Fabel, you are confusing the fallibility of humans with whether the game itself is solvable and therefore capable of being played "perfectly". A computer will eventually be able to play the perfect game. We aren't there yet, but in about 200-225 years, we will be.
Tic-tac-toe is solvable. It's been solved. But a human could get careless and make a mistake if they had to play 100 games of tic-tac-toe simultaneously. That doesn't change the nature of the game.
That's just it. If your opponent blunders and you benefit it had nothing to do with your good luck or their bad luck, your opponent simply had a lapse in skill.
That's just it. If your opponent blunders and you benefit it had nothing to do with your good luck or their bad luck, your opponent simply had a lapse in skill.
If youir opponent blunders in a game it could be they had bad luck.
Recently, I lost 4 games by playing a move but somehow the mouse did not move the piece far enough and it landed on the wrong square.
Something may be wrong with my mouse, I am not sure. But in all 4 cases it was good luck for my opponent.
In any competition the element of luck may come up along wih the element of skill.
That's not core to the nature of chess at all.
Sounds like operating your computer requires a degree of skill as well.
Any game in the Olympics plus Bowling.
This, minus bowling.
No 2+ person game is 100% skill based. There is always a bit of luck.
All games of perfect information, like chess, are 100% skill based.
Luck is just something people seem to ascribe to either elements that aren't actually part of the game (like the mouse slip example above), or uncharactaristic lapses in skill (like the blunder example above).
"Fabel, you are confusing the fallibility of humans with whether the game itself is solvable and therefore capable of being played "perfectly". A computer will eventually be able to play the perfect game. We aren't there yet, but in about 200-225 years, we will be"
But, as I think Gelfand said, "who cares about what computers say, chess is a human game". What you describe is some sort of Ideal Chess played by computers in a distant future. That the actual game of chess, as it is being played, and will continue to be played, contains some elements of luck is so obvious that I don't understand how anyone can doubt it. You simply can't influence if your opponent forgot to turn his cell phone off and is forfeited after a call, or just mismanages his time horribly (see Ivanchuk's five losses on time, for no apparent reason, in the Candidates). Not much luck of course, just always some small amount.
If Chess was 100% skill based, why do I have to spend all this time memorizing opening lines??????????
I think Gelfand said, "who cares about what computers say, chess is a human game". What you describe is some sort of Ideal Chess played by computers in a distant future. That the actual game of chess, as it is being played, and will continue to be played, contains some elements of luck is so obvious that I don't understand how anyone can doubt it.
Are we talking about the nature of chess, or about the nature of humans here?
If Chess was 100% skill based, why do I have to spend all this time memorizing opening lines??????????
Well this is easy to anwser. We have hundreds of players here that get kicked out for using unfair tactics do you think they think chess is a skilled base game?
I think Gelfand said, "who cares about what computers say, chess is a human game". What you describe is some sort of Ideal Chess played by computers in a distant future. That the actual game of chess, as it is being played, and will continue to be played, contains some elements of luck is so obvious that I don't understand how anyone can doubt it.
Are we talking about the nature of chess, or about the nature of humans here?
Well this is getting very philosophical :-) I think one might say that a game like football in itself is 100% skill based, and that "luck" is caused by things outside "Ideal Football", from incorrect referee decisions to badly mown grass on a crucial spot. With human nature removed from the equation every single result would be caused by skill alone.
One can claim that every result was the correct one according to the rules of the game, but to me some coincidences will always be part of any game, since they don't exist without humans and the human competition rules.
I think Gelfand said, "who cares about what computers say, chess is a human game". What you describe is some sort of Ideal Chess played by computers in a distant future. That the actual game of chess, as it is being played, and will continue to be played, contains some elements of luck is so obvious that I don't understand how anyone can doubt it.
Are we talking about the nature of chess, or about the nature of humans here?
Well this is getting very philosophical :-) I think one might say that a game like football in itself is 100% skill based, and that "luck" is caused by things outside "Ideal Football", from incorrect referee decisions to badly mown grass on a crucial spot. With human nature removed from the equation every single result would be caused by skill alone.
One can claim that every result was the correct one according to the rules of the game, but to me some coincidences will always be part of any game, since they don't exist without humans and the human competition rules.
Are you talking about the NFL? If so the coaches/players plan for those things as they know what referee is going to be in the game and calls they tend to make.
Darts
Unless one or both of the players knows chess perfectly, then whether chess is "solvable" is irrelevant to the games actually being played, which is every game in history so far.
No one, nor machine so far, knows chess perfectly. Therefore, whether chess is "solvable" or is irrelevant to whether there is an element of luck for the rest of us.
Let's say player A looks, perfectly, 10 moves ahead in chess, every move.
Player B sees 9 moves ahead in chess, every move.
Anticipating B's strategy, Player A has decided to use strategy Q for this game.
Player B has decided to use strategy P for this game.
It could be that player B is pursuing a strategy, a plan that positions his pieces more powerfully than A, *given A's strategy for that game.
In other words, B is lucky that A guessed wrong.
It's reasonable for A to expect B to play as he played in the past.
But, because B's wife yelled at him this morning, he decided to change everything about his life, including his play.
Since neither B nor A knew B's wife was going to yell at him, each player's choice of strategy vis a vis the other boiled down to luck.
For a more obvious, irrefutable example of luck in chess, imagine two computers, clones of each other, identical, playing 1000 games of chess.
They are equally matched, and let's say they split the games, 501 to 499, essentially 50 50.
Now, which computer won game number 17?
If it was the left computer, I think it's fair to say that it won game number 17 based on luck. Not based on being smarter, not based on having better strategies, not based on a nuturing parent during it's childhood, just luck, period.
It chose strategy X and the other computer chose strategy K, and X happens to beat K. Next game, randomly, the left computer might choose strategy G vs. R, and G beats R (but loses to all other strategies).
Luck. Lots and lots of luck in all but uneven games of chess. The closer in skill, the greater the mountain of luck.
I will agree that great players don't need any luck against beginners.
But that's true in other games of luck as well.
The greater the disparity of skills, the less the luck. The closer the skills, the greater the luck.
That's why we play more than one game to settle who's the best.
Can we start banning people that necro threads like this for their own amusement or promotion of some agenda?
Certainly not! Old threads are to be treasured.
Mum why is it illegal and second the research I have done is both practical and normal you are the condescending idiot to use your words you are a mail informed but well intentioned person. The research shows that poker is a game of mostly skill now if it were pure chance how come I have never lost a round against my friends if it were pure chance or even 50% chance at least once in 5 or 6 years you would have to assume the that I would have lost at least one round. A round in my case is approximately 30 hands whichwe played about 2 a week
Actually, in most states running a poker game where wagers are placed is illegal (unless the game is licensed), as poker is considered a game of chance and wagering on the game is considered gambling. There are often exceptions for "social" games held in a person's home where the person sponsoring the game is not charging anything and not making any money (e.g., no rake); in many cases, the law limits the amounts that can be wagered in a home or social game. notably, the law vary from state to state.
There are some court cases, which have held that certain card games are "games of skill" versus "games of chance." The few cases that i am familiar with deal with bridge and not poker, but it is possible that some court somewhere at sometime held that poker was a game of skill. Of course, this does not mean that all states in the USA classify poker as a game of skill. (There often also is a "charity exception" for poker or other card games, wherein the game is legal if the proceeds go to charity.)
Moreover, even if poker were considered a "game of skill" from a legal standpoint (even assuming that the court/legislature was correct in its conclusion), that does not mean that there is no luck involved. Games of skill often have an element of luck. Similarly, games of chance often require some skill to play successfully.
"If you point out that someone got "lucky" in a single game, that merely means his opponent didn't find the best moves"
Portisch won an unwinnable endgame because his opponent was mistaken about the time control. Such things happen, but one can never say that Reshevsky could have beaten Geller in the same way the following round by showing the same skill. Some results will always be influenced by random factors, regardless if chess is solvable, as long as humans are involved in the game.