How much of chess is luck?

Sort:
arthimetic

BobbyTalparov wrote:

krudsparov wrote:

BobbyTalparov wrote:
krudsparov wrote:

@bobbytalparov,

not true, I've played moves with a specific plan only to realise a few moves later that my plan was flawed but then realised it had opened up another v good option that I hadn't previously seen. That's luck not good play.

Incorrect. That is your lack of skill.

It's not incorrect,  my lack of skill at that moment lead me to a winning position, the reason I made the moves was because of a flawed plan but those moves opened up something else much better that I hadn't seen, in other words. I won because of an error of judgment not because of great chess, I got lucky.

No, you won because your opponent lacked the skills to take advantage of your mistake. That is what happens in all games of skill.

no you are getting it incorrect if you think that every move can be anticipated then regardless of the opponents move you will play just your own game essentially a single player game.Reduco absurdum.

krudsparov
BobbyTalparov wrote:
krudsparov wrote:
BobbyTalparov wrote:
krudsparov wrote:

@bobbytalparov,

not true, I've played moves with a specific plan only to realise a few moves later that my plan was flawed but then realised it had opened up another v good option that I hadn't previously seen. That's luck not good play.

Incorrect. That is your lack of skill.

It's not incorrect,  my lack of skill at that moment lead me to a winning position, the reason I made the moves was because of a flawed plan but those moves opened up something else much better that I hadn't seen, in other words. I won because of an error of judgment not because of great chess, I got lucky.

No, you won because your opponent lacked the skills to take advantage of your mistake. That is what happens in all games of skill.

No they didn't lack the skills to take advantage, the move turned out to be winning moves but I didn't see that line until after I'd played a few moves because I had a different plan in mind. Sure they missed that line too ( lack of skill on their part ) but I was lucky that I went for a flawed plan that a few moves later, opened my eyes to a winning combo.

krudsparov

"Playing the right move for the wrong reason is still not luck" 

  1. Well what is it then? It wasn't good play, I'd calculated wrong.
lfPatriotGames
krudsparov wrote:
BobbyTalparov wrote:
krudsparov wrote:
BobbyTalparov wrote:
krudsparov wrote:

@bobbytalparov,

not true, I've played moves with a specific plan only to realise a few moves later that my plan was flawed but then realised it had opened up another v good option that I hadn't previously seen. That's luck not good play.

Incorrect. That is your lack of skill.

It's not incorrect,  my lack of skill at that moment lead me to a winning position, the reason I made the moves was because of a flawed plan but those moves opened up something else much better that I hadn't seen, in other words. I won because of an error of judgment not because of great chess, I got lucky.

No, you won because your opponent lacked the skills to take advantage of your mistake. That is what happens in all games of skill.

No they didn't lack the skills to take advantage, the move turned out to be winning moves but I didn't see that line until after I'd played a few moves because I had a different plan in mind. Sure they missed that line too ( lack of skill on their part ) but I was lucky that I went for a flawed plan that a few moves later, opened my eyes to a winning combo.

But didn't you just say "turned out to be winning moves but I DIDNT SEE that line until after...."? Isn't that all skill and no luck? I agree there is luck in chess, like someone said about the missed plane flight or food poisoning. But all those things dont have anything to do with the actual game itself.

Richard_Hunter

There's plenty of lines which were once thought sound, then subsequently discovered to be not - and presumably refuted OTB. Whether or not your line turns out to be sound or not is really just a matter of luck, just as much as when you cross a stream using stepping stones you can't know in advance which stone will support you and which will not.

krudsparov

"When doing a math problem, if you start off calculating it wrong, and realize halfway through that you are on the wrong path and fix it, were you lucky?"

That's different, with maths you can start again and use skill to fix it, you can't take back in chess, if you get it wrong you're often stuffed, so to get it wrong and then see something better that I wouldn't have seen had I not taken a flawed plan to me is lucky.

krudsparov

"But didn't you just say "turned out to be winning moves but I DIDNT SEE that line until after...."? Isn't that all skill and no luck? I agree there is luck in chess, like someone said about the missed plane flight or food poisoning. But all those things dont have anything to do with the actual game itself."

If I'd seen it from the start, then yes, all skill, but with a different plan in mind which was miscalculated, a miscalculation like that would often cost me the game, this one won it, to me it was lucky. 

uri65
btickler wrote:
uri65 wrote:
forked_again wrote:

 

In games where luck is a component, poker for example, the outcome could be a result of something completely outside the control of the players (deal of the cards).  That is NEVER the case in chess.  

Mistakes of your opponent are pretty much out of your control. You can try to induce them by various means but it's not guaranteed to work. Your own mistakes are somewhat out of your control as well. You can know a tactical pattern and see it in most cases but you can't guarantee to always see it - it's out of your control.

None of which represents luck.  Out of control is not equal to luck.  That is like saying that babies learning to walk to is a matter of luck.

I've never claimed that out of control equals luck - I was replying to the claim that out of control events don't exist in chess. But those events are not only out of control - they are unpredictable, with certain element of randomness (contrary to babies learning to walk). That's why we can talk about luck.

uri65
CavalryFC wrote:
Richard_Hunter wrote:
CavalryFC wrote:
Richard_Hunter wrote:
CavalryFC wrote:
Richard_Hunter wrote:
CavalryFC wrote:
Richard_Hunter wrote:

I have a sense that people have such a fixed mindset that they've never even considered this question.

Every beginner has pondered this and if they stick to it and learn they come to the same conclusion.

Mr. 1474 believes he's not a beginner, LOL!

not denying I'm a beginner. but I know enough to know I'm lacking skill.

You also lack the ability to read, apparently.

I'm not trying to fight, argue, or be insulting. I think people who know far more about the game honestly tried to answer. Backgammon has luck... there is a dice roll. There are limits to what each human can calculate but that is part of the difference in our skill. Perhaps a more interesting question would be if tactical calculation increases, does reliance on strategy and position decrease?

Well ok, but nowhere did I say that chess wasn't a game that involves skill.

I think the difference here is your definition of luck. Games of chance.. backgammon and Yahtzee have true unknowns. I believe most of us call that unknown element "luck". There is no level of training that would allow me to predict with absolute precision the roll of the dice. In chess, the situation is known.

There is no level of training that would allow you to predict with absolute precision at what move your opponent will make a mistake. Moreover there is no level of training that would allow you to predict with absolute precision at what move you will make a mistake yourself.

Richard_Hunter

The way I see it, if you have a game where the players play random but legal moves, the result will be determined by 100% chance. This is akin to a game between two absolute novices. As players get more experienced and skillful, the degree of chance obviously decreases, but unless both players get complete knowledge of all possible outcomes - which not even a computer can manage - then I don't see how the amount of chance in the game can ever be completely removed.

uri65
BobbyTalparov wrote:
uri65 wrote:
CavalryFC wrote:
Richard_Hunter wrote:
CavalryFC wrote:
Richard_Hunter wrote:
CavalryFC wrote:
Richard_Hunter wrote:
CavalryFC wrote:
Richard_Hunter wrote:

I have a sense that people have such a fixed mindset that they've never even considered this question.

Every beginner has pondered this and if they stick to it and learn they come to the same conclusion.

Mr. 1474 believes he's not a beginner, LOL!

not denying I'm a beginner. but I know enough to know I'm lacking skill.

You also lack the ability to read, apparently.

I'm not trying to fight, argue, or be insulting. I think people who know far more about the game honestly tried to answer. Backgammon has luck... there is a dice roll. There are limits to what each human can calculate but that is part of the difference in our skill. Perhaps a more interesting question would be if tactical calculation increases, does reliance on strategy and position decrease?

Well ok, but nowhere did I say that chess wasn't a game that involves skill.

I think the difference here is your definition of luck. Games of chance.. backgammon and Yahtzee have true unknowns. I believe most of us call that unknown element "luck". There is no level of training that would allow me to predict with absolute precision the roll of the dice. In chess, the situation is known.

There is no level of training that would allow you to predict with absolute precision at what move your opponent will make a mistake. Moreover there is no level of training that would allow you to predict with absolute precision at what move you will make a mistake yourself.

Predicting the future is irrelevant. Whether my opponent makes a mistake on move 1 or 35, the difference in skill is being able to recognize when he makes a mistake and take advantage of it. Low rated players often assume higher rated players can beat them in some number of moves. This is garbage. If you play 40 strong moves before making a mistake, it may take a stronger player 42 moves to beat you. If you make a mistake on move 5, he would bear you in 7 moves. Predicting when you do that is not a measure of skill. Recognizing when you do is.

"Whether my opponent makes a mistake on move 1 or 35, the difference in skill is being able to recognize when he makes a mistake and take advantage of it." - but may be you make a mistake on move 25 and your opponent take advantage of it and wins the game on move 32 and the game nevel lasts until the move 35?

"If you play 40 strong moves before making a mistake, it may take a stronger player 42 moves to beat you." - same here, a stronger player can make a mistake before you make yours on move 41.

I don't understand your reasoning - have you never lost to a weaker player or won against a stronger one?

uri65
BobbyTalparov wrote:
Richard_Hunter wrote:

The way I see it, if you have a game where the players play random but legal moves, the result will be determined by 100% chance. This is akin to a game between two absolute novices. As players get more experienced and skillful, the degree of chance obviously decreases, but unless both players get complete knowledge of all possible outcomes - which not even a computer can manage - then I don't see how the amount of chance in the game can ever be completely removed.

What you are calling "chance" here is actually a gap in knowledge.

Ok, let's take a simple example - two players of equal skill and knowledge are playing, there is no gap. They will not draw all games in 100 game match? There will be wins and losses, right?

Richard_Hunter
BobbyTalparov wrote:
Richard_Hunter wrote:

The way I see it, if you have a game where the players play random but legal moves, the result will be determined by 100% chance. This is akin to a game between two absolute novices. As players get more experienced and skillful, the degree of chance obviously decreases, but unless both players get complete knowledge of all possible outcomes - which not even a computer can manage - then I don't see how the amount of chance in the game can ever be completely removed.

What you are calling "chance" here is actually a gap in knowledge.

Yes, and if you have a gap in knowledge then you must depend on luck.

uri65
BobbyTalparov wrote:
uri65 wrote:
BobbyTalparov wrote:
Richard_Hunter wrote:

The way I see it, if you have a game where the players play random but legal moves, the result will be determined by 100% chance. This is akin to a game between two absolute novices. As players get more experienced and skillful, the degree of chance obviously decreases, but unless both players get complete knowledge of all possible outcomes - which not even a computer can manage - then I don't see how the amount of chance in the game can ever be completely removed.

What you are calling "chance" here is actually a gap in knowledge.

Ok, let's take a simple example - two players of equal skill and knowledge are playing, there is no gap. They will not draw all games in 100 game match? There will be wins and losses, right?

If they are equal, they would be expected to score 50% of the points, each. That does not in any way mean they would draw every game.

And what will determine the result in non-drawn games?

DiogenesDue
uri65 wrote:
BobbyTalparov wrote:
uri65 wrote:
BobbyTalparov wrote:
Richard_Hunter wrote:

The way I see it, if you have a game where the players play random but legal moves, the result will be determined by 100% chance. This is akin to a game between two absolute novices. As players get more experienced and skillful, the degree of chance obviously decreases, but unless both players get complete knowledge of all possible outcomes - which not even a computer can manage - then I don't see how the amount of chance in the game can ever be completely removed.

What you are calling "chance" here is actually a gap in knowledge.

Ok, let's take a simple example - two players of equal skill and knowledge are playing, there is no gap. They will not draw all games in 100 game match? There will be wins and losses, right?

If they are equal, they would be expected to score 50% of the points, each. That does not in any way mean they would draw every game.

And what will determine the result in non-drawn games?

Skill.  Is it luck when a .300 baseball hitter hits a home run?  Or should a really good pitcher be able to blow 500 pitches by him?  You don't seem to understand that a contest, of equals or not, involves instances where the "better" person performs under their best, and the "worse" player performs better.  Think of a good player as a sine wave, and a worse player as another sine wave on a lower plane...the lower sine wave player will still win the games when the higher sine waver dips lower while the lower sine wave rises higher.  And no...that intersection of performance levels does not represent luck.

Richard_Hunter
BobbyTalparov wrote:
Richard_Hunter wrote:
BobbyTalparov wrote:
Richard_Hunter wrote:

The way I see it, if you have a game where the players play random but legal moves, the result will be determined by 100% chance. This is akin to a game between two absolute novices. As players get more experienced and skillful, the degree of chance obviously decreases, but unless both players get complete knowledge of all possible outcomes - which not even a computer can manage - then I don't see how the amount of chance in the game can ever be completely removed.

What you are calling "chance" here is actually a gap in knowledge.

Yes, and if you have a gap in knowledge then you must depend on luck.

Lol. That is a bit of circular reasoning ...

LOL, you don't understand what circular reasoning is.

uri65
BobbyTalparov wrote:
uri65 wrote:
BobbyTalparov wrote:
uri65 wrote:
BobbyTalparov wrote:
Richard_Hunter wrote:

The way I see it, if you have a game where the players play random but legal moves, the result will be determined by 100% chance. This is akin to a game between two absolute novices. As players get more experienced and skillful, the degree of chance obviously decreases, but unless both players get complete knowledge of all possible outcomes - which not even a computer can manage - then I don't see how the amount of chance in the game can ever be completely removed.

What you are calling "chance" here is actually a gap in knowledge.

Ok, let's take a simple example - two players of equal skill and knowledge are playing, there is no gap. They will not draw all games in 100 game match? There will be wins and losses, right?

If they are equal, they would be expected to score 50% of the points, each. That does not in any way mean they would draw every game.

And what will determine the result in non-drawn games?

You are assuming equal knowledge (which is not possible), so it would then boil down to judgement.

Why equal knowledge is not possible? Imagine 2 equally talented players following same training program, same books etc. And equal judgement.

Or let's take a sci fi scenario - the player was cloned before the game and the original and the clone are playing a game now. And in order to exclude possible arguments about deterministic brain processes let's say the cloning was done 1 day before the game. If the game is not a draw, what determined the result?

Richard_Hunter
uri65 wrote:
BobbyTalparov wrote:
uri65 wrote:
BobbyTalparov wrote:
uri65 wrote:
BobbyTalparov wrote:
Richard_Hunter wrote:

The way I see it, if you have a game where the players play random but legal moves, the result will be determined by 100% chance. This is akin to a game between two absolute novices. As players get more experienced and skillful, the degree of chance obviously decreases, but unless both players get complete knowledge of all possible outcomes - which not even a computer can manage - then I don't see how the amount of chance in the game can ever be completely removed.

What you are calling "chance" here is actually a gap in knowledge.

Ok, let's take a simple example - two players of equal skill and knowledge are playing, there is no gap. They will not draw all games in 100 game match? There will be wins and losses, right?

If they are equal, they would be expected to score 50% of the points, each. That does not in any way mean they would draw every game.

And what will determine the result in non-drawn games?

You are assuming equal knowledge (which is not possible), so it would then boil down to judgement.

Why equal knowledge is not possible? Imagine 2 equally talented players following same training program, same books etc. And equal judgement.

Or let's take a sci fi scenario - the player was cloned before the game and the original and the clone are playing a game now. And in order to exclude possible arguments about deterministic brain processes let's say the cloning was done 1 day before the game. If the game is not a draw, what determined the result?

You don't even need the sci-fi scenario. According to Talparov's reasoning, if a match is a draw that must mean both players are equally skilled.

Richard_Hunter
BobbyTalparov wrote:
Richard_Hunter wrote:
BobbyTalparov wrote:
Richard_Hunter wrote:
BobbyTalparov wrote:
Richard_Hunter wrote:

The way I see it, if you have a game where the players play random but legal moves, the result will be determined by 100% chance. This is akin to a game between two absolute novices. As players get more experienced and skillful, the degree of chance obviously decreases, but unless both players get complete knowledge of all possible outcomes - which not even a computer can manage - then I don't see how the amount of chance in the game can ever be completely removed.

What you are calling "chance" here is actually a gap in knowledge.

Yes, and if you have a gap in knowledge then you must depend on luck.

Lol. That is a bit of circular reasoning ...

LOL, you don't understand what circular reasoning is.

Obviously, I understand it better than you. You have asserted your conclusion. When you lose to Hikaru 100 out of 100 games, it is because he is lucky?

You're just acting stupid now.

Richard_Hunter
BobbyTalparov wrote:
Richard_Hunter wrote:
uri65 wrote:
BobbyTalparov wrote:
uri65 wrote:
BobbyTalparov wrote:
uri65 wrote:
BobbyTalparov wrote:
Richard_Hunter wrote:

The way I see it, if you have a game where the players play random but legal moves, the result will be determined by 100% chance. This is akin to a game between two absolute novices. As players get more experienced and skillful, the degree of chance obviously decreases, but unless both players get complete knowledge of all possible outcomes - which not even a computer can manage - then I don't see how the amount of chance in the game can ever be completely removed.

What you are calling "chance" here is actually a gap in knowledge.

Ok, let's take a simple example - two players of equal skill and knowledge are playing, there is no gap. They will not draw all games in 100 game match? There will be wins and losses, right?

If they are equal, they would be expected to score 50% of the points, each. That does not in any way mean they would draw every game.

And what will determine the result in non-drawn games?

You are assuming equal knowledge (which is not possible), so it would then boil down to judgement.

Why equal knowledge is not possible? Imagine 2 equally talented players following same training program, same books etc. And equal judgement.

Or let's take a sci fi scenario - the player was cloned before the game and the original and the clone are playing a game now. And in order to exclude possible arguments about deterministic brain processes let's say the cloning was done 1 day before the game. If the game is not a draw, what determined the result?

You don't even need the sci-fi scenario. According to Talparov's reasoning, if a match is a draw that must mean both players are equally skilled.

I will put it this way: if you think someone who beats you is just lucky, you will never improve.

You know that's not the question. Stop being a fool.