Forums

Is there such thing as "luck" in chess?

Sort:
lfPatriotGames
lfPatriotGames
Aug 21, 2022
0
#2841
Vejer101 wrote:

I think the better question is does luck exist at all. if the answer is yes then it probably exists in chess. if the answer is no however, then it probably doesn't.

I agree. If the answer is no, then it "probably" doesn't exist in chess. Of course there is always the small chance that if luck doesn't exist, that it could still exist in chess. 

 

lfPatriotGames
lfPatriotGames
Aug 22, 2022
0
#2842
Optimissed wrote:

It's a personal and subjective decision, whether luck exists. It's a rationalisation of the unknown to some extent. Then again, belief in determinism was always thought by psychologists and psychiatrists to correlate with problems with mental health. Quantum mechanics seems to support the natural interpretation ... that chance is real. For our universe to display pseud-randomness which is really determined but driven by convoluted mechanisms that disguise the deterministic behaviour of fundamental particles would seem to be a very artificial invention, backed up by no evidence at all, and all to suit a few people who can't do mathematics as well as they'd like to or who can't let go of the obsession that they need to be in control.

I have a question. I had to take my car in to have the front end aligned, and a specialist did it, a mechanic. So, given that your comments make no sense (to me) and the answer will probably also make no sense, is there a way to describe what a quantum mechanic is (or does)?

bigD521
bigD521
Aug 22, 2022
0
#2843
lfPatriotGames wrote:
Optimissed wrote:

It's a personal and subjective decision, whether luck exists. It's a rationalisation of the unknown to some extent. Then again, belief in determinism was always thought by psychologists and psychiatrists to correlate with problems with mental health. Quantum mechanics seems to support the natural interpretation ... that chance is real. For our universe to display pseud-randomness which is really determined but driven by convoluted mechanisms that disguise the deterministic behaviour of fundamental particles would seem to be a very artificial invention, backed up by no evidence at all, and all to suit a few people who can't do mathematics as well as they'd like to or who can't let go of the obsession that they need to be in control.

I have a question. I had to take my car in to have the front end aligned, and a specialist did it, a mechanic. So, given that your comments make no sense (to me) and the answer will probably also make no sense, is there a way to describe what a quantum mechanic is (or does)?

A Quantum mechanic would be a mechanic which exclusively or primarily works on Quantum's.

Mugo345
Mugo345
Show your flair!
Aug 25, 2022
0
#2844

omg, you people were still arguing over this until two days ago lol.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the argument is reborn!

travisgro
travisgro
Show your flair!
Aug 25, 2022
0
#2845

LUCK

LeeEuler
LeeEuler
Show your flair!
Aug 27, 2022
0
#2846

Three minutes in to the interview and Magnus is already talking about luck in sports.

"I think it's pretty overrated seeing as it’s such a small sample size. So it sort of annoys me when titles are always appreciated so much even though that particular title can be a lot of luck or at least some luck."

https://youtu.be/0ZO28NtkwwQ?t=199

 

LeeEuler
LeeEuler
Show your flair!
Aug 27, 2022
0
#2847

From a later point in that interview, Magnus talks about points I made in my posts #516 and #580.

Magnus said: "So I think 12 games or now 14 games that there is for the world championship is a fairly low sample size if you want to determine who the best player is or at least the best player in that particular matchup. You need more more games and I think to some extent if you're going to have a world champion and call them the best players you got to make sure that the format increases the chance of finding the best players” 

 

I wrote: "If one believes that more than 1 trial is needed to determine one's relative skill/competency at a task, then they are admitting that luck in inherent in said task.

It's why poker players run it out twice, NBA champions are crowned based on a series rather than a single game, portfolio managers are judged based on multi-year track records rather than yesterday's daily return, etc. Variance is part of life.

Fischer famously took FIDE to task for exactly this point, wanting to extend the number of games in the world championship match (since increasing trials reduces variance and therefore increases the likelihood that the more skilled player will win)."

Chessiteration
IM Chessiteration
Show your flair!
Aug 27, 2022
0
#2848

Although in chess there is much less dependence on luck than in other sports, yes, I think it exists on many occasions.

DrSpudnik
DrSpudnik
Show your flair!
Aug 28, 2022
0
#2849
SacrificeTheHorse wrote:
Optimissed wrote:


How do I know you were no good? It's because you need flair to be a good football player. Going through the motions of doing everything just right is not enough to make you anything more than safe and rather pedestrian.

A good team needs players with a mix of attributes, including those that do the simple things well and give the ball to those with more skill. 

 

 

 

Why is the referee kicking the ball?

Kotshmot
Kotshmot
Aug 30, 2022
0
#2850
LeeEuler wrote:

From a later point in that interview, Magnus talks about points I made in my posts #516 and #580.

Magnus said: "So I think 12 games or now 14 games that there is for the world championship is a fairly low sample size if you want to determine who the best player is or at least the best player in that particular matchup. You need more more games and I think to some extent if you're going to have a world champion and call them the best players you got to make sure that the format increases the chance of finding the best players” 

 

I wrote: "If one believes that more than 1 trial is needed to determine one's relative skill/competency at a task, then they are admitting that luck in inherent in said task.

It's why poker players run it out twice, NBA champions are crowned based on a series rather than a single game, portfolio managers are judged based on multi-year track records rather than yesterday's daily return, etc. Variance is part of life.

Fischer famously took FIDE to task for exactly this point, wanting to extend the number of games in the world championship match (since increasing trials reduces variance and therefore increases the likelihood that the more skilled player will win)."

Alltho Magnus might be taking luck into consideration saying that, a large sample size is not only necessary for purposes of minimizing effects of luck.

Each player have their skill level, but it's impossible to measure it over one game because the skill output of humans varies from game to game. This means that we need to measure average skill output over a bigger sample size of games. If you add luck in the mix its even harder to determine who the best player is.

The more skillful player on average doesn't showcase more skill in every game, because there is so many factors in the human brain activity out of our control affecting our performance. You could make a strong argument for luck being involved with this as well tho.

orrin14
orrin14
Show your flair!
Oct 29, 2022
0
#2851
Vejer101 wrote:

I think the better question is does luck exist at all. if the answer is yes then it probably exists in chess. if the answer is no however, then it probably doesn't.

YOu cAN maKE a fORum ABouT ThaT

1e4c6_O-1
1e4c6_O-1
Show your flair!
Oct 29, 2022
0
#2852

today i was playing a tournament and my back was against the wall of the skittles room and people were making hella noise 

that was unlucky seating

DiogenesDue
DiogenesDue
Oct 29, 2022
0
#2853
1e4c6_O-1 wrote:

today i was playing a tournament and my back was against the wall of the skittles room and people were making hella noise 

that was unlucky seating

Unlucky tournament outcomes are bad luck for your tournament results.  They are unlucky for you personally.  The doesn't translate to luck in the rules or design or the instance of a game of chess itself.

That's pretty much where this argument will sit forever. 

KnightRider256
KnightRider256
Oct 29, 2022
0
#2854
Nope. No “luck”. In fact, luck doesn’t exist. It’s trial and error.
mpaetz
mpaetz
Show your flair!
Oct 29, 2022
0
#2855

     As the original conception of luck was that it was controlled by divine will, it's existence or non-existence lies beyond the scope of rigorous scientific enquiry.

Mike_Kalish
Mike_Kalish
Oct 29, 2022
0
#2856
Mezmer wrote:

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.

So...even if your opponent wins because of "good luck", you still lose because you got outplayed?
No wonder chess is so frustrating. 

654Psyfox
654Psyfox
Oct 29, 2022
0
#2857

Chess is luck. It all depends on what pieces you get.

1e4c6_O-1
1e4c6_O-1
Show your flair!
Oct 29, 2022
0
#2858

so true i do much better when i get a queen at the start

Mike_Kalish
Mike_Kalish
Oct 29, 2022
0
#2859

Last game I had 8 of a kind, a king, a queen, and three pairs....and still couldn't win. 

Pawn_Shop_Special
Pawn_Shop_Special
Show your flair!
Oct 29, 2022
0
#2860
It depends on how you define luck, but I think that yes there can be luck.

You make a move and you thought you considered all there was to consider but then you realize after you made the move that actually it works in another situation you hadn’t thought of as well. I see that as luck.