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 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?