Is there such thing as "luck" in chess?

A game doesn't require digital representation, but I'd say it does require some sort of representation, for example at minimum in the mind of the player.

As for the kicker being aided by the wind, if he'd counted on the wind, then it wasn't lucky, it was skill. Therefore my assertion is luck exists when the quality of the action is disconnected from the quality of the outcome. Such as kicking the ball poorly (bad) and scoring points (good). The same happens in chess when you play a move based on the best available data, and it results in a bad outcome.

It's just as aggravating for me, never fear.  What you may not be aware of is that the very act of rehashing will cause a new explosion of the exact kind of meaningless pages you are talking about.  This thread goes in spurts, a week or two on, several months off, etc.  Only a huge response to Coolout's intractable and illogical position has made this latest go-round an exception.

So, if a game can exist only in the minds of a the players (say, two blindfold simul GMs rattling off moves out their heads in a head to head matchup) and requires no physical existence, then an instance of the game of chess exists outside the laws of our universe, and is not subject to them.  Our universe might be the venue, but it is not part of the game.  True?

Sure, I agree.

Let's talk about luck now...

luck
/lək/
noun
 
- success or failure apparently brought by chance rather than through one's own actions.
- chance considered as a force that causes good or bad things to happen.
- something regarded as bringing about or portending good or bad things.

We can dispense with the latter two, which are more poetic or superstitious interpretations of luck.  We can/must also dispense with "apparently", in this case, since we are trying to nail this down.  This removes the "luck as a subjective perception" factor.

By the definition of luck, neither player/entity playing the game can be the source of the "chance", or it doesn't fit the definition.  True?

Sure, I see where you're going.

Let's use an argument by contradiction. If a player intends to avoid losing, and if success or failure is fully dependent on the player's actions, then it's impossible to lose.

Some possible solutions: we could attack the definition of luck, or we could say the other player introduces luck (each player only controls half of the moves).

Just pondering out loud here. Forgive my intrusion. (And forgive me if this point has already been mentioned);

If we were to have a chess game played in a hypothetical or theoretical sense, then we could confidently declare that no luck exists in the game, as the game would simply happen, as intended by the rules. One move leads to the next. Cause and effect. Action and reaction. Decision versus decision. Until the game is over.

A clean, crisp example of a chess game in motion. No randomness or luck involved. A game of perfect information.

But that's a fictional scenario - one that removes reality from the equation.

When the game is played in reality, it involves players. Predominantly: humans or machines. And both such players are susceptible to "luck" (or "chance", or "random occurrences" - whichever term fits best).

It might be safe to assume that, the more chess games are played between two players, the higher the probability becomes that "luck" will factor into the match.

The second law of thermodynamics comes to mind. It loosely states (for those unfamiliar with it): in a closed system, entropy (disorder/chaos) will always increase over time.

We can think of a chess match as a closed system. And we can think of "luck" as a placeholder for "entropy". The longer two chess players face each other, in a match, the more that match is likely to slide toward chaos.

More and more "lucky" events are going to happen, again and again, the more chess is played ...

Hmm, but the rules allow for free choice in reacting to a move. More specifically, there are often many moves that maintain the evaluation. For example in endgame tablebases we see that often a dozen different moves lead to a win.

I agree that the rules don't introduce luck in the normal way (dice or cards etc) but it's interesting to consider that luck is introduced by the opposing player (as they have an opposing goal)

Actually, putting those two together... maybe this is how I could argue for luck.

I'm not in control of the opposing player's move, and also the opposing player has many equally good options, so even with perfect information (let's say both players have a 32 man EGTB) I can't predict my opponent's move.

In a more practical setting, I have even less information, and so I'm even less able to predict half the moves of the game. This unpredictability is the source of luck.

Yeah, actually I think that does it...

Even with the maximum amount of information allowed by the rules (both myself and my opponent know the true evaluation of every move, I know my opponent's goal, and I know my opponent has all this information as well) I STILL cannot predict my opponent's move (provided we have opposing goals).

Since even the best case scenario involves unpredictability, we can say the rules of chess include luck lol

See my argument is the opposite.  Chess *is* the cleanroom, crisp example.  The physical universe is the external non-reality, inside of a chess game.  

If you write an engine using object oriented code, you instantiate an object, Chess.Instance.  So Chess.Instance has methods and properties.  You pass the 2 players as parameters to Chess.Instance, and the players also have methods and properties...but those methods/properties/characteristics are *not* part of the game...they are part of the players.

Better not to bring up Thermodynamics with Optimissed around .

"The longer two chess players face each other, in a match, the more that match is likely to slide toward chaos."

This is a complete misapplication of the concept of entropy. Entropy is measurable. What you're talking about here is not. 

I really like this argument though... that if the two players have opposing goals, then even with perfect information it's impossible to predict the final position.

Therefore a non-zero amount of randomness exists at a fundamental level (in the rules themselves).

You are talking about a completely different thing.

Of course skill *output* can't be measured by rating, it has nothing to do with that. In terms of chess and engines you could measure this output by how how extensively they calculated a particular position before making a single move.

What I'm talking about is that if skill is the only factor to determine level of outcome, then level of skill output would be directly proportionate with the level of outcome. This is not the case, and we can have a situation where less skill output leads to the best outcome. In this case you can't have skill as the only "causal factor", so what is it in your opinion, if it's not pure chance?

     Theoretically, the answers are no. Realistically, the answers are yes.

     For (I'd guess) 98% of chess players, there is no possibility of playing a complete game without a physical manifestation. Every game would grind to a halt when one player lost track of the position in their mind, or the players disagreed about where pieces are. 

     Even for two GMs that can comfortably play that way, such a game could never occur if that was the only way the game was ever played. How many people could have learned the game without ever seeing a set and board? And as most people wouldn't play in such circumstances, it's hardly likely that the game would exist at all.

     Like it or not, nearly every chess game is played in the everyday world where, as you say, there's lots of luck to be had.

Not part of chess.  I didn't say that most games are not played with physical boards/pieces (although online games do probably outnumber them).  I said that a game of chess has no reliance on the physical trappings historically associated with it...and it doesn't, as you agreed when you said "theoretically, yes".  So, you actually agree with my premise.  Now you just have to admit it ...

Note that there's a difference between "day to day life" and "everyday world", by the way...so no, I don't say.  Switching to "everyday world" was an attempt to make your supposition sound better.  Not buying, though.

There are good moves, bad moves, and unclear moves. Finding good moves consistently is a matter of skill and luck.

It doesn't take a belief in determinism to make the arguments I making.  Now, if you'd like to actually try to debate something, go back and try to refute the posts I made last night.  Find the post where it says "Sure, I see where you are going", then go back from there until you find "Let me ask you a question..." and follow along and answer the same questions.

I never finished the process because he got it right away...but for you, let me finish:

1.  A game of chess can exist and be played without physical or even digitally representational form, with nothing but the players minds, a knowledge of the rules, and some theoretical communication method (this should be no problem for you, since you already believe in telepathy ...).  Oops, I forgot, you also need a willingness of the players to play the actual game and not randomize move choices, which is not playing chess any more than a child pushing a chair is interior decorating their house.

2.  Luck, by definition, is something not introduced by a player.

3.  Ergo, there is no luck in the game of chess itself.  The players are the only things required for the game, and players cannot introduce luck.  They can enjoy or suffer luck themselves from the surrounding environment they (but not the logical construct of the game itself) exist in...but that is external to the game of chess.

Your post on Thermodynamics is bunk, and is based on your wish that the universe is balanced and not inherently entropic (so that it won't die, which maybe makes you sad and reminds you of your own impending mortality).  But that's just obviously, observably false.  In a universe of distance where matter made of particles is easier to split apart than to put together, and splitting apart often results in more distance between the resulting particles, the heat death of the universe is inevitable.  How long it will take is up for discussion, and even whether it can come back together after "dying" and rekindle itself into a new go-round is still up for discussion...but the steady state universe you like to cling to for your own personal theology (along with your notion of you being anointed as special and different with powers beyond man's ken) is just a dream you'd like to believe because it makes your existence more bearable.

P.S. Before anyone even chimes in, I am using a broader definition of entropy...specifically the one that Optimissed has shown himself to espouse over the years.

I didn't actually say that, ergo I cannot be reiterating your point.  You can refer to *my* point, though...feel free.

Something significantly more than the chances you would let an exchange that is not about you go by without trying to take a snarky potshot?  Just a guess.