

"No one reads; if someone does read, he doesn't understand; if he understands, he immediately forgets"

so just because a philosopher/sci-fi writer says it, means that it is immediately true?

It is true

A friend of mine has been reading chess books his whole life and he can't get past an Elo of 1700.

BigChessplayer665
jcidus wrote:
StandStarter escribió:
jcidus wrote:
StandStarter escribió:
BigChessplayer665 wrote:
jcidus wrote:
StandStarter escribió:
jcidus wrote:
StandStarter escribió:
jcidus wrote:
StandStarter escribió:

Chess, the game itself, is not luck based. It's skill based. Build up ideas, learn, etc, and you'll improve. Improvement comes from gaining skill, and gaining skill comes through learning.

But what I'm saying is that skill is also a form of luck.

Therefore, in the end, the result in chess is always determined by luck.

How is skill gained through luck?

with good genetics (an efficient brain) or having free time to study chess.

with enough effort anyone can improve their chess and their mind simultaneously. free time is on you, clean your itinerary if you want to improve.

Free time doesn’t depend on you if you’re not a millionaire and you have to work to pay the rent.

You can find an hour a day to practice lol even if you work you can practice just not endless hours (also you usually don't need more than an hour or two worth of practice a day to get better at something )

even reading a book on your 15 minute break is a form of gaining skill.

wrong , a waste of time read a book to learn anything

Read the Lem's law

"No one reads; if someone does read, he doesn't understand; if he understands, he immediately forgets"

so just because a philosopher/sci-fi writer says it, means that it is immediately true?

It is true

A friend of mine has been reading chess books his whole life and he can't get past an Elo of 1700.

That just means he's been learning wrong nothing about reading obviously you can't just read practice is important ... Not that it isnt helpful plus your talking about a game that's about pattern recognition repeating is the best for that

StandStarter
jcidus wrote:
StandStarter escribió:
jcidus wrote:
StandStarter escribió:
BigChessplayer665 wrote:
jcidus wrote:
StandStarter escribió:
jcidus wrote:
StandStarter escribió:
jcidus wrote:
StandStarter escribió:

Chess, the game itself, is not luck based. It's skill based. Build up ideas, learn, etc, and you'll improve. Improvement comes from gaining skill, and gaining skill comes through learning.

But what I'm saying is that skill is also a form of luck.

Therefore, in the end, the result in chess is always determined by luck.

How is skill gained through luck?

with good genetics (an efficient brain) or having free time to study chess.

with enough effort anyone can improve their chess and their mind simultaneously. free time is on you, clean your itinerary if you want to improve.

Free time doesn’t depend on you if you’re not a millionaire and you have to work to pay the rent.

You can find an hour a day to practice lol even if you work you can practice just not endless hours (also you usually don't need more than an hour or two worth of practice a day to get better at something )

even reading a book on your 15 minute break is a form of gaining skill.

wrong , a waste of time read a book to learn anything

Read the Lem's law

"No one reads; if someone does read, he doesn't understand; if he understands, he immediately forgets"

so just because a philosopher/sci-fi writer says it, means that it is immediately true?

It is true

A friend of mine has been reading chess books his whole life and he can't get past an Elo of 1700.

everyone learns differently; some auditorily, others through reading, others through sight. your friend should try something else. that doesn't mean that nobody does not learn through reading. clearly your friend has improved through reading.

Sobrukai

If chess were a complete game of luck, then nobody would waste their time trying to perfect their play. Chess famously has no element of chance because the board position and result of the game is entirely up to the determination of the players.

jcidus

I don't know who the idiots are who are downvoting my initial message.

Einstein was right, human stupidity is infinite, not the universe, which is closed, finite, and deterministic.

jcidus
Sobrukai escribió:

If chess were a complete game of luck, then nobody would waste their time trying to perfect their play. Chess famously has no element of chance because the board position and result of the game is entirely up to the determination of the players.

Most people have the illusion that they are free, and that's why they try to perfect their game.

Anyway, one always tries to improve because it's entertaining, it's fun to learn new things, but in the end, whether you win or lose doesn't depend on you or your effort. Carlsen is not the player who has put in the most effort in chess, that's one hundred percent sure. There are players within the top 100 who have sacrificed much more for chess, and yet they are semi-unknown

ps :

Human laws assume that humans have free will, which proves that the judicial system is a scam from start to finish, but that’s another topic

BigChessplayer665
jcidus wrote:

I don't know who the idiots are who are downvoting my initial message.

Einstein was right, human stupidity is infinite, not the universe, which is closed, finite, and deterministic.

Even if it's deterministic that means luck is even less of a factor as it's going to happen no matter what and by your reasoning doesn't really exist