I shared above posts because people in group need to revise their view about luck. if your opponent makes mistake it is not luck
How much of chess is luck?
Sort:
I shared above posts because people in group need to revise their view about luck. if your opponent makes mistake it is not luck
wadoodullah wrote:
I shared above posts because people in group need to revise their view about luck. if your opponent makes mistake it is not luck
Random events with favourable outcome are not luck???
LadyMisil wrote:
btickler wrote:
LadyMisil statements that are clearly not thought through/inaccurate/fuzzy:
- "To the original question - How much of chess is luck? Clearly not 0%. There is some luck involved otherwise weaker players would lose to stronger players 100% of the time."
Demonstrably false. It is funny that you cannot conceive of any game where an on average (the key here) "lesser" player can win a game without random chance intervening.
We differ on the definition of luck. I do not see it as “random chance intervening.”
I consider inspiration on the first time to be lucky. After that, with memory, it becomes a learned skill by the player via experience, not Books, etc. Getting an “aha” moment at the right time is not something that can be manufactured on the spot. It can be helped along by physical exercise, good nutrition, enough sleep, etc. So many times a player will get the “aha” moment and realize what she should have done after the game. Too late. But then if the player learns from their mistakes, then they acquire more skill for future games.
Skill, to me, is a learned thing from others or past experience. Skills are acquired. If you differ in your definitions from me, then that would explain much of our disagreements.
What is your exact definition of skill?
I find it hard to believe that you can post the definition of opposite and then a few posts later open up the definition of luck for conjecture at your convenience, and without actually providing your hazy conception of what luck is. as it is defined... by the oxford dictionary
Luck: Success or failure apparently brought by chance rather than through one's own actions
if you have all the information, even if nobody possess the ability to see every outcome, then the outcome is still within the control of the two players. you might consider yourself lucky if your opponent blunders, but the game of chess always has two players. so even if you consider yourself lucky it does not enter the game of chess because the outcome was within your opponents control. playing as white or as black is luck because the outcome was determined randomly. outside events messing up the game are just that. outside events. they can be luck or not but they are not part of the game which we are discussing.
Richard_Hunter wrote:
lubricant wrote:
is luck a thing? duh... always, but chess is a skill based game. there's no dice, there's no draw, there's no flop, it's not gambling, this is not a hard question. All the information is there, the outcome depends on your ability to use it. if your citing luck in your chess games then its a poor excuse and you will not grow as a player. if you can't look ahead at least you can play a strong position. the degree of luck your so interested in is actually quite uninteresting... unless your looking for some excuse for your low level of play... then maybe that would be appealing. I would guess the one in the most denial here is you richard hunter.
Mr '1851' thinks he's a chess genius.
sorry I was having a bad day. or I would be sorry if I wasn't aggravated by your stubborn childish responses. so I guess I'm not sorry. I'll quote you here richard.
"serious answers only please"
each chess game between masters is about 20% luck.
you never have all the information.
its literally all there sitting on the board in front of you. nobody can play a perfect game but that doesn't change the fact that it is there. and every move that each opponent makes is based in their experience and decisions. whether your move was sound or not is irrelevant. you made the choice based and your skill. this was an action you carried out yourself. you are responsible and not luck.
Sep 25, 2018
0
#230
wadoodullah wrote:
I shared above posts because people in group need to revise their view about luck. if your opponent makes mistake it is not luck
If your opponent plays a less move than they could realistically have done then of course you are lucky.
btickler wrote:
LadyMisil wrote:
We differ on the definition of luck. I do not see it as “random chance intervening.”
[and]
Skill, to me, is a learned thing from others or past experience. Skills are acquired. If you differ in your definitions from me, then that would explain much of our disagreements.
What is your exact definition of skill?
How do you define luck, then, in your world?
I don't define skill, because the definition of words is by consensus over time. There's no "to me, this word means yadda yadda yadda", unless you are writing poetry, which is about the speed of this thread.
Luck is anything that happens that I have no conscious control over. Good luck is when what happens is a good thing or in my favor. This helps me to learn. If I hang a piece that I would not normally hang, then once I determine it was, say, a blind spot, I need no longer concern myself with it. I just got unlucky.
It is those cases where I needed to think differently that I have room for improvement. Then I can learn. Then I can acquire one more bit of technique or skill to my repertoire. I do this in every type of game I play, especially tournament bridge.
Same with real life. If I had no control or influence in any way over what happened, then I just shrug my shoulders and say to myself, “Shit happens.” Nothing could be done in that type of situation.
If you do not define your words, then you have no place in a conversation with me. Apparently you want to be able to say one thing one day and tomorrow deny what you said because you decided the meanings of your words changed.
btickler wrote:
LadyMisil statements that are clearly not thought through/inaccurate/fuzzy:
- "Still, luck is involved. How much? Maybe only 10-20%. Maybe more or maybe less."
Maybe 10%? Maybe 20% Maybe more or maybe less? So...maybe any number from 0% to 100%? Why even make the statement?
This is a clear example of Btickler unable to listen to others. He picks on words and let the meaning fly over his head.
btickler wrote:
LadyMisil statements that are clearly not thought through/inaccurate/fuzzy:
- "But yes, even among the very top players, there is still some luck involved. But between two novice beginners? Almost all luck. Whoever makes the last blunder loses."
So, play between beginners is luck...not lack of skill. Blunders are a function of luck. Fascinating.
The operative word is “almost”.
Where is your logic in reading that “Blunders are a function of luck.”? The outcome of the game (who wins, who loses) is the function of luck between two novice beginners. They will both make lots of blunders. Who actually wins will be the lucky one whose blunders did not count as much or at the very end.
For example, one player is up a lot of material but then gets backrow mated. The other player was in a totally lost position but got lucky on the last move. Things like this happens with novice beginners. To fully understand my point, compare a game like that with two world champions playing against each other. Are things beginning to make sense to you now, btickler?
Do everybody agree that the most luck that happens in chess are bad moves from the opponents?
If thats the case luck is a lot more frequent among beginners then it is among grandmasters.
What scale do we use measuring luck? One unit a move? Or does we measure it in centipawns? Or in points?
uri65 wrote:
btickler wrote:
uri65 wrote:
You can build pressure as much as you want, opponent’s mistakes are still random events.
In no way, shape, or form are opponent's mistakes ever "random events". That viewpoint basically sets yourself as the center of your own personal universe, with other human beings and other's efforts just random fluff that injects itself into your sphere of perception.
"Random event: an event with a probability of occurrence determined by some probability distribution" https://stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail.asp?ID=3817
"A random event is something unpredictable" http://www.statisticshowto.com/random-event/
"The events that are influenced by chance are called random events" http://www.mathspadilla.com/macsII/Unit9-Probability/random_events.html
Opponent's mistakes seem to fit into these definitions quite nicely.
Not in the context of a game of chess.
btickler wrote:
uri65 wrote:
btickler wrote:
uri65 wrote:
You can build pressure as much as you want, opponent’s mistakes are still random events.
In no way, shape, or form are opponent's mistakes ever "random events". That viewpoint basically sets yourself as the center of your own personal universe, with other human beings and other's efforts just random fluff that injects itself into your sphere of perception.
"Random event: an event with a probability of occurrence determined by some probability distribution" https://stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail.asp?ID=3817
"A random event is something unpredictable" http://www.statisticshowto.com/random-event/
"The events that are influenced by chance are called random events" http://www.mathspadilla.com/macsII/Unit9-Probability/random_events.html
Opponent's mistakes seem to fit into these definitions quite nicely.
Not in the context of a game of chess.
Please elaborate
LadyMisil wrote:
btickler wrote:
LadyMisil statements that are clearly not thought through/inaccurate/fuzzy:
- "Still, luck is involved. How much? Maybe only 10-20%. Maybe more or maybe less."
Maybe 10%? Maybe 20% Maybe more or maybe less? So...maybe any number from 0% to 100%? Why even make the statement?
This is a clear example of Btickler unable to listen to others. He picks on words and let the meaning fly over his head.
Your words, as stated, don't mean anything. You literally said that something was maybe 10% to 20%, then followed that with maybe more, maybe less. Why even make a statement or claim that is so vague that it encompasses every answer?
uri65 wrote:
Opponent's mistakes seem to fit into these definitions quite nicely.
Not in the context of a game of chess.
Please elaborate
Chess is a logical construct. It's a game, often played with physical pieces, (but these days) more often not. Almost always played with a visual representation of a board, but sometimes not. Most often played between two players, but sometimes not. The only thing common to all forms of chess, OTB, online, blindfold simuls, etc. is the construct itself and the rules of the game that form that construct.
The question of whether there is luck in chess involves the game itself. Not the players or any other external factors. Not "bad days", not hurricanes and floods, not alien invasions, not the second coming of Christ. If you want to discuss the question of whether luck can affect people, before during or after a game, that is an entirely separate question. There is no luck beyond color selection in the basic rules of the game of chess. There is no luck beyond that contained within an instance of the game of chess.
btickler wrote:
uri65 wrote:
Opponent's mistakes seem to fit into these definitions quite nicely.
Not in the context of a game of chess.
Please elaborate
Chess is a logical construct. It's a game, often played with physical pieces, (but these days) more often not. Almost always played with a visual representation of a board, but sometimes not. Most often played between two players, but sometimes not. The only thing common to all forms of chess, OTB, online, blindfold simuls, etc. is the construct itself and the rules of the game that form that construct.
The question of whether there is luck in chess involves the game itself. Not the players or any other external factors. Not "bad days", not hurricanes and floods, not alien invasions, not the second coming of Christ. If you want to discuss the question of whether luck can affect people, before during or after a game, that is an entirely separate question. There is no luck beyond color selection in the basic rules of the game of chess. There is no luck beyond that contained within an instance of the game of chess.
Post #1 talks about a human playing chess. 90% of other posts talk about same (skills, mistakes etc). So let me reformulate the question discussed in this thread:
To what degree does a result of one game of chess played between two humans depends on luck?
LadyMisil wrote:
btickler wrote:
LadyMisil statements that are clearly not thought through/inaccurate/fuzzy:
- "But yes, even among the very top players, there is still some luck involved. But between two novice beginners? Almost all luck. Whoever makes the last blunder loses."
So, play between beginners is luck...not lack of skill. Blunders are a function of luck. Fascinating.
The operative word is “almost”.
Where is your logic in reading that “Blunders are a function of luck.”? The outcome of the game (who wins, who loses) is the function of luck between two novice beginners. They will both make lots of blunders. Who actually wins will be the lucky one whose blunders did not count as much or at the very end.
For example, one player is up a lot of material but then gets backrow mated. [...]
A player that is up lots of material that gets backrow mated is displaying a lack of skill. No more, no less. You can determine the statistical truth of this by examining any chess database with player ratings. Higher rated players will get "backrow" mated (the term is back rank, actually) many orders of magnitude less often than low rated players. Because they learned from the sting of getting mated that way, and they don't fall for that again. That is the definition of skill. Every single player that plays chess long enough learns this exact same lesson...so clearly not a function of random chance. If it were luck, then Carlsen would still occasionally get "backrow" mated. The only way that would happen is in a bullet game, where the addition of an absurdly short time criteria removes a goodly portion of a player's ability to correctly apply skill or knowledge.
As for the operative word being "almost", that seems to be your modus operandi...to state things vaguely with caveats that allow you to pretend you didn't mean what you are clearly saying.
I shared above posts because people in group need to revise their view about luck. if your opponent makes mistake it is not luck