every one shut up
Is there such thing as "luck" in chess?
Sort:
beat boi beat my meat boi
ohio
Oct 5, 2023
0
#3085
There is some luck in chess as I have noticed the same incident for example when u blunder a queen and the opponent does not notice it and many more
There is literally no such thing as luck in chess. Explain to me how that even works
Oct 5, 2023
0
#3087
Kotshmot wrote:
A paper plane is thrown by human - result can be predicted to a degree and skill is always a factor on where the plane lands. We also know that the wind is always a factor as well. Now we have luck and skill both playing a part determining the result, even tho we can predict the outcome to a degree. Is the definition out the window already?
When the wind blows your piece to a square different from the one upon which you intended to place it your comparison will be appropriate.
The problem I have with the "we don't know everything about every possible move in most positions, therefore there must be an element of chance involved" proposition is that practical experience shows it to be untrue. Should a 1350-rated player play a 1950-rated player, we find the higher-rated player will win almost every time. Yet neither player is near master strength, so we acknowledge their deficiencies in skill. If both players' moves are determined partly by luck, the laws of probability would suggest that the 1350 player will do better more often than is the case. It is the greater number of poorer moves selected by the weaker player that will make the difference, unless we extend the "luck in every move" theory to include the principle that every time a player fails to make the best move it is because of bad luck.
Further, the oft-expressed "I wasn't sure which move was better so I guessed--then three moves later I found out that was the best move" reasoning is flawed. Aside from the fact that in many cases there will be two or more nearly-equal moves, who can say that in situations where neither player can know the optimum move the good result was not due to the opponent's intervening poor choices?
Oct 5, 2023
0
#3088
Optimissed wrote:
mpaetz wrote:
The first (oldest) definition of "luck" in the latest edition of the unabridged OED is "gain, profit, financial advantage"--admittedly rare and obsolete. The most common meaning is "the chance occurrence of events either favourable or unfavourable to a person's interests".
I think the first one is obviously the opinion of a very small minority, if that was the earliest definition. The second is a good definition but note that it doesn't include any of this discriminatory rot about not being connected to a person's own efforts.
The first one is the meaning of the Old Dutch "luc" that came into English in the 15th century, derived from the French lucre (Latin lucrum--profit). As I said it is now obsolete and rare. I never proposed that any presence of "one's own efforts" negates any possibility of luck being involved--that was Coolout's mantra.
yes
Oct 5, 2023
0
#3090
Optimissed wrote:
The Merriam-Webster definition to which you direct us is "a force that brings good fortune or adversity", clearly labeling it as some sort of directed supernatural phenomenon.
If you had used the link I provided, you'd see that isn't the case. Perhaps you're using an old definition from them. The idea of a "force" being necessary is ludicrous: as if chance had never been thought of.
I did use the link you provided, and that is exactly the definition that link provided.
Oct 5, 2023
0
#3091
Optimissed wrote:
Again, everyone choosing their own definition, whether from a dictionary or their own imagination, and insisting that theirs is the only valid interpretation, has been the major cause of disagreements among the thousands of posts in this thread.
Misrepresentation in its purest form. I told you that I'd given my preferred definition and I pointed out very clearly that it's best NOT to be prescriptive regarding definitions.
Yet you repeatedly claim that other definitions "fail" or "are wrong", or that OED was good years ago but now is inferior, despite the fact that the older definitions you like are still included, even if they report that different usage has become more usual. If it is simply a matter of your preference compared to others' choices, that's exactly what I said. It's the insistence of many posters that any conclusions reached from definitions other than their preferred "correct" interpretation are inherently mistaken.
Oct 5, 2023
0
#3092
Proper dictionaries are simply reports of the way people use words. They are not supposed to be rules brought down from Mt. Sinai.
mpaetz wrote:
Kotshmot wrote:
A paper plane is thrown by human - result can be predicted to a degree and skill is always a factor on where the plane lands. We also know that the wind is always a factor as well. Now we have luck and skill both playing a part determining the result, even tho we can predict the outcome to a degree. Is the definition out the window already?
When the wind blows your piece to a square different from the one upon which you intended to place it your comparison will be appropriate.
The problem I have with the "we don't know everything about every possible move in most positions, therefore there must be an element of chance involved" proposition is that practical experience shows it to be untrue. Should a 1350-rated player play a 1950-rated player, we find the higher-rated player will win almost every time. Yet neither player is near master strength, so we acknowledge their deficiencies in skill. If both players' moves are determined partly by luck, the laws of probability would suggest that the 1350 player will do better more often than is the case. It is the greater number of poorer moves selected by the weaker player that will make the difference, unless we extend the "luck in every move" theory to include the principle that every time a player fails to make the best move it is because of bad luck.
Further, the oft-expressed "I wasn't sure which move was better so I guessed--then three moves later I found out that was the best move" reasoning is flawed. Aside from the fact that in many cases there will be two or more nearly-equal moves, who can say that in situations where neither player can know the optimum move the good result was not due to the opponent's intervening poor choices?
"When the wind blows your piece to a square different from the one upon which you intended to place it your comparison will be appropriate."
What comparison? I didn't make any comparison. Simply questioned the definition you provided and you didn't address that at all.
How did you calculate how often a 1350 should win against a 1900 in case the moves were "partly" determined by luck? This is just your hunch that makes no sense. If someone is playing with better odds, they win most of the time.
By your answers I would say you don't a 100% understand what the logic behind luck in lack of knowledge is, that is being presented here. There have been some good posts on it already so it's hard to further help you get on the same page. Maybe later on I'll continue on this.
Optimissed wrote:
The idea that luck has nothing to do with chess is some kind of ideological belief. And I'm fed up with talking to pedantic people.
Mixture of that and misunderstanding
Yes
Optimissed wrote:
The idea that luck has nothing to do with chess is some kind of ideological belief. And I'm fed up with talking to pedantic people.
what if you just like didnt respond
Oct 6, 2023
0
#3098
Hi!
In a logical game like chess, there should be no room for luck. But honestly, sometimes it feels like luck plays a role!
I believe that if you train the right way, you will become stronger, you will comprehend the game better, and you will see that there is nothing random in it.
Good luck! (still!)"
In all the times I've played otb chess I've never once had someone say "good skill". They always say "good luck".
There are 3 kinds of chess as everything else is divided by 3!! It is thinking chess or english chess. It is trouble chess or danish gambiters!! It is lucky chess or proud chess or chinese chess!! Lucky chess at the start is like fools mate due to the other player mistake. At high stakes finding the deep winning moves pattern only with eyesight without thinking is a rare virtue!!