An example of luck in online chess:
I was dead lost against a player whose performance was far above their rating level, but somehow their internet connection failed them. I won via disconnection.
Is there such thing as "luck" in chess?
Sort:
Nov 6, 2021
0
#263
What I find amazing is this post started on May 14, 2021, I think the original poster played last game on Aug 2021, wonder if he is still here, Tresequis, of Mexico. Would he be surprised? And Ziryab, and I both posted on the first page way back then, does time fly by!!!! My wife was alive then
So say I’m in a game store looking at chess sets
Random Dude: “Ah chess. I don’t know anything about it.”
Me “I like it”
RD “Is there luck or chance involved”
M “Are you kidding? There is all kinds of luck. Pfft. Man. There was a whole forum thread on all the luck in chess. Whooo boy! It’s a crapshoot!”
RD “ah….well it’s not for me then. I prefer a strategy game without luck in it. I guess I’ll keep looking”
Random Dude: “Ah chess. I don’t know anything about it.”
Me “I like it”
RD “Is there luck or chance involved”
M “Are you kidding? There is all kinds of luck. Pfft. Man. There was a whole forum thread on all the luck in chess. Whooo boy! It’s a crapshoot!”
RD “ah….well it’s not for me then. I prefer a strategy game without luck in it. I guess I’ll keep looking”
Nov 7, 2021
0
#265
Optimissed wrote:
@Antimustard Plato was an ideal realist who believed that the best definition of knowledge is a proposition which is confirmed, justified and true. However, that's a circular definition because we only think something is true if we consider it to be knowledge. We only think it's true because it's highly confirmed and justified. A real idealist thinks that the ideal is real, or at least, that's one definition of it. Your scenario where no randomness exists in chess is an ideal. In reality, since we have no known means of analysing chess exactly, we are bound to create our own randomness. It may not appear to be randomness. Indeed, it may seem to be determined according to how we react in various situations. However, a determinist cannot possibly prove that free choice doesn't exist. Or free will, if you want to think of it as that. Since we don't and can't understand all chess situations, ultimately some of our choices of moves are bound to be random, to some extent at least.
I'm looking at that table realizing I should have taken more philosophy courses. It seems that I missed some nuances that Socrates was trying to communicate.
I've always wondered whether Socrates thought a chessboard and pieces were something real, or some futile effort to imitate the one that matters (where blindfold play takes place--and all true chess players play blindfold in their calculations).
C’mon Coolout he doesn’t have ulterior motives everything is a conspiracy with you geez even when I agree with you I have to disagree lol.
I mean it’s technically correct there is some random chance involved I just think it’s being pedantic and useless to describe chess that way because you can apply that to every game and then the category of a luck game becomes meaningless.
I just call it a luck game where the rules provide for things like throwing dice or shuffling cards. The chance is intentionally built in.
As for free will…I just think of “Groundhog Day”. “Phil? Phil Conners? I thought that was you!” That’s how much free will I think you get.
I mean it’s technically correct there is some random chance involved I just think it’s being pedantic and useless to describe chess that way because you can apply that to every game and then the category of a luck game becomes meaningless.
I just call it a luck game where the rules provide for things like throwing dice or shuffling cards. The chance is intentionally built in.
As for free will…I just think of “Groundhog Day”. “Phil? Phil Conners? I thought that was you!” That’s how much free will I think you get.
Nov 7, 2021
0
#267
Optimissed wrote:
It isn't hypothetical? Pull the other one: to me, you seem very confused. What are your qualifications in mathematics?
I have a PhD in engineering and took a lot of math back in college. I am also pretty much a math nerd, studied it on my own on and off all my life (including game theory).
I do not think I am the one who's confused.
Nov 7, 2021
0
#268
Optimissed wrote:
@Antimustard Plato was an ideal realist who believed that the best definition of knowledge is a proposition which is confirmed, justified and true. However, that's a circular definition because we only think something is true if we consider it to be knowledge. We only think it's true because it's highly confirmed and justified. A real idealist thinks that the ideal is real, or at least, that's one definition of it. Your scenario where no randomness exists in chess is an ideal. In reality, since we have no known means of analysing chess exactly, we are bound to create our own randomness. It may not appear to be randomness. Indeed, it may seem to be determined according to how we react in various situations. However, a determinist cannot possibly prove that free choice doesn't exist. Or free will, if you want to think of it as that. Since we don't and can't understand all chess situations, ultimately some of our choices of moves are bound to be random, to some extent at least.
Maybe go a re-read my original post where I said that we first need to define what we mean by "luck." At the end of that post you'll see that I say that if you extent the notion of luck beyond game theoretical definition (like you do in this post), then sure, chess involves luck. But by the same logic everything else we do does. You're simply saying that luck is an essential component of human existence. If you put it this way, there's not much to argue about.
Nov 7, 2021
0
#269
Optimissed wrote:
AntiMustard wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
<<Also there's absolutely no randomness involved.>>
So for practical purposes that's incorrect. It's correct only in an idealised setting where the best decisions CAN be made.
It is correct, period. There's just no randomness in chess. Not being able to make the best decision is not caused by presence of randomness, but by a lack of skill.
In your opinion. But where the best computers cannot solve it, randomness is therefore involved.
Incorrect. There is always a best move in Chess.
Mezmer escreveu:
I've heard the saying "There is good luck in chess but there is no such thing as bad luck" - meaning you can win because you were lucky that your opponent played poorly, but if you lose it is because you were outplayed.
that.. doesn't make any sense.
Nov 7, 2021
0
#271
Optimissed wrote:
AntiMustard wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
<<Also there's absolutely no randomness involved.>>
So for practical purposes that's incorrect. It's correct only in an idealised setting where the best decisions CAN be made.
It is correct, period. There's just no randomness in chess. Not being able to make the best decision is not caused by presence of randomness, but by a lack of skill.
In your opinion. But where the best computers cannot solve it, randomness is therefore involved.
Ops, I missed this one. Best computers cannot solve it, therefore there's randomness? Wouldn't be able to find a better example of non sequitur.
AntiMustard escreveu:
Optimissed wrote:
AntiMustard wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
<<Also there's absolutely no randomness involved.>>
So for practical purposes that's incorrect. It's correct only in an idealised setting where the best decisions CAN be made.
It is correct, period. There's just no randomness in chess. Not being able to make the best decision is not caused by presence of randomness, but by a lack of skill.
In your opinion. But where the best computers cannot solve it, randomness is therefore involved.
Ops, I missed this one. Best computers cannot solve it, therefore there's randomness? Wouldn't be able to find a better example of non sequitur.
Yeah, the best computers aren't good enough to solve chess and that, therefore, doesn't mean that the game is random
Also by logical understanding of chess you just get that it is simply impossible for a position to happen by "randomness", as if the same variants are played the same position will always occur
Well... Mostly skill and a little bit of luck
I would say there is some luck involved because maybe your opponent got up that morning and had a bad night of sleep and that's lucky for you because they might play poorly.
Nov 7, 2021
0
#275
Optimissed wrote:
ExploringWA wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
AntiMustard wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
<<Also there's absolutely no randomness involved.>>
So for practical purposes that's incorrect. It's correct only in an idealised setting where the best decisions CAN be made.
It is correct, period. There's just no randomness in chess. Not being able to make the best decision is not caused by presence of randomness, but by a lack of skill.
In your opinion. But where the best computers cannot solve it, randomness is therefore involved.
Incorrect. There is always a best move in Chess.
No there isn't and that has been established, with my help and that of others, on Ponz's thread regarding chess being a draw with best play. Since chess is a draw, there's a definite drawing margin. No move which doesn't alter the outcome because it's a mistake IS a mistake and all the rest are best moves, some of which suit some players and others of which suit others better, according to their various styles.
There is always a best move in Chess. Always. It may be a draw is the result, or a stalemate, maybe even a loss. Best is a subjective term.
Nov 7, 2021
0
#276
Optimissed wrote:
It would be better if you explain your reasoning: otherwise, you're making a claim that isn't backed up in any way. Why doesn't it mean that there are random elements being introduced? What else would you call the potential variations which are introduced when there's no clear line of play which may be considered "best"?
<<<Also by logical understanding of chess you just get that it is simply impossible for a position to happen by "randomness", as if the same variants are played the same position will always occur>>>
Isn't that slightly circular? Like "if you play a4 then you play a4"?
Lack of skill.
Nov 7, 2021
0
#277
ExploringWA wrote:
There is always a best move in Chess. Always. It may be a draw is the result, or a stalemate, maybe even a loss. Best is a subjective term.
What is the best move?
All I know is when someone beats me I say “Well you were lucky” and they say “Lucky how?“ and I say “Lucky my name isn’t Magnus Carlsen, that’s how.”
Nov 7, 2021
0
#279
Ziryab wrote:
ExploringWA wrote:
There is always a best move in Chess. Always. It may be a draw is the result, or a stalemate, maybe even a loss. Best is a subjective term.
What is the best move?
Ask a GM … or the engine.
Is there a bad move? If so, there is a better move.
Nov 7, 2021
0
#280
Optimissed wrote:
ExploringWA wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
ExploringWA wrote:
There is always a best move in Chess. Always. It may be a draw is the result, or a stalemate, maybe even a loss. Best is a subjective term.
What is the best move?
Ask a GM … or the engine.
Is there a bad move? If so, there is a better move.
He gave an example where it should be obvious, to a merely competent player, that there's no best move.
Is there a worse move? If so, there is a better move. There is a best move, if there is a bad move. It’s a simple concept even you can understand.
Bats in caves, giving each other blood when one has had a bad hunt. They are trying to determine if bats remembered individuals to punish defectors. Interesting stuff.
Me too. That graduate course in anthropology was 30 years ago. Can't recall the title of the book.
The selfish gene by Richard Dawkins?
No. A book on game theory and altruism.
Dawkins was referenced, but no professor would assign in graduate school something everyone was expected to know before they got there.
Sorry, never was an anthropology student
It was my third area in graduate school. Literature and history were the primary areas. I represent myself as a historian because that is easier for most folks to understand than the dynamic interdisciplinary work my program focused on. It's also mostly what I've taught in the past thirty years.