Is there such thing as "luck" in chess?

Were trying.

I can’t remember if they determined if the bats actually remembered individuals, but interesting either way.

Then the bats said to heck with this altruism stuff let’s cook up some covid..

The selfish gene by Richard Dawkins?

I read all of Dawkins books I am pretty sure the bat story was in one, the ethics/altruism book was something else but I can remember who anymore.

The course, ANTH 510 Advances in Anthropology was taught by four professors, each taking a quarter of the course. We had Geoff Gamble on cognitive linguistics; Grover Krantz on evolution; Tim Kohler on game theory; Fekri Hassan on cognition.

Krantz was notorious because he believed in Sasquatch and even had an ultralight helicopter he used for hunting the unseen beast. Another student asked once, "if you found Bigfoot, what would you do?" Without missing a beat nor lifting his eyes from the center of the table where he always looked (the seminar was held around a large conference table), Krantz said, "put him on the table and dissect him." A true man of science. Krantz became a Bigfoot believer because of a footprint he examined. The footprint exhibited bunions, which he thought couldn't be faked. As I understand, since he died, its been proven that you can.

 

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

Let's spend a week in Vegas, and you will not only believe there is such a thing as "luck" but you will be positive I have not got any of it.

 

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. 

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.

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

Thankyou, I'll check those. Openings and middlegame were always my strengths. Nowadays, middle game only and less so because as I age I start to miss more and more opportunities. On form I can play endings very well and very fast but it's a hit and miss thing and sometimes I struggle. Most of the time my endings are no better than so-so. I still hope to get to 2250 Daily but it may be tough. My best ever on C.c was 2225, back in the mists of time.

It isn't hypothetical? Pull the other one: to me, you seem very confused. What are your qualifications in mathematics?

Harris, Dennett, Dawkins, Hitchens. Dennett was always my preferred one although he was guilty of lazy thinking at times and made a number of mistakes, in my opinion. But no philosophy professor is perfect and the other three were not philosophers and they also made far worse mistakes than Dennett. Yes, if you jump out of an aeroplane it isn't unlucky if you descend to Earth.

In your opinion. But where the best computers cannot solve it, randomness is therefore involved.

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”

@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 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.

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.