Posters shouldn't say racist things about other posters.
How much of chess is luck?
Sort:
richard you are a self felacitating troll. your childish replies are a consistent denial of anything you don't want to hear. I can see your trying to pass as an intellectual... but the only one your fooling is yourself. your a disgrace to Scotland, a land otherwise filled with badasses and the ever glowing glory of bagpipes. they should exile you... to the ocean... and invite you to drown yourself.
Masil has obviously washed her hands of this thread. you should go gush on some other thread she has posted in. I'm sure you haven't crossed the stalker line yet and she will be super happy to see you.
Sep 27, 2018
0
#385
Richard_Hunter wrote:
Nicator65 wrote:
Richard_Hunter wrote:
Given that in chess the consequences of a move can only be apparent several moves later, and moves that are rigorously calculated to be strong can turn out to have weaknesses that are surely practically impossible for a human to have forseen, it seems to me that Chess involves a degree of luck which is not often discussed. If you have two candidate moves, each of which seems equally strong to you, but one of which is, unbeknown to you, actually weaker, surely then it is just a question of luck which one you happen to randomly choose?
There's no luck in chess, unless a player's inability to solve a problem has to be considered as his opponent's luck.
Chess is about going into a better position than the current one. That's a problem. The tools to do that are, typically, based on heuristics and precise calculation. Sometimes a player fails to solve a problem (he/she should normally do with precision) because different factors (lack of time, attention, knowledge, etc.). But it's difficult (even absurd) to elaborate such situation as his rival's luck.
I agree that chess involves heuristics. Are heuristics not based on luck?
In chess context, heuristics is about probabilities. For instance, seizing a strong initiative without having made positional concessions is seen as a road to a win. The same can be said of breaking the rival's piece coordination, as it will take him several tempos to rebuild it for defensive and offensive purposes, and those tempos "may/should" allow us to build a strong initiative...
However, some fans take such heuristics not as probabilities but certainty. For example, having material advantage. It is an advantage when the rival has no piece activity which prevents them to use the material plus; but then the player with the plus may have not evaluated correctly the rival's activity, or fails to prevent it (assuming that the rival will drop more material); then the one with the extra material ruins his own game, and blames "luck".
It is accuracy. Play well.
lubricant wrote:
richard you are a self felacitating troll. your childish replies are a consistent denial of anything you don't want to hear. I can see your trying to pass as an intellectual... but the only one your fooling is yourself. your a disgrace to Scotland, a land otherwise filled with badasses and the ever glowing glory of bagpipes. they should exile you... to the ocean... and invite you to drown yourself.
Some people really don't take being wrong well.
Sep 27, 2018
0
#388
not judging but interesting wall though @richard_hunter
-
Aug 25, 2018he keeps emailing me and asking me to perform oral sex on him because i do not have any teeth left.
-
Jul 8, 2018no need to block him when you beat him, he runs like a girl
-
May 17, 2018Blocked. Won't be here long.
-
May 15, 2018no, i said "give up playing?" and he said "no, give up living"
-
May 13, 2018No, I said you should give up playing.
-
May 12, 2018He told me is am so old, i should give up living.
-
May 12, 2018Very verbally abusive during the game.
Yeah, I've got an interesting collection of stalkers.
Damn. I'm really feeling burned though. like... sick burn man. holy shit! I guess I should just give up on living?
thanks for proving my point. I see you were cited for violating a fair play policy as well.
Richard_Hunter wrote:
Posters shouldn't say racist things about other posters.
Please clarify how anything I said was racist. Note before you begin that saying that you or others are Scottish when you identify yourself as such is not racist, nor is calling someone "annoying" in any way racist.
Ok, go for it, explain your logic.
I think to a certain point you can calculate your moves and your opponents response, how far in advance I can't say, at my level 800 blitz rating a lot of the time the move i'm expecting my opponent to play doesn't happen as much as I would think it but most times that's not a bad thing, Opening are mainly where i find moves hardest to predict, I study my opening and lines and then when I try it in a Live game my opponent always does something that isn't a move that is predicted by the opening
"In chess context, heuristics is about probabilities. "
But probability is about luck, yes?
Sep 27, 2018
0
#395
And this topic is garbage, as every incarnation of it has been, though the ages of the forums.
Sep 27, 2018
0
#396
Oh, you're the OP.
Anyway, every time I post here I untrack.
Untracking.
Oura-1 wrote:
I think zero percent of chess is luck.
There are still luck among players. The stronger the players, the effect of luck is less. The weaker the players, the effect of luck is more.
For example, in recent cccc, competition, Stockfish encountered in stage 2, 12 games vs Leela. In one game SF knew that he was losing but Leela played terrible move and the game ended as draw. Statistically 8% of SF performance depend on luck.
In stage 3, SF vs Houdini played 50 games. SF played terrible moves in one game but Houdini saw the killer moves and SF was dead. So luck was 2% for SF in those games.
Among other opponents, SF did not lose a single game for >100 games and the weak engines cant even make a chance to punish.
Luck is still there in today technology as chess is not solved yet. Either one or both opponents may still make mistakes but one opponent must be considerably strong enough to see that luck(opportunity).
Farm_Hand wrote:
And this topic is garbage, as every incarnation of it has been, though the ages of the forums.
Curious about these other threads. Could you link, please?
drmrboss wrote:
Oura-1 wrote:
I think zero percent of chess is luck.
There are still luck among players. The stronger the players, the effect of luck is less. The weaker the players, the effect of luck is more.
For example, in recent cccc, competition, Stockfish encountered in stage 2, 12 games vs Leela. In one game SF knew that he was losing but Leela played terrible move and the game ended as draw. Statistically 8% of SF performance depend on luck.
In stage 3, SF vs Houdini played 50 games. SF played terrible moves in one game but Houdini saw the killer moves and SF was dead. So luck was 2% in those games.
Among other opponents, SF did not lose a single game for >100 games and the weak engines cant even make a chance to punish.
Luck is still there in today technology as chess is not solved yet. Either one or both opponents may still make mistakes but one opponent must be considerably strong enough to see that luck(opportunity).
Engines are the ultimate proof that luck plays a role in Chess.
I'll respond when you've finished (re)editing your post.
I'm done for today, actually.