he would probably go and pray for luck and then get destroyed by me
Is there such thing as "luck" in chess?
Sort:
Oct 1, 2023
0
#2983
DiogenesDue wrote:
LeeEuler wrote:
DiogenesDue wrote:
LeeEuler wrote:
I notice you are still unable to directly answer the question
I won't explain why water is wet to you, either. This oft-used science-denier style of tactic, i.e. asking pedantic questions repeatedly and then claiming that someone must know they are wrong if they do not spend an order of magnitude more time explaining the obvious back to you, is disingenuous.
If this is all you've got, then we're at an impasse. Oh wait, the impasse is the same one that already existed when you bumped the thread...
There's nothing here now that was not already hashed out to the Nth degree in the previous 200 pages.
Still no answer for a 4th time.
For those who don't want to scroll, the reason the simple question "what makes a coin flip a randomizing event (other than 'me/my friends decree it so')?" is not being answered is because doing so would immediately characterize chess as containing elements of luck.
This is why the most vocal proponent of determinism has failed: his argument is an appeal to unknown authority, whereas the argument for luck in chess is based on a falsifiable mathematical reality. And in general, business students know their limitations well enough to know they're over their heads when talking with the hard scientists, hence (what I predict to be) the continued avoidance of the simple question above
If you have already got your argument all lined up ("is not being answered is because doing so would immediately characterize chess as containing elements of luck"), why even bother asking? Just make your argument. You have made them for me, by repeatedly dodging the very simple question below!
If you ask most people around the world "hey, we need to choose an answer to this yes/no question randomly, what are some good ways to do that?" you know full well what the most common answer will be, so characterizing this as something only "me and my friends" believe is not really credible.
I never said only you and your friends believe coin flips are a random process. I asked a very clear and simple question, which is why you know that a coin flip is a "randomizing mechanism" as you put it. What is it about a person trying to flip heads with a coin (which you and I both have agreed involves luck) that is different than a person trying to score a free throw (which you believe involves no luck, in contrast to me)?
You have said that games that have randomizing mechanisms involve luck, but then can't say what a randomizing mechanism actually is other than some variation of "looks like it/ I degree it so/ they decree it so". It is a faith-based claim, rather than a scientific one.
Welcome
That's a lot of comments just to verify there is some luck in chess. Not a lot, but some.
I've been both lucky and unlucky when making random moves. I gave an example a while ago of situations I come across more often than I'd like. I'll have two or more equally appealing moves. A really good computer could probably tell which one is better, but it's also possible that for some positions, no such computer exists, or will ever exist. One move may in fact be better, but no computer or human will ever know which one it really is.
So I have to figure out some way to decide. Usually I just go by what "looks right", but often times it will be something completely random, like one of the pieces isn't centered on the square, so I figure I might as well move it anyway. Or the word "knight" just came on the TV. Something completely unrelated to the position on the board.
LeeEuler wrote:
DiogenesDue wrote:
LeeEuler wrote:
DiogenesDue wrote:
LeeEuler wrote:
I notice you are still unable to directly answer the question
I won't explain why water is wet to you, either. This oft-used science-denier style of tactic, i.e. asking pedantic questions repeatedly and then claiming that someone must know they are wrong if they do not spend an order of magnitude more time explaining the obvious back to you, is disingenuous.
If this is all you've got, then we're at an impasse. Oh wait, the impasse is the same one that already existed when you bumped the thread...
There's nothing here now that was not already hashed out to the Nth degree in the previous 200 pages.
Still no answer for a 4th time.
For those who don't want to scroll, the reason the simple question "what makes a coin flip a randomizing event (other than 'me/my friends decree it so')?" is not being answered is because doing so would immediately characterize chess as containing elements of luck.
This is why the most vocal proponent of determinism has failed: his argument is an appeal to unknown authority, whereas the argument for luck in chess is based on a falsifiable mathematical reality. And in general, business students know their limitations well enough to know they're over their heads when talking with the hard scientists, hence (what I predict to be) the continued avoidance of the simple question above
If you have already got your argument all lined up ("is not being answered is because doing so would immediately characterize chess as containing elements of luck"), why even bother asking? Just make your argument. You have made them for me, by repeatedly dodging the very simple question below!
If you ask most people around the world "hey, we need to choose an answer to this yes/no question randomly, what are some good ways to do that?" you know full well what the most common answer will be, so characterizing this as something only "me and my friends" believe is not really credible.
I never said only you and your friends believe coin flips are a random process. I asked a very clear and simple question, which is why you know that a coin flip is a "randomizing mechanism" as you put it. What is it about a person trying to flip heads with a coin (which you and I both have agreed involves luck) that is different than a person trying to score a free throw (which you believe involves no luck, in contrast to me)?
You have said that games that have randomizing mechanisms involve luck, but then can't say what a randomizing mechanism actually is other than some variation of "looks like it/ I degree it so/ they decree it so". It is a faith-based claim, rather than a scientific one.
watch a quantum physics movie by Jim al-khalili
it's all quantum physics quantum physics is very weird but cool
LeeEuler wrote:
I never said only you and your friends believe coin flips are a random process. I asked a very clear and simple question, which is why you know that a coin flip is a "randomizing mechanism" as you put it. What is it about a person trying to flip heads with a coin (which you and I both have agreed involves luck) that is different than a person trying to score a free throw (which you believe involves no luck, in contrast to me)?
You have said that games that have randomizing mechanisms involve luck, but then can't say what a randomizing mechanism actually is other than some variation of "looks like it/ I degree it so/ they decree it so". It is a faith-based claim, rather than a scientific one.
There's no shortage of these mechanisms...coin flips, dice, cards, spinners, etc. that introduce all kinds of random elements into games, heck, even the old software Battle Chess adds such a mechanism by turning piece captures into an animated fight with randomized (but weighted) results (sometimes when a queen captures a pawn, the queen is lost instead, etc.). Any kid that has ever played board games can tell you about these mechanisms, and you know full well from your own life they exist and are added to the design of games for exactly this reason...you're just lacking in integrity and want to pretend otherwise.
What you would like is for me to specify detailed criteria for a coin flip as a randomizing mechanism for games. You would like me to, because that's your goal, to get some kind of overly committal answer you can finally attack with your rather obvious "but where do you draw the line then?" line of reasoning. If you had anything to put forth/expound upon yourself, you'd have said it by now, but you don't...you need a target to take potshots at because you lack a cogent argument of your own.
I do not. My argument stands, game design often includes randomizing elements that are used to add luck to a game. Sometimes for variety/spice, sometimes to balance out odds or allow recovery in lopsided in a game being played, etc. Chess has none of these, and color selection is only based on luck because making a turn-based game that does not confer an advantage due to who moves first is not simple, and mechanisms that do exist to handle this are not always fun or readily understandable/accessible to the average player.
DiogenesDue wrote:
ungewichtet wrote:
If you are unable to determine the right continuation out of two outstanding candidate moves and your intuition, that has given you these two candidates, favours neither, it is natural to purposefully choose a move at random. So, is that an instance of a game of chess where there is luck inherent to?
The choice, unless determined solely by a randomizing mechanism, is *not* random. The fact that you might *claim* you choose randomly is irrelevant...you did not choose randomly. You chose based on some criteria, whether you can articulate it or not.
"Only completely randomized game elements are "luck", within the construct of a game's design and function".
Chess implicitly has actors, or agents, the players of the pieces. Chess has to be explored. The affordances of chess in relation to our capabilities make for a game beyond the grasp of our imagination and intuition, by that again letting us grasp. Unlike Tic-Tac-Toe, which, once you know how, is like a mantra or a ritual or a passtime, chess remains a game for us. A game where we find ourselves as inbuild fortune wheels, randomizers, coin tosses. This is just due to our lack of skill
Chess, once solved, would be exactly like Tic Tac Toe. (..)
If two perfect players existed and played a series of chess games, then every game would either be drawn, or won (depending no whether chess is proven to be a forced draw or not) by the appropriate color.(..)
Chess solved would be like Tic-tac-toe, but as it isn't it is not a big equation for us, yet. It is still a game even for the best of us, and we find ourselves as acting on knowledge, foresight and intuition. You seem to think we can not move deliberately at random if knowledge, foresight and intuition do not provide us with arguments or a feeling. But sometimes our usual tools fail to get a grip. In that case the criteria we move on are 'we have to make a random choice of our irresolveable candidates or we are stuck'. So we do. A direction taken without a reason I would call random.
It is not about 'maybe we only think we had no chess criteria, maybe we only think we were free to act randomly here'. The balanced situation can come around where by far the strongest incentive is that we can move at random, and we do.
DiogenesDue wrote:
LeeEuler wrote:
I never said only you and your friends believe coin flips are a random process. I asked a very clear and simple question, which is why you know that a coin flip is a "randomizing mechanism" as you put it. What is it about a person trying to flip heads with a coin (which you and I both have agreed involves luck) that is different than a person trying to score a free throw (which you believe involves no luck, in contrast to me)?
You have said that games that have randomizing mechanisms involve luck, but then can't say what a randomizing mechanism actually is other than some variation of "looks like it/ I degree it so/ they decree it so". It is a faith-based claim, rather than a scientific one.
There's no shortage of these mechanisms...coin flips, dice, cards, spinners, etc. that introduce all kinds of random elements into games, heck, even the old software Battle Chess adds such a mechanism by turning piece captures into an animated fight with randomized (but weighted) results (sometimes when a queen captures a pawn, the queen is lost instead, etc.). Any kid that has ever played board games can tell you about these mechanisms, and you know full well from your own life they exist and are added to the design of games for exactly this reason...you're just lacking in integrity and want to pretend otherwise.
What you would like is for me to specify detailed criteria for a coin flip as a randomizing mechanism for games. You would like me to, because that's your goal, to get some kind of overly committal answer you can finally attack with your rather obvious "but where do you draw the line then?" line of reasoning. If you had anything to put forth/expound upon yourself, you'd have said it by now, but you don't...you need a target to take potshots at because you lack a cogent argument of your own.
I do not. My argument stands, game design often includes randomizing elements that are used to add luck to a game. Sometimes for variety/spice, sometimes to balance out odds or allow recovery in lopsided in a game being played, etc. Chess has none of these, and color selection is only based on luck because making a turn-based game that does not confer an advantage due to who moves first is not simple, and mechanisms that do exist to handle this are not always fun or readily understandable/accessible to the average player.
Let me help you out on what makes the mechanism random.
When flipping a coin you're forced to make a choice from x amount of options. Lack of knowledge is what makes the outcome random.
Lets say there was skill involved in coin flipping; by looking at the coin you could gain information on how it might land. If you make the perfect analysis, it's no longer an outcome based on luck. If you misjudge the information - again you have the same odds as if the information wasnt at all available. Outcome is based on luck. Same goes if an amateur makes the choice with no idea of what they're looking at.
The same lack of knowledge, but for different reasons, applies for your choice of a move in chess.
This is my last response for a while, I have no time for a debate.
Kotshmot wrote:Same goes if an amateur makes the choice with no idea of what they're looking at.
This is from the book 'The Day Kasparov Quit' by Dirk Jan ten Geuzendam. (Ah, right-click, open image in new tab and magnify for a closer read)
Oct 2, 2023
0
#2992
Optimissed wrote:
This means that at such points, when playing over the board with a time limit, there is incomplete knowledge. The customary claims that chess is a game with complete knowledge are false. This is because although there is complete evidence at all points of the game, since the position is always visible, that position has to be interpreted. It's incontrovertibly clear that the difficulty of such interpretation means that many chess positions cannot be fully understood, during the course of a normal game: which translates to a lack of full knowledge.
Taking this one stage further, when we make a move in a game without full understanding of the position, it's possible that our basic skill can carry us through in the form of instinct, intuition, pattern recognition etc. So skill plays its part but ultimately, many moves are made with the full knowledge that a strong element of chance is involved.
When I was active in this thread some time back, I said something similar. But you are more clear.
A fairly simple position: a knight is under attack. I had Black and the move. I spent some time calculating variations and considering long-term strategy. I could not foresee everything. This position arose in the first round of a Swiss tournament on Saturday morning. When I analyzed the game that night, I learned that the move I played was the only one that offered Black an advantage.
Intuition? Calculation? Luck?
Black to move
test
Oct 2, 2023
0
#2994
DiogenesDue wrote:
LeeEuler wrote:
I never said only you and your friends believe coin flips are a random process. I asked a very clear and simple question, which is why you know that a coin flip is a "randomizing mechanism" as you put it. What is it about a person trying to flip heads with a coin (which you and I both have agreed involves luck) that is different than a person trying to score a free throw (which you believe involves no luck, in contrast to me)?
You have said that games that have randomizing mechanisms involve luck, but then can't say what a randomizing mechanism actually is other than some variation of "looks like it/ I degree it so/ they decree it so". It is a faith-based claim, rather than a scientific one.
There's no shortage of these mechanisms...coin flips, dice, cards, spinners, etc. that introduce all kinds of random elements into games, heck, even the old software Battle Chess adds such a mechanism by turning piece captures into an animated fight with randomized (but weighted) results (sometimes when a queen captures a pawn, the queen is lost instead, etc.). Any kid that has ever played board games can tell you about these mechanisms, and you know full well from your own life they exist and are added to the design of games for exactly this reason...you're just lacking in integrity and want to pretend otherwise.
What you would like is for me to specify detailed criteria for a coin flip as a randomizing mechanism for games. You would like me to, because that's your goal, to get some kind of overly committal answer you can finally attack with your rather obvious "but where do you draw the line then?" line of reasoning. If you had anything to put forth/expound upon yourself, you'd have said it by now, but you don't...you need a target to take potshots at because you lack a cogent argument of your own.
I do not. My argument stands, game design often includes randomizing elements that are used to add luck to a game. Sometimes for variety/spice, sometimes to balance out odds or allow recovery in lopsided in a game being played, etc. Chess has none of these, and color selection is only based on luck because making a turn-based game that does not confer an advantage due to who moves first is not simple, and mechanisms that do exist to handle this are not always fun or readily understandable/accessible to the average player.
Your argument, which was revealed for the first time in full 200 pages deep, is that randomness exists in games, but what counts as random and what doesn't count as random is determined by high priests or "come on, looks like it". Entirely faith based. Hence the inability to give a definition of what makes coin flips random in a way that doesn't include chess.
There is no such thing as luck in chess.
[Edited - DB]
Oct 2, 2023
0
#2996
AndreiKhasik007 wrote:
There is no such thing as luck in chess. Join my Club at Andrei's Chess Club!
Thank you
There are better ways to promote your club.
Oct 2, 2023
0
#2998
Rupali_26 wrote:
stuck in the same rating rang for long time. It sucks.
Do more puzzles and read up on middle-games and end-games. That's what you should be focusing on your elo rating. And also don't blunder often. If you can't see any progression, it's time to get a coach or a better player to help you out. And please, do more puzzle rush @Rupali_26.
Oct 2, 2023
0
#2999
question-authority wrote:
There is no such thing as luck. Like fate or faith, it presumes a power exists beyond randomness and coincidence.
Ever heard of gambling? Of course there are still possibilities of you losing, but it still has to come down to luck. Magnus Carlsen blundered M1 against BeastLyon in the finals. Isn't that also luck that he forced mate himself? Same thing.
yeah we can have mr. Albert Einstein play against IDK me and Einstein doesn't know how to play chess
Actually Albert Einstein knew how to play chess-
yeah but if he didn't know how