Is chess a game of logic?

Luck is introduced when chess is played by imperfect humans.  It isn't part of chess itself.  If two perfect machines played chess against each other, neither would get lucky, ever.  On the other hand, if two perfect machines played a game of poker, one or other would get lucky due to being dealt a better hand.  That doesn't happen in chess.

You need to read some "@booksy" in classical rhetoric, unfortunately.

You're trying to applaud using only one hand.

Great.  I'm being talked down to by someone who thinks the London System is a good idea.

That's nothing. I've been talked down to by a guy who thought that the Bishop and Rook are of equal value.

I'm pretty good at math (well, I was the best in my class but I just finished high school so it's not saying much lol).

Just started getting into chess, found out that I suck really badly haha. Pretty hard, and I'm just trying to memorize an opening right now and then just let the game flow. I'm guessing it'll take me like 200+ games to actually understand what the hell I'm doing?... But yeah, what I really wanted to put into this thread:

I don't think you should think of any game as complex as chess in a binary sense like "logical" or "pure luck." It's strategical, but that's not entirely logical. For example, sometimes you use risks that may or may not pay off. So I mean, it's more or less situational. Or I guess you could play super solidily all the time, but I mean that's kinda boring to play haha. I like losing pieces and taking pieces and constantly having a sort of "war" going on in the board, but that is definitely not working for me so far lol.

I believe, primarily, chess is a game of logic.

For example, if N b3 = lose N, if N c4 = improve. Keep in mind, creativity and artfulness are not exclusive from following a logical outcome.

Also, I agree with ur-booksy about no thing as luck in chess. It's too logical - no randomness generally applies.

1. Chess itself is a game designed to be played by imperfect humans.
2. Chess itself is a one man's game played between man and board.
3. Chess itself is a game for engines.

I like number 1 :) Which one do you like?

I think it used to be 1 until about 15 years ago, but now sadly it is probably 3.  You only have to go onto a site with live super GM games and watch the commentary.  It will generally be full of 1500 players with engines criticising Gelfand every time he makes a move that causes the engine evaluation to drop by 0.2. 

So many wasted keystrokes.  And @Ur-booksy?  Hardly.

"Perfect games" and "perfect machines" are perfectly vapid ideas.  Get a grip.

You get a grip.  Chess is a finite and solvable game of perfect information.  The concept of perfect play, and machines capable of it, is entirely valid.  Related but simpler games have already been solved - try playing checkers against a supercomputer and see how lucky you get.  Even monkeys with typewriters couldn't win a game.

I don't know quite what I've done to arouse your ire, but if you want to discuss wasted keystrokes, I suggest you reexamine your last two posts which have contributed precisely nothing. 

Endless numbers of forum threads -- on the "solution" to chess cover your limited viewpoint, ad nauseam.  Trying reading them.

You obviously haven't read much on the topic of "solving chess" in the mainstream literature.  And it shows, unfortunately.

Don't get a grip, just take a chill pill.

@Ponz111 in post #42, is a former U.S. Correspondence Champion, and the post above his was both incisive, and persuasive.  Unlike the pinheaded, syllogistic nonsense you continue to spout, Sir Booksy.  Duh?

While this is technically true, it glosses over the reality which is that the solution is too vast for us to ever achieve a strong or likely even a weak solution.  At best we might hope for an ultra-weak solution and I'd wager only on the back of a major breakthrough in quantum computing capabilities.

"Syllogistic".... I learnt a new word. 

I'll never have the confidence to use it though!

yes

It's only effective against cartoon characters, like @Book-Brainless, who has played a total of (only) one chess game, after fully a year on this site.

I started reading/posting on these forums about a week ago.  Pardon me for not having come across this discussion yet. 

I may not have read much about this in 'mainstream literature', but I don't really see how that excuses your attitude.  How about offering some actual opinion or insight of value, instead of just being a dick? 

Well, we'll have to excuse this as well since you're new.  That's not generally how things are done around here.

OK @Booksy, simply reread post #55, it contains the essentials on the so-called "solution" to chess.

Then try a stiff drink and take a long walk.  Perhaps?

I never said anyting about it being practical to solve it, or that such machines will ever exist. Only that perfect play exists in theory.

Perfect play exists only between your ears, @Bookbrainless.

I see you are spewing your invective in other threads as well.  Compare  post #28 in --

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/community/child-genius?lc=1#last_comment