Forums

Is there such thing as "luck" in chess?

Sort:
BrotherMoy
BrotherMoy
Show your flair!
Jun 15, 2022
0
#2001
Optimissed wrote:
mikekalish wrote:

This is my uneducated opinion and I am totally NOT prepared to defend it or support it, and admit freely that I haven't put a lot of effort into formulating it, nor do I really care if I'm right or wrong.

When we play chess, we have full control over every move we make and (for all practical purposes) every game is winnable*....if we make the right decisions on every move. Therefore, I don't see luck as part of the game at all. 

 

*There is the highly unlikely possibliity that the opponent will make all the right decisions as well, in which case....a draw. This possibility is so remote, I choose to ignore it. 

A lot of people seem to share that view. It isn't correct for two reasons. The first is that there isn't full information. Far from it, because the information as presented to the chess player is often indecipherable. The second reason is the argument from lack of full mental control, which is a correct argument and actually irrefutable. A refutation isn't someone claiming I have to prove it, because I don't have to. No expert in human thought would or could possibly disagree. I'm acually rather amazed that there are people here who claim to disagree with it.

Based on this statement, you would have to agree that there is luck involved in getting 100% on a math test.

lfPatriotGames
lfPatriotGames
Jun 15, 2022
0
#2002
BrotherMoy wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
mikekalish wrote:

This is my uneducated opinion and I am totally NOT prepared to defend it or support it, and admit freely that I haven't put a lot of effort into formulating it, nor do I really care if I'm right or wrong.

When we play chess, we have full control over every move we make and (for all practical purposes) every game is winnable*....if we make the right decisions on every move. Therefore, I don't see luck as part of the game at all. 

 

*There is the highly unlikely possibliity that the opponent will make all the right decisions as well, in which case....a draw. This possibility is so remote, I choose to ignore it. 

A lot of people seem to share that view. It isn't correct for two reasons. The first is that there isn't full information. Far from it, because the information as presented to the chess player is often indecipherable. The second reason is the argument from lack of full mental control, which is a correct argument and actually irrefutable. A refutation isn't someone claiming I have to prove it, because I don't have to. No expert in human thought would or could possibly disagree. I'm acually rather amazed that there are people here who claim to disagree with it.

Based on this statement, you would have to agree that there is luck involved in getting 100% on a math test.

For me, absolutely. Like, over 50% luck. 

llama36
llama36
Closed: Inactive
Jun 15, 2022
0
#2003
BrotherMoy wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
mikekalish wrote:

This is my uneducated opinion and I am totally NOT prepared to defend it or support it, and admit freely that I haven't put a lot of effort into formulating it, nor do I really care if I'm right or wrong.

When we play chess, we have full control over every move we make and (for all practical purposes) every game is winnable*....if we make the right decisions on every move. Therefore, I don't see luck as part of the game at all. 

 

*There is the highly unlikely possibliity that the opponent will make all the right decisions as well, in which case....a draw. This possibility is so remote, I choose to ignore it. 

A lot of people seem to share that view. It isn't correct for two reasons. The first is that there isn't full information. Far from it, because the information as presented to the chess player is often indecipherable. The second reason is the argument from lack of full mental control, which is a correct argument and actually irrefutable. A refutation isn't someone claiming I have to prove it, because I don't have to. No expert in human thought would or could possibly disagree. I'm acually rather amazed that there are people here who claim to disagree with it.

Based on this statement, you would have to agree that there is luck involved in getting 100% on a math test.

Of course there is some luck in test taking.

lfPatriotGames
lfPatriotGames
Jun 15, 2022
0
#2004

Optimissed, he says every game is winnable and there is no luck in chess. You know what that means. Should only take one or two paragraphs to get that all straightened out. 

PlayByDay
PlayByDay
Closed: Inactive
Jun 15, 2022
0
#2005
Kotshmot skrev:
mikekalish wrote:

This is my uneducated opinion and I am totally NOT prepared to defend it or support it, and admit freely that I haven't put a lot of effort into formulating it, nor do I really care if I'm right or wrong.

When we play chess, we have full control over every move we make and (for all practical purposes) every game is winnable*....if we make the right decisions on every move. Therefore, I don't see luck as part of the game at all. 

 

*There is the highly unlikely possibliity that the opponent will make all the right decisions as well, in which case....a draw. This possibility is so remote, I choose to ignore it. 

This is a surface level thought process that has been refuted quite a few times in the thread.

This thread has been good for exploring how much luck/chance/uncertanty are involved in game of skill. But from a more pragmatic point of view, what non-trivial games with player interaction have no luck or less luck than chess? Otherwise it becomes a bit of adding the creation of the universe as step 1 in your apple pie recipe 

DiogenesDue
DiogenesDue
Jun 15, 2022
0
#2006
mikekalish wrote:
BrotherMoy wrote:

So then if you all agree that there is luck in chess because of human action, you must also believe that there is luck in math because of human action.

[nitpick]Math isn't a human action. It is a language designed to describe the physical word quantitatively.  DOING math is a human action.  [/nitpick]

And when someone makes a mistake doing math...is that bad luck, or a lack of skill? wink.png

Mike_Kalish
Mike_Kalish
Jun 15, 2022
0
#2007
BrotherMoy wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
mikekalish wrote:

This is my uneducated opinion and I am totally NOT prepared to defend it or support it, and admit freely that I haven't put a lot of effort into formulating it, nor do I really care if I'm right or wrong.

When we play chess, we have full control over every move we make and (for all practical purposes) every game is winnable*....if we make the right decisions on every move. Therefore, I don't see luck as part of the game at all. 

 

*There is the highly unlikely possibliity that the opponent will make all the right decisions as well, in which case....a draw. This possibility is so remote, I choose to ignore it. 

A lot of people seem to share that view. It isn't correct for two reasons. The first is that there isn't full information. Far from it, because the information as presented to the chess player is often indecipherable. The second reason is the argument from lack of full mental control, which is a correct argument and actually irrefutable. A refutation isn't someone claiming I have to prove it, because I don't have to. No expert in human thought would or could possibly disagree. I'm acually rather amazed that there are people here who claim to disagree with it.

Based on this statement, you would have to agree that there is luck involved in getting 100% on a math test.

MO, there is no luck involved in gettin 100 on a math test. You have the power to get 100 on every test if you do the right things in preparation and execution. It's analogous to chess. You CAN win. You CAN get 100. If you don't, it's because YOU did something wrong. No luck involved. 
CooloutAC says there is luck involved. I disagree.

llama36
llama36
Closed: Inactive
Jun 15, 2022
0
#2008
btickler wrote:
mikekalish wrote:
BrotherMoy wrote:

So then if you all agree that there is luck in chess because of human action, you must also believe that there is luck in math because of human action.

[nitpick]Math isn't a human action. It is a language designed to describe the physical word quantitatively.  DOING math is a human action.  [/nitpick]

And when someone makes a mistake doing math...is that bad luck, or a lack of skill?

If it's something you're good at, then the mistakes are often random chance, yeah.

I remember one problem (that required 3 pages of work) I was going over and over trying to find my mistake... in my tiredness I'd done 3*3 = 6 in my head when of course 3*3 is 9.

If random errors didn't crop up, then there'd be no need for peer review.

Mike_Kalish
Mike_Kalish
Jun 15, 2022
0
#2009
Optimissed wrote:
 

You mean drawable. 

No, I mean winnable, as you see explained in post #3586

llama36
llama36
Closed: Inactive
Jun 15, 2022
0
#2010
mikekalish wrote:

there is no luck involved in gettin 100 on a math test. 

Then you've never taken a hard math test wink.png

Mike_Kalish
Mike_Kalish
Jun 15, 2022
0
#2011
nMsALpg wrote:
mikekalish wrote:

there is no luck involved in gettin 100 on a math test. 

Then you've never taken a hard math test

Two years of calculus, including a semester of differential equations, at Carnegie-Mellon U would suggest otherwise. 

DiogenesDue
DiogenesDue
Jun 15, 2022
0
#2012
nMsALpg wrote:

If it's something you're good at, then the mistakes are often random chance, yeah.

I remember one problem (that required 3 pages of work) I was going over and over trying to find my mistake... in my tiredness I'd done 3*3 = 6 in my head when of course 3*3 is 9.

If random errors didn't crop up, then there'd be no need for peer review.

Being tired is not random error.  It's a lack of focus and skill on your part.  If you assign human failings as "random", then you don't understand what the word random means.

ran·dom
/ˈrandəm/
adjective
 
1. made, done, happening, or chosen without method or conscious decision.

BrotherMoy
BrotherMoy
Show your flair!
Jun 15, 2022
0
#2013

I think everyone here is misattributing luck to human imperfection. If you tell me that there is no luck in math, but there is luck in getting 100% on a math test, then that is no different than saying there is no luck in chess, but there is luck in human's playing chess.

For example, 2 + 2 always equals 4. You don't need to get lucky to achieve these results. Similarly, 1. e4 e5 always results in the same position. You don't need to get lucky for this position to occur. There is no random chance in the game of chess itself (no dice or RNG), just like there is no random chance in solving a math equation. The randomness or "luck" is caused by human/engine imperfection.

Kotshmot
Kotshmot
Jun 15, 2022
0
#2014
mikekalish wrote:
Kotshmot wrote:
mikekalish wrote:

This is my uneducated opinion and I am totally NOT prepared to defend it or support it, and admit freely that I haven't put a lot of effort into formulating it, nor do I really care if I'm right or wrong.

When we play chess, we have full control over every move we make and (for all practical purposes) every game is winnable*....if we make the right decisions on every move. Therefore, I don't see luck as part of the game at all. 

 

*There is the highly unlikely possibliity that the opponent will make all the right decisions as well, in which case....a draw. This possibility is so remote, I choose to ignore it. 

This is a surface level thought process that has been refuted quite a few times in the thread.

That's my opinion. Nothing more. Which probably makes it as valid as anything else that has been written here.  You might believe that your or other particular thought processes are "deeper" but I don't. Again....just opinion.  You see luck as part of the game? Great. I don't. 

Some other arguments here are logically sound, thats all. I don't think opinions are worth while if you can't back them up in a more concrete way.

DiogenesDue
DiogenesDue
Jun 15, 2022
0
#2015
Optimissed wrote:

When I was 10, as well as being measured off the scale in an IQ test and being very good looking, I was a mental arithmetic prodigy. Habitually scored near 100% in mental long multiplication and division but I probably hardly ever scored 100%. I wasn't perfect at mental arithmetic and chance errors creep in when you're doing it against time, in front, basically, of an audience of 50, which was the class size.

[and]

I believe I taught myself to do two mental processes simultaneously. I was doing it visually, actually, because I taught myself to write long numbers down in my mind in different coloured chalk and then I could turn my attention to something else, and then red off the number. Then I could symbolically rub it out and it was gone. Mental arithmetic was like being a trapeze artist, because in real time, mental processes seemed like geometric patterns in my mind and some of the processes were not fully concious.

It's really very interesting. I very rarely made mistakes but they could occur because, as I pointed out, no-one's mental control is perfect, even if it's close to it

On my 25th birthday, when I climbed an over 15000 foot snowpeak by myself, in thick mist, so much of the time you couldn't see two yards ahead, without a map or compass and obviously without a phone, which hadn't been invented, I got back safely because then I still had a photographic memory and I could remember more or less every step I took between the conical summit and the footpath over the mountain pass a couple of thousand feet below. But it doesn't mean I wasn't taking an enormous risk, all the same.

Posterity.

Kotshmot
Kotshmot
Jun 15, 2022
0
#2016
BrotherMoy wrote:

I think everyone here is misattributing luck to human imperfection. If you tell me that there is no luck in math, but there is luck in getting 100% on a math test, then that is no different than saying there is no luck in chess, but there is luck in human's playing chess.

For example, 2 + 2 always equals 4. You don't need to get lucky to achieve these results. Similarly, 1. e4 e5 always results in the same position. You don't need to get lucky for this position to occur. There is no random chance in the game of chess itself (no dice or RNG), just like there is no random chance in solving a math equation. The randomness or "luck" is caused by human/engine imperfection.

What if you don't know how to calculate one exercise in the math test so you take a guess, and get it right? Luck or not?

What if you have no idea to calculate a particular chess position so you have to take a guess, and you land the best move according to stockfish?

Some concrete examples always help.

Mike_Kalish
Mike_Kalish
Jun 15, 2022
0
#2017
Kotshmot wrote

Some other arguments here are logically sound, thats all. I don't think opinions are worth while if you can't back them up in a more concrete way.

There is a great  possibility that everything here is opinion. Even "backing up" an opinion with some data or evidence doesn't make it fact. It's still opinion, just opinion with reason. My opinion is "logically sound". So what?

DiogenesDue
DiogenesDue
Jun 15, 2022
0
#2018
Optimissed wrote:

Maybe you don't fully understand it though. Extreme tiredness can remove the ability to make conscious decisions correctly.

So, when you get drunk, you just keep getting unluckier and unluckier with every mouthful...by your logic.

Doing math while extremely tired is a conscious decision.  

lfPatriotGames
lfPatriotGames
Jun 15, 2022
0
#2019
BrotherMoy wrote:

I think everyone here is misattributing luck to human imperfection. If you tell me that there is no luck in math, but there is luck in getting 100% on a math test, then that is no different than saying there is no luck in chess, but there is luck in human's playing chess.

For example, 2 + 2 always equals 4. You don't need to get lucky to achieve these results. Similarly, 1. e4 e5 always results in the same position. You don't need to get lucky for this position to occur. There is no random chance in the game of chess itself (no dice or RNG), just like there is no random chance in solving a math equation. The randomness or "luck" is caused by human/engine imperfection.

But what if you don't know 2 plus 2 equals 4? If you asked a 2 year old, who barely has a concept of numbers and no concept of addition, they might blurt out a number they've heard before, with no clue what the question even means. If they say 4, I would call that luck. I agree, the luck in chess is the human element, because luck is just good (or bad) chance or fortune. It seems like computers don't need, or care about, good fortune. 

BrotherMoy
BrotherMoy
Show your flair!
Jun 15, 2022
0
#2020
Kotshmot wrote:
BrotherMoy wrote:

I think everyone here is misattributing luck to human imperfection. If you tell me that there is no luck in math, but there is luck in getting 100% on a math test, then that is no different than saying there is no luck in chess, but there is luck in human's playing chess.

For example, 2 + 2 always equals 4. You don't need to get lucky to achieve these results. Similarly, 1. e4 e5 always results in the same position. You don't need to get lucky for this position to occur. There is no random chance in the game of chess itself (no dice or RNG), just like there is no random chance in solving a math equation. The randomness or "luck" is caused by human/engine imperfection.

What if you don't know how to calculate one exercise in the math test so you take a guess, and get it right? Luck or not?

What if you have no idea to calculate a particular chess position so you have to take a guess, and you land the best move according to stockfish?

Some concrete examples always help.

This is very good! I think these examples further prove that "luck" in chess is due to human/engine imperfection, just like in a math test. I personally don't think the actual game of chess has any chance elements (similar to math).