### Most Recent

- Express if you like or do not like the new version of the site
- Nakamura: "Fischer would almost certainly lose to all of us"
- Trying to understand Pawn Structure better
- Your favorite board colors and pieces style?
- connection issues
- Monumentally dull WC
- How many openings can you name
- 12/4/2016 - Two Deep
- Chess and Relationships
- Blindfold simul results?

### Forum Legend

- Following
- New Comments
- Locked Topic
- Pinned Topic

It's a draw. The answer is neither.

Tmb86: Please re-read Estragon's argument carefully. The essence of it is that Shakespeare and chess aren't subject to randomness -- rather, they are governed by skill. If it was all randomness (as is the case with lottery), then there's a small practical chance indeed.

But true randomness implies uniform probability distribution (i.e., the chance of one outcome is exactly the same as the chance of any other individual outcome). This is true about the lottery -- the chance of one number (or a set of numbers) coming up, given that we have no extra information, is exactly the same as the chance of any other number (or set of numbers).

However, this same argument cannot be applied with Shakespeare and chess -- because the chance of winning a game depends on executing a sequence of strong moves (at least stronger than your opponent's). While a single strong move here and there might just come up for the beginner, it won't suffice in the end for winning, because the game is cumulative, i.e., the moves are not independent the same way that the numbers in the lottery are.

So I suggest studying some probability theory first before commenting on the subject of it!

It's subject to randomness in the sense that the monkeys would eventually make the right key strokes geven an infinite amount of time. Same with chess. Given an infinite amount of time, the patzer would eventually make the winning moves even if it's by dumb luck.

I've seen Valentin's mistake made countless times, pointing out that a sequence of 10 heads is as probable as 10 other tosses is usually enough to help people understand.

Still, he did get to use the phrase 'uniform probability distribution', and tell me I should study probability, so that's something I guess.

I wonder if he's the kind of guy who can admit when he's very arrogantly said something which is wrong...

I've seen Valentin's mistake made countless times, pointing out that 10 heads is as probable as 10 other tosses is usually enough to help people understand.

Still, he did get to use the phrase 'uniform probability distribution', and tell me I should study probability, so that's something I guess.

Some people refuse to, even then. They just can't understand that the moves that make a great chess game, and the letters that make up Shakespear's writings have no meaning except to humans, and could occur randomly just like anything else, and would, given a long enough time.

The probability is so miniscule that it won't happen. One set of chess moves and bunch of letters does not affect the probability for other sets of chess moves and bunches of letters. So if you hit every other combination of coin flips, does not mean the one combination missed will be coming up next or soon.

"The probability is so miniscule that it won't happen"

That's wrong.

" One set of chess moves...etc."

That's right.

its always possible.. the other guy could just resign... duh

True, it is wrong because it has that smaller than .0000000000000000000001 chance that it will hit, but it's there. Time is limited. We don't have that time to wait and see if it comes true, therefore i said it won't happen.

That's interesting, rooperi. Personally I was envisioning a random move generator, but now the question becomes who would beat a GM quicker, a random move generator, or a 1300. Lol.

I really think that might be the crux of the matter. Truly random moves will eventually beat the GM, the 1300 never will, because it's not completely random, it's based on flawed logic, strategy, tactics, everything. He might consider the correct move everytime, but will frequently discard it because of poor understanding.

In golf, for exmple, it's not the quality of the good shots that seperate a pro from an amateur, it's the quality of the bad shots. Believe me, my bad shots are so bad that no amount of lucky 50ft putts are gonna let me beat Tiger Woods.

Same with chess, the 1300's mistakes are just so much worse.

That may be so, but surely flawed logic is better than no logic at all. Think of all those trillions of games where the RMG plays 24 incredible moves, has the GM against the wall, then when it comes to delivering mate plays a pointless king move.

That may be so, but surely flawed logic is better than no logic at all. Think of all those trillions of games where the RMG plays 24 incredible moves, has the GM against the wall, then when it comes to delivering mate plays a pointless king move.

I really dont think so. Remember, on the other side of th board from the 1300 sits a 2700, who sets deep plans and traps. Your RMG has a chance to get the correct move by luck, the 1300 will just crack like an egg.

Flawed logic or no, the right move would eventually be made. Even if for the wrong reasons. I've made the right move, thinking I was going to accomplish something else entirely, but it turned out I was just lucky being right for another reason.

Flawed logic or no, the right move would eventually be made. Even if for the wrong reasons. I've made the right move, thinking I was going to accomplish something else entirely, but it turned out I was just lucky being right for another reason.

Exactly. I also think a 1300 plays much better than an RMG and thus his chances will be much better to beat the GM.

For example: the RMG will usually miss mate in one if other moves are possible, the 1300 will often see and execute mate in one and thus needs less lucky moves.

For the record, I think a 1300 will have an overwhelming score against a RMG, but the RMG has a (really minutely slim) chance against a GM, while the 1300 has no chance at all.

The probability is so minuscule that it won't happen. One set of chess moves and bunch of letters does not affect the probability for other sets of chess moves and bunches of letters. So if you hit every other combination of coin flips, does not mean the one combination missed will be coming up next or soon.

Nobody said one set of outcomes affects other outcomes. That's called maturity of chances, which doesn't exist. As to the rest of your statement, it might not happen in our life time, or even the universes life time, but given an infinite amount of time, it would happen. Not just once, but an infinite amount of times. This proves that at any given time, it could happen. Though the odds are so high against it, it's a good bet it won't happen in our, or the universes life time.

Though the odds are so high against it, it's a good bet it won't happen in our, or the universes life time.

That's my point. We don't have an infinite amount of time to prove it.

"The probability is so miniscule that it won't happen".

What you're saying here is "The probability is non-zero, it's zero."

Forget about practical timescales, no-ones suggested we actually try and make this happen. The question is whether there is any chance, and clearly the answer is yes.

Low probability events rarely happen and when they do some other

explanation arises - so if a 1300 beat a GM people would be pretty

sure he cheated.

Low probability events rarely happen and when they do some other

explanation arises - so if a 1300 beat a GM people would be pretty

sure he cheated.

But they

happen. I would think he cheated too, simply because the odds are indeed so high against it, but this being said, it's still not virtually impossible.do"The probability is so miniscule that it won't happen".

What you're saying here is "The probability is non-zero, it's zero."

Forget about practical timescales, no-ones suggested we actually try and make this happen. The question is whether there is any chance, and clearly the answer is yes.

Agree.