Is that unlucky or is that just the consequence of a decision you had full control over?
does luck exist in chess
Sort:
Feb 8, 2011
0
#43
TheGrobe wrote:
Is that unlucky or is that just the consequence of a decision you had full control over?
+1
Elubas wrote:
I would say yes. Even though the game is purely logical and based on your decisions, the luck factor comes into play with humans because humans don't always know everything what will happen after their moves: they always have a reason behind it, but they can't see everything that can come out of it; there's simply too much that can happen.
Humans may not always know everything that will happen after their moves, but it's not because it's unknowable. There are no outside factors at play, and although it may be extremely complex, this means that the outcome is not rooted in luck.
TheGrobe wrote:
Elubas wrote:
I would say yes. Even though the game is purely logical and based on your decisions, the luck factor comes into play with humans because humans don't always know everything what will happen after their moves: they always have a reason behind it, but they can't see everything that can come out of it; there's simply too much that can happen.
Humans may not always know everything that will happen after their moves, but it's not because it's unknowable. There are no outside factors at play, and although it may be extremely complex, this means that the outcome is not rooted in luck.
Although you could argue that all consequences for any move are potentially knowable, I think in practical terms this can never be true. I think it's safe to say as the complexity of the current position increases, the ability to understand all the consequences behind a move approaches zero.
In practical play, there are events even confined to the person's mind that cannot be anticipated and used as strategy, which none the less affect the outcome of the game. This may be as simple as suddenly remembering a prepared line or as drastic as having a sudden seizure. While it's true there are preventative measures for each of these cases, they are never fully predictable. While their rare occurrence is certainly reflected in the stability of the rating system, I believe the small fluctuations of this system are arguably explained by these unknowable events i.e. luck that arises from practical play.
pepsifreyja wrote:
Firstly, what is luck? And why do some people consider themselves as lucky while others feel unlucky?
Being “lucky” or “unlucky” is also a question of perspective, someone having experienced a serious car accident can see the situation as “unlucky” after braking an arm, completely destroying their brand new car they bought with a loan the week before. On the other hand, this same person could say, “I’m very lucky to be here.”
Thus, one can say that being “lucky” is determined by your state of mind and the way you engage the world.
Good point. I suppose we should change the question to "does chance exist in chess?"
It depends. When faced with a critical position, I write down all the legal moves, then number them from one. I then whip out my random number generator and choose from the list. I find this method quite satisfying, for there is usually one good move out of twenty and so I would have a 5% chance of choosing the best move.
Yes, chess is based on luck
Latvianfan wrote:
It depends. When faced with a critical position, I write down all the legal moves, then number them from one. I then whip out my random number generator and choose from the list. I find this method quite satisfying, for there is usually one good move out of twenty and so I would have a 5% chance of choosing the best move.
Yes, chess is based on luck
Considering your technique, your quick chess rating is impressively high.
Of course it does it exists in every walk of life, why should chess be different.
If you are asking if luck is a significant factor in chess then overall it is probably neutral,
Feb 9, 2011
0
#51
I wouldn't call it luck. I call picking a card "luck" because you have no control over what is going to come to your hand. In chess everything lies before your eyes, as someone already wrote. If your opponent makes a blunder, even if he's much better rated than you are, then he's not that good (and he may be a little overrated - his rating is going to drop anyway!) and gets what he deserves. If you don't see the blunder then you're even worse (and deserve your lower rating!) and there is no luck on any side. As for long-term blunders caused by not seeing deeply enough in the game, again it's one of the player's fault.
I find it funny from many posts here that most people consider "luck" to happen to them, but not "bad luck", which seems strange, and unfair towards "fortune". Basically, people tend to see that they might be lucky if the opponent makes some mistake, but they wouldn't see themselves as "unlucky" if they make a mistake themselves. Although in the end, the situation is exactly the same, seen from a different perspective (yours or your opponent's). Therefore you might claim for "luck" but it's a very selfish-centered point of view!
If you want to see luck, chance, fortune or whatever you call it, from another perspective, the good thing I like in chess is that both players have to take their responsibility for what is happening on the board, without delegating their fate to some external power (call it luck or whatever else from any supersition or belief). You can never escape saying "I was just unlucky". If you do, you need to examine your conscience. ;) That said, you feel more comfortable saying "I was just lucky" because it would show how modest you are and how you don't want to hurt your opponent. The raw truth being that your opponent was bad in that game, nothing else. And thus there was no "luck" involved on either side.
[Humoristic mode]
Well, I hope this thread is not going to switch to the old scientific debate about randomness in the universe. If you purely consider quantum physics, then yes of course you are just lucky if you win! 
(yeay one electron's probability probably made you win) If you consider the "cause-effect" theory without allowing any randomness, then nobody is lucky, everything was written long ago! (you just didn't have the knowledge of all particles' positions and states and didn't have enough calculation power to make it to the end of the game to foresee the result)
[/Humoristic mode]
luck exist untill you reach a certain level of play/players.
Didnt Houdini and Rybka 4 recently play a many game match ? Result ? Were they running on similar hardware ?
Fezzik wrote:
I think they played a 40 game match, but I only saw the score at 19-14 for Houdini.
Does anyone have a url for the games/final result ??
http://www.tcec-chess.org/archive.php
this seems to show the 40 actual games (click on the green bar to browse through the games, the Rybka vs Houdini games are the bottom 40)
jytou wrote:
In chess everything lies before your eyes, as someone already wrote. If your opponent makes a blunder, even if he's much better rated than you are, then he's not that good and gets what he deserves. If you don't see the blunder then you're even worse and there is no luck on any side.
... the good thing I like in chess is that both players have to take their responsibility for what is happening on the board, without delegating their fate to some external power (call it luck or whatever else from any supersition or belief). ... The raw truth being that your opponent was bad in that game, nothing else. And thus there was no "luck" involved on either side.
Well said
! This is exactly what I said (n fewer words
).
SZ.
Fezzik wrote:
If there is no chance, probability, luck, then why do computers lose to each other? In tests, Houdini is supposed to be the best engine. But in a match, the score was 19-14 for Houdini over Rybka. We can't predict with 100% certainty the outcome of the next game.
Whether you describe that as luck or chance or probability, you are describing the same phenomenon. The best way to minimise such chance is to play a long match. But that doesn't eliminate the element of chance, it merely takes it into account.
Certainly not because of luck -- in fact, computers are the perfect illustration of this because of their entirely deterministic appropach to calculation in chess.
Like human play, it may not be exhaustive, and it may not be perfect, but when one computer gains and advantage over another it is definitely not because one was lucky and the other unlucky.
No matter how good you are at the end you have to make a decision. When Bobby fischer player BxR7 in Iceland he was actually a bit unlucky. He saw ahead 11 moves which is alot, but his opponent saw ahead 12 moves and the 12 move was winning. Thats the breaks you can not see ahead forever, so at some point you are guessing. No doubt some make much more logical and far seeing guesses but they are still guesses. Thats where luck comes in, no matter how good you are.