Is there such thing as "luck" in chess?

Sort:
BrotherMoy
Optimissed 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.

Hi, I don't think you are comparing like with like. Mathematics in itself is a calculation process that does not involve luck, regarding the use of the correct techniques, if one has been taught properly. But getting it right all the time might be seen as lucky, if you're very tired, for instance.

I think this description can be compared to chess. Why is chess unlike mathematics in this sense?

BrotherMoy
Optimissed wrote:

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).>>

But that's what we're saying. It should have been obvious. You've misunderstood what's being discussed. Ah well.

I understand what you guys are saying and I am agreeing with you all. However, I think the actual game of chess has no luck.

If chess is ever solved, then there would be no luck in chess. If you believe that chess is solvable, then you must also believe there is no luck in chess (aside from the human element because human's are incapable of memorizing that far).

BrotherMoy
Optimissed wrote:

That doesn't mean we don't already know that chess is a draw with best play. It isn't solveable and there's nothing wrong with making the assertion that it's a draw, since the evidence all points clearly to it.

So you do agree that chess can be drawn always with perfect play?

DiogenesDue
Kotshmot wrote:

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.

Your math example only works if you *completely* randomly choose the number (in which case you no longer "doing math"), not if you make your best educated guess at the correct method/answer.  The latter is an application of skill on a spectrum from perfect skill (doesn't exist for humans) to zero skill (also doesn't exist for humans), not luck rushing in to fill the gap. 

Luck is external. 

Put up as many concrete examples as you want wink.png...a dozen, a hundred, it doesn't matter, the ones with luck involved will all be external to the humans/entities in question.

DiogenesDue
BrotherMoy wrote:
Optimissed wrote:

That doesn't mean we don't already know that chess is a draw with best play. It isn't solveable and there's nothing wrong with making the assertion that it's a draw, since the evidence all points clearly to it.

So you do agree that chess can be drawn always with perfect play?

Yes, he does, and he doesn't see that it belies his position on luck in chess wink.png.

Kotshmot
BrotherMoy wrote:
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).

I asked you regarding the first example if it was a lucky incident or not, you chose not to reply. The reason we can only guess.

DiogenesDue
Optimissed wrote:

Made when you're tired. You lost that point very quickly.

You don't even understand when you've failed to make your points...sad, really.

BrotherMoy
Kotshmot wrote:
BrotherMoy wrote:
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).

I asked you regarding the first example if it was a lucky incident or not, you chose not to reply. The reason we can only guess.

Sorry I thought it was obvious that I agreed it was a lucky incident only due to human imperfection. Not because math involves luck.

BrotherMoy
Optimissed wrote:
btickler wrote:
BrotherMoy wrote:
Optimissed wrote:

That doesn't mean we don't already know that chess is a draw with best play. It isn't solveable and there's nothing wrong with making the assertion that it's a draw, since the evidence all points clearly to it.

So you do agree that chess can be drawn always with perfect play?

Yes, he does, and he doesn't see that it belies his position on luck in chess .

You're right. I don't. It doesn't.

If you believe that chess can be ALWAYS drawn with perfect play, then you must also believe there is no luck element in the game of chess (outside of human imperfection). This is why btickler thinks it belittles your position. 

Kotshmot
btickler wrote:
Kotshmot wrote:

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.

Your math example only works if you *completely* randomly choose the number (in which case you no longer "doing math"), not if you make your best educated guess at the correct method/answer.  The latter is an application of skill on a spectrum from perfect skill (doesn't exist for humans) to zero skill (also doesn't exist for humans), not luck rushing in to fill the gap. 

Luck is external. 

Put up as many concrete examples as you want ...a dozen, a hundred, it doesn't matter, the ones with luck involved will all be external to the humans/entities in question.

"Your math example only works if you *completely* randomly choose the number"

This logic doesn't hold any water. If we break this down more, you'll understand why.

First of all, you can straight up miscalculate a math exercise and still get it right. That would make it completely random actually. Same can happen in chess.

Secondly, a 5 year old who just learned to count addition has some knowledge, therefore he cannot be lucky if he guestimates a correct answer to an advanced addition exercise (say 19 000 + 20 000). Edit. Admittedly bad example but you get the point. A little skill can exist in the process but a 100% result is not realistic by this level of skill, completely compareable to guessing.

lfPatriotGames
BrotherMoy wrote:
Optimissed wrote:

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).>>

But that's what we're saying. It should have been obvious. You've misunderstood what's being discussed. Ah well.

I understand what you guys are saying and I am agreeing with you all. However, I think the actual game of chess has no luck.

If chess is ever solved, then there would be no luck in chess. If you believe that chess is solvable, then you must also believe there is no luck in chess (aside from the human element because human's are incapable of memorizing that far).

I think this goes back to what Dmfed said. Step one of baking an apple pie is creating the universe. For all practical purposes, chess has some luck in it, because humans play it. I agree chess, like math, isn't something that has luck built into it, but when people do math, or do chess, there is luck spilling out all over the place. 

Because of what luck is. I played a game about a week ago, and I remember it because of this one move. It was about the 4th game, and my opponent was just stuck. Nowhere good to move. And so made a move that was basically a resigning move, giving up the queen, just wanting it to be over. And no, it was not a sacrifice to gain a position or other advantage. Just giving up. 

But the more I looked at it the more I realized what a good move it was. My opponent was just wanting to start a new game and looked slightly irritated I was taking my time. We ended up drawing. I would call that move good luck. (bad luck for me) because it's not a move that would ever normally arise. It was one of those moves only someone rated 1000 points above you makes. 

DiogenesDue
Kotshmot wrote:

"Your math example only works if you *completely* randomly choose the number"

This logic doesn't hold any water. If we break this down more, you'll understand why.

First of all, you can straight up miscalculate a math exercise and still get it right. That would make it completely random actually. Same can happen in chess.

Secondly, a 5 year old who just learned to count addition has some knowledge, therefore he cannot be lucky if he guestimates a correct answer to an advanced addition exercise (say 19 000 + 20 000). Edit. Admittedly bad example but you get the point. A little skill can exist in the process but a 100% result is not realistic by this level of skill.

First example:  "miscalculating" would obviously *not* be completely random, by the very definition of random I just posted.  

Second example:   If you are trying to argue that there's a non-zero chance that choosing chess moves at random can have a toddler beat Carlsen ala monkeys recreating Shakespeare randomly, then yes, there's always an infinitesimal chance of random events turning out in some fantastical way. 

Note the word "recreating" though.  I didn't say monkeys could "write" Shakespeare, because they would not actually be engaged in play writing.  The same way that your toddler in this example is not really "doing addition" (although answering 39,000 is not nearly as incredible as you would think, given that the "thousands" aspect is a gimme for the toddler), and the same way that completely randomly choosing chess moves is not "playing chess".   

SacrificeTheHorse
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. 

Kotshmot
btickler wrote:
Kotshmot wrote:

"Your math example only works if you *completely* randomly choose the number"

This logic doesn't hold any water. If we break this down more, you'll understand why.

First of all, you can straight up miscalculate a math exercise and still get it right. That would make it completely random actually. Same can happen in chess.

Secondly, a 5 year old who just learned to count addition has some knowledge, therefore he cannot be lucky if he guestimates a correct answer to an advanced addition exercise (say 19 000 + 20 000). Edit. Admittedly bad example but you get the point. A little skill can exist in the process but a 100% result is not realistic by this level of skill.

First example:  "miscalculating" would obviously *not* be completely random, by the very definition of random I just posted.  

Second example:   If you are trying to argue that there's a non-zero chance that choosing chess moves at random can have a toddler beat Carlsen ala monkeys recreating Shakespeare randomly, then yes, there's always an infinitesimal chance of random events turning out in some fantastical way. 

Note the word "recreating" though.  I didn't say monkeys could "write" Shakespeare, because they would not actually be engaged in play writing.  The same way that your toddler in this example is not really "doing addition" (although answering 39,000 is not nearly as incredible as you would think, given that the "thousands" aspect is a gimme for the toddler), and the same way that completely randomly choosing chess moves is not "playing chess".   

"First example:  "miscalculating" would obviously *not* be completely random, by the very definition of random I just posted."

Miscalculation resulting in the correct result is skill rather than luck, is that your statement?

DiogenesDue
Optimissed wrote:

I'm not sure what "Luck is external" means. External to our minds, our bodies, the physical world? Maybe external to chess.

The idea that playing when you're tired and a mistake creeps in and that being down to skill is correct in its way but it illustrates black and white thinking. A person who believes it on principle won't be willing to alter their views and tiredness was actually part of the argument against the idea that we can always have perfect mental control. Of course we can't. If we're a Battle of Britain Spitfire pilot or a WWI German fighter ace, we can concentrate perfectly for 20 minutes or half an hour and sometimes it will seem that we aren't flying the plane. It's flying itself. We're so much a part of it. Riding a motorcycle round the course on the Isle of Man. I've done some of that in my time. Not on the Isle of Man. Same argument and I have experience of that. Ton-up boy in my youth. Norton 650 s.s.

Flying a Spitfire requires a good deal of demonstrable skill.  Handing the joystick to a non-flyer for 30 seconds seconds flying in a straight line and saying "Look, you're flying!" doesn't change that.  Bad example, like saying that Grand Prix racers don't employ skill once they have stopped consciously thinking about taking the corners of each lap.

But hey, it allowed you to slip in yet another anecdote wink.png...so mission accomplished.

DiogenesDue
Kotshmot wrote:

Miscalculation resulting in the correct result is skill rather than luck, is that your statement?

Yes.  It's a skill spectrum result.  Lack of skill, skill.  Call it what you like.  You (and others) are not getting this because there's no good word or phrase that means "showing a lower amount of skill in this application".  Lack of skill does not mean zero skill.  Lack of skill does not mean luck, either.  Luck is not some gaseous matter that rushes to fill a vacuum.

DiogenesDue
Optimissed wrote:

You didn't make any kind of point so why bother to post? I'm rereading my post to find where I wrote that tiddly-winks players don't have any skill. No, I think the issue is your reading skills.

I would apply that first sentence to yourself. 

I'll be back later to refute all the follow ups from various posters wink.png.

Mike_Kalish
Kotshmot wrote:
BrotherMoy wrote:

 

1. 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?

 

2. 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?

 

Response to statement 1:  Not....the math tests I took, you had to show exactly how you got your answer, or no credit. You shouldn't get any credit on a math test for guessing correctly.

Response to statement 2:  This is making me reconsider my opinion on whether there is luck in chess. (This has no doubt happened to all of us at one time or another)

lfPatriotGames
mikekalish wrote:
Kotshmot wrote:
BrotherMoy wrote:

 

1. 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?

 

2. 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?

 

Response to statement 1:  Not....the math tests I took, you had to show exactly how you got your answer, or no credit. You shouldn't get any credit on a math test for guessing correctly.

Response to statement 2:  This is making me reconsider my opinion on whether there is luck in chess. (This has no doubt happened to all of us at one time or another)

That could be, but the rest of life still gives you credit if you get lucky and guess correctly. A stock pick, a decision to buy that questionable house, taking 4th street to get to the store instead of Maple. (later finding out a fatality happened on Maple), the errant tee shot that hits an OB marker and bounces back into play.  Pretty much all of life, and chess too, you get credit for being lucky. 

Mike_Kalish

Based on Kotshmot's rather basic example, I no longer have the opinion that there is no luck in chess. Now, I  just don't know.  

"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?"  (This has no doubt happened to all of us, and seems like luck to me)