I'm just commenting for an achievement
Is there such thing as "luck" in chess?
Sort:
DavidCharleston wrote:
Fortune and luck is synonymous, never liked your way of communicating. Hey DiogenesDue. I also tried to invite you to my discussion club multiple times and you pretend not to notice. You enjoying OD? This all must stem from you being upset about something I can't recall.
I'm not in OD. I had a short stint there, and left long ago after seeing how the members let blatant racism slide without comment.
I am aware of your discussion club...wouldn't touch it with a 10-ft pole. It's not about discussion, it's about you...you're as insufferable as the delusional one.
Optimissed wrote:
In my opinion, Diogenes, you believe in the hypothesis of determinism and therefore believe that there is no randomness and no personal choice; nor subjectively directed thought, since someone believing that determinism is true thinks that there is no escape from the ongoing, dynamic patterns already set up and operating and that even our thoughts are inescapable and predestined. Most people don't accept that. Elroch used not to accept it but I believe he's wavered in that recently and unfortunately has come under the spell of the many worlds quantum interpretation and all its ramifications and embellishments. It's a pity, since in no way can Many Worlds be thought of as a scientifically based hypothesis. He "chooses" to contemptuously reject the psychic paranormal and yet to consider accepting something that's far less based on evidence than that is.
You've paraded this straw man around before. I do not believe in determinism. There are random things in the universe...just not in a game of chess. Just another assumption you have baked into your delusionary pie.
I do reject the paranormal. That makes me smart and reasonable, not narrow-minded...
I have to head out for a trip, but if I were L.E. I would probably be harping on how nobody can seem to address the thought experiment I posted...
I'll probably answer more of this later.
To grow your luck or to be a genious you need not to feel guilty after your losses!! Playing blitz to stop your conscience to stop hurting you is a great way... luck at high stakes 2000elo+ of luck can make others nervous
Oct 2, 2023
0
#3027
Optimissed wrote:
Chess is a game in which parts of it can be worked out (as in endgames) or are understood because mechanisms or types of play exist, which have been shown without doubt to be sound and have been memorised (as in opening knowledge).
However, there are points in many games when the situation is so complex that even a protracted analysis cannot be entirely trusted. An engine analysis may only be trustworthy if set to an extreme depth, due to positional nuances which carry to the ending.
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.
Outside of forced wins, whether in known endgame positions, mating attacks, or combinations leading to the win of decisive amounts of material, there is always some element of uncertainty in any position. Sometimes famous victories or brilliant endgame techniques have been shown, after years or decades of analysis, to be flawed. Even opening theory is uncertain in most cases--the "best lines" of an opening from 50 years ago are now passe, and today's "best lines" will be considered questionable 50 years from now as new ideas are uncovered. Even reliance on engines is uncertain as we realize that today's engines are unquestionably stronger than turn of the century computers that defeated the world champion, and no one doubts that tomorrow's engines will surpass today's. That chess has not been solved is one of the game's attractions--if there were no uncertaintes it would be uninteresting.
Chess players are using their judgement, experience, knowledge, calculation and intuition to select their moves. The contest is to see which player can apply such abilities to consistently make better choices over the course of the game. That makes chess play a test of skill rather than a game of chance. The fact that some players regularly make superior choices, winning more games and achieving higher ranking, indicates that skill is the determining factor. Should chance play as great a role as you propose, results should be more balanced.
Of course there are many situations where two or more possible moves are of virtually equal strength (set your engine for the four top moves and watch the analysis change, rating first one, then another move a few centipawns better as the analysis goes deeper). In these cases there is no possibility of choosing THE strongest continuation.
There is also the possibility that a "weaker" move may actually be more effective in different situations. For example, posing a variety of threats to an opponent in time trouble might be more successful than making a stronger, more solid move.
I have often expressed the opinion in this forum that there are elements of luck in chess, but a player's choice of move is on them. There is some reason--subconscious preference, fragments of memory of previous games or lessons, whatever, that has informed their choice, meaning it was not just a random guess.
PS--It looks like you got your watch fixed.
Oct 2, 2023
0
#3028
I too believe, based on personal experiences, that there is something to the "paranormal/supernatural". I also thin that most of the people claiming some expertise in such matters need to be looked at with a great deal of skepticism.
But the overwhelming majority of those in scientific areas "with a few letters after their name" will freely admit that human knowledge is hardly all-encompassing. If there were nothin left to be discovered their disciplines would lose much of their raison d'etre.
One quibble: paranormal properly means unexplainable scientifically, supernatural has the connotation of entities outside the laws of nature.
Oct 2, 2023
0
#3029
Optimissed wrote:
Oh, you made a slight error, mpaetz. We can say that, for better players, skill is perhaps the main determining factor and as in anything, someone who's skillful is also lucky. A skillful exponent of anything is apt to make his/her own luck. I think you're a bit too vehement in the downplay of the luck factor in chess. No-one's saying that, for very good players, luck is more important than skill. The question is whether luck exists in chess and that should be borne in mind.
Note that I did say luck exists in chess. I just don't think that inability to understand any position absolutely necessarily indicates the presence of random chance in the choice of moves. Every player is attempting to use their faculties to the best of their ability to chose what they consider the best move. It is the difference in the quality of judgement, rather than chance, that will determine success/failure.
Oct 2, 2023
0
#3030
Optimissed wrote:
Taken literally, I don't accept a difference between supernatural and paranormal. I do understand what you're saying and it isn't a path I want to go down. There's no sense in saying one is right and not the other. In fact I would say it displays anti-religious bias. I'm an atheist. I'm not in any way anti-religion. Religions are a kind of systemised, normalised, sanitised, very dilute magic.
I'm making no choice or claim, simply pointing out that one term means there are things that science cannot explain, and the other implies the existence of entities existing outside the natural universe.
Oct 2, 2023
0
#3031
Optimissed wrote:
Sorry, beyond rather than beside, which means that they are exact, literal synonyms, even if one is taken by some to imply something extra.
Not exact synonyms, as supernatural supposes the existence of forces--such as the gods--outside of nature, while paranormal simply means outside of our normal understanding. Things once thought to be outside of the bounds of human comprehension, such as the existence of microscopic lifeforms causing disease, might have been described as paranormal, but the idea that the gods were magically inflicting ill humors on the sufferers is belief in the supernatural.
It is not inconceivable that what we presently call paranormal abilities may one day be understood, but supernatural entities that obey no natural laws but operate through their own caprice are another matter, despite the fact that the two terms are generally considered to be synonymous.
Optimissed wrote:
question-authority wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
I have no idea how anyone could take you seriously.
Reported for verbal abuse. A one day old account and obviously deliberately trolling. I'll report any and every abusive post you make. OK?
I was a member of Chess.Com some time ago. I have no desire to troll anyone. I simply recognize you as abusive to dissenting opinions. You exhibit classical anti-social tendencies including a victim complex, elevated self-assessment and a general inability to be rational. I suggest help and I don't mean from Chess people.
Feel free to report anything that makes you feel in anyway superior.
I know who you were.
People who believe that others have a duty to offer evidence in support of their opinions are probably narcissistic, don't you think? I mean, since those people don't think they have any obligation to offer any evidence for anything?
You're lying because you yourself are abusive and you clearly initiated it. Since your only motive here is to make personal attacks, I'll be reporting you every time you step out of line and that's regarding your replies to anyone, including this one.
Maybe that's why you've been so accommodating of my "chess is a forced win" opinion. I know there is some evidence, for and against, but it really doesn't matter. It's still my opinion.
Elroch has a topic that I stopped visiting because he blocked me for my opinion. It happened to be 100% factual and accurate because it was a personal experience of mine, but he didn't like it, and blocked me.
I understand wanting evidence if someone claims something that's worthy of evidence. But people who want evidence just because of an opinion, I have to wonder what's wrong with them.
I like Breyers chocolate chip mint ice cream. In my opinion it's the best ice cream there is. Unfortunately I have no evidence of that though.
mpaetz wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
Oh, you made a slight error, mpaetz. We can say that, for better players, skill is perhaps the main determining factor and as in anything, someone who's skillful is also lucky. A skillful exponent of anything is apt to make his/her own luck. I think you're a bit too vehement in the downplay of the luck factor in chess. No-one's saying that, for very good players, luck is more important than skill. The question is whether luck exists in chess and that should be borne in mind.
Note that I did say luck exists in chess. I just don't think that inability to understand any position absolutely necessarily indicates the presence of random chance in the choice of moves. Every player is attempting to use their faculties to the best of their ability to chose what they consider the best move. It is the difference in the quality of judgement, rather than chance, that will determine success/failure.
"I just don't think that inability to understand any position absolutely necessarily indicates the presence of random chance in the choice of moves. "
This is backwards.. Point is not whether the choice is random. Point is that the oucome will be random. More specifically, there will be unknown factors that affect the outcome, making it random.
If you have a random position on board and you have to make a move blindfolded, it's gonna be a random outcome because of lack of knowledge. If you are allowed to see half the board, you will be able to limit the choices and better your chances of a good choice, but still lack of knowledge leads to a random outcome. Just the odds are different.
See, the more knowledge = better odds. Does not mean nothing is up to chance. These practical examples apply to scenarios where lack of knowledge is due to misunderstanding of the position, rather than not physically seeing the board.
Oct 3, 2023
0
#3034
Yeah lol I'm "begging" for members. Watch people (@question-authority) say something stupid because they think the person insulted won't see it after mentioning unfollowing the thread. Nobody is talking-to-you, a few posts later the guy interjects himself (again) into other's personal argument by saying "I don't wanna interject...", ok then don't.
-
Ok. Diogenes was never in my club so he's hardly an expert to say the discussion club ain't about discussion but about myself. That is silly, there's so many others there. Are you even capable of conducting an impersonal argument about ideas and issues? You don't discuss topics, you just attack people you know nothing about.
-
Optimissed. Mate, you can't leave OD that is funny but there's no honest consistency why you're member of one club but can't be of another. But you say it wasn't the difference of opinion on Ukraine war that made you leave, but rather how it was presented. You even suggested that your free speech and ability to express yourself was censored somehow.
-
I recall vividly presenting an argument for supporting Ukraine you disliked, you started at 11 by reacting extremely critically in a manner that was unwarranted. You seemed offended I even presented my argument, suddenly it wasn't about why the argument is bad but why my thinking is bad. If someone can't politely approach a topic to begin with, I can't help but be dismissive. I'm allowed to scrutinise any opinion, so I explained on the same level the issues in your argument. You felt you were marginalised, so you say... well you sure showed me by leaving then. You sure would show how bad Elroch is by leaving OD or requesting to be removed and being tyrannically denied. Right? Don't worry the join button ain't bugged if you're ever interested in reasoning impersonally and politely on actual issues.
-
Good reasons why people leave or won't join, certain places have a clientele less tolerant of bs, as that of Diogenes.
I don't think luck is in chess, because the game is about strategy. They may be some cases of luck, say if you accidentally found a free piece, etc.
Oct 3, 2023
0
#3036
I'll unfollow the thread for real now. I'm a curious type but don't think I'm missing anything anyway. Diogenes, don't bother. Opt check your mail mate. Question authority dude, act a bit more mature if you don't wanna get banned for abuse, you're not impressing anyone here by attacking people in personal terms.
Oct 3, 2023
0
#3038
A personal discussion between myself and my friend Optimissed, even on a long since derailed public forum, is not begging for members and does not concern you. A good way to get somebody to reply who's too busy to check mail is by commenting in the same public space. Juvenile psychoanalyzing of strangers online is insulting and shows you are trolling. Why are you still talking to me stranger? This guy joined on two days ago... anyone lose a sock puppet?
Oct 3, 2023
0
#3039
"Begging" is also tendentious language, which shows you are slanted and partisan at hello. We have a motive. Has this guy not found anything to critique in Diogenes' posts that requires urgent layman's psychoanalytic speculation? Freshly minted sock puppets beware. Topic is luck in chess and I already commented there's both good luck and bad luck, as there is fortune and misfortune, got anything else to add?
Oct 3, 2023
0
#3040
I somehow guessed that was coming, why are you still here after saying you were gonna unfollow? Oh how juvenile! Maybe being endlessly abusive is a better standard for assesing immaturity.
-
Why didn't I unfollow yet? As luck would have it, I was about to do just that, then, yet another hysterical interjection. It shows when people run out of stand up material, I mean what else is there but point out I'm still here? Yes, I noticed that too thanks for pointing it out. Sorry it bothers you that you're delayed in making a half-assed drive-by after I inevitably unfollow. Maybe you even feel that somehow you're the wronged party. You whine all over other's side discussion and then play the victim, as for your abusive attention seeking, I won't make note of that address from now on.
-
I didn't ask him to join lol. Who says I didn't? Hop on over to your original account and run along now.
Which Emoji do you guys like the best?
Put your best emoji hear!