Yes
Is there such thing as "luck" in chess?
Sort:
Yeah
AMZboiepic3356 wrote:
the only luck in chess is either you get black or white
Also the moves that might be played. Not all moves are the result of skill alone.
off course, when your opponent missed a chance to gain (a piece e.g.) win by not see it or pre saw your moves and take advantage.
mpaetz wrote:
And has your plumbing problem ever been solved?
man over here is equivalent of 150 bucks...
Optimissed wrote:
err0r909 wrote:
off course, when your opponent missed a chance to gain (a piece e.g.) win by not see it or pre saw your moves and take advantage.
Sorry? Don't know what you mean.
when opponent did not saw a blundered fased death piece of importance as example and went on .
I always heard and read that chess can make a man mad, because it's his fault.
this tell's it better:
https://www.perplexity.ai/search/Is-luck-a-KkidHm46QuSxWrbmQVlrrg/
Had many occasions where I moved to fast and crossed fingers after seeing in terror oh my Q is to take or I hope he don't see my intentions .
Optimissed wrote:
err0r909 wrote:
this tell's it better:
https://www.perplexity.ai/search/Is-luck-a-KkidHm46QuSxWrbmQVlrrg/
Oh I see. That (could be GPT) thinks that the consensus is that luck is extremely minimal in chess.
That's what people would LIKE to think. Even the explanation (that chess is deterministic) is incoherent. It isn't deterministic in any proper meaning of the word.
The result of chess games can be and are influenced by many possible chance events. There's so many such possible chance events that it seems rather ridiculous to go through 100 or so and find that the dogmatic person you're arguing with refutes then neatly one by one ... but only in his mind.
I'm a lot better than Chat GPT don't you think?
it's a kind of A.I. search engine like many others, and you get good at it yes. Despite that I found that luck is in your decisions.
So yes, debatable.
Optimissed wrote:
The truth is that many people arguing here and elsewhere online are not emotionally capable of taking account of actual arguments which are presented to them. They've made up their minds and their only concern is to defeat those arguments. Of course, such behaviour usually means that the person concerned is intellectually disabled. Only occasionally might they do it for some strategic reason.
Indeed, as you saw it presented links to sources of information. So A.I. goes as far as known human made databases.
Never had a game without misses or blunders?
Optimissed wrote:
err0r909 wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
err0r909 wrote:
this tell's it better:
https://www.perplexity.ai/search/Is-luck-a-KkidHm46QuSxWrbmQVlrrg/
Oh I see. That (could be GPT) thinks that the consensus is that luck is extremely minimal in chess.
That's what people would LIKE to think. Even the explanation (that chess is deterministic) is incoherent. It isn't deterministic in any proper meaning of the word.
The result of chess games can be and are influenced by many possible chance events. There's so many such possible chance events that it seems rather ridiculous to go through 100 or so and find that the dogmatic person you're arguing with refutes then neatly one by one ... but only in his mind.
I'm a lot better than Chat GPT don't you think?
it's a kind of A.I. search engine like many others, and you get good at it yes. Despite that I found that luck is in your decisions.
Absolutely. Whereas a real chat GPT would have access to a stable database, a human's thoughts are prompted by associations with various random events and so the nature of the argument presented is often down to luck. Often it also depends on whether a rarely used word can be recalled without too much effort. Anyone who routinely writes down their thoughts knows that not too much effort should be expended on writing them down in a certain way, if that way doesn't readily pop up in the imagination. If it isn't important, that's ok. If it's important then it will be edited and maybe partly rewritten.
That model is more tricky it is generative and more and requires machine learning on top of Data Structure. Tricky is the machine learning part where you set the temperature for chat GPT not or minimise hallucinations as they are called.
While the search engine just looks in internet databases and gives an answer based on that.
Optimissed wrote:
err0r909 wrote:
this tell's it better:
https://www.perplexity.ai/search/Is-luck-a-KkidHm46QuSxWrbmQVlrrg/
Oh I see. That (could be GPT) thinks that the consensus is that luck is extremely minimal in chess.
That's what people would LIKE to think. Even the explanation (that chess is deterministic) is incoherent. It isn't deterministic in any proper meaning of the word.
The result of chess games can be and are influenced by many possible chance events. There's so many such possible chance events that it seems rather ridiculous to go through 100 or so and find that the dogmatic person you're arguing with refutes then neatly one by one ... but only in his mind.
I'm a lot better than Chat GPT don't you think?
Inspired by this i decided to have a short debate with chat gpt about luck in chess. Even they admitted to it after some very simplified arguments. At first they provided some wikipedia tier copy paste answer. 
Kotshmot wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
err0r909 wrote:
this tell's it better:
https://www.perplexity.ai/search/Is-luck-a-KkidHm46QuSxWrbmQVlrrg/
Oh I see. That (could be GPT) thinks that the consensus is that luck is extremely minimal in chess.
That's what people would LIKE to think. Even the explanation (that chess is deterministic) is incoherent. It isn't deterministic in any proper meaning of the word.
The result of chess games can be and are influenced by many possible chance events. There's so many such possible chance events that it seems rather ridiculous to go through 100 or so and find that the dogmatic person you're arguing with refutes then neatly one by one ... but only in his mind.
I'm a lot better than Chat GPT don't you think?
Inspired by this i decided to have a short debate with chat gpt about luck in chess. Even they admitted to it after some very simplified arguments. At first they provided some wikipedia tier copy paste answer.
what is the model and temperature you set?
to cut a long story short, if 2 people view an event from totally opposing perspectives, you can no longer say it is lucky.
That's not relevant regarding the question whether or not there is luck involved. Both subjective definitions lucky and unlucky go under an objective definition of luck. Luck basically means an event of chance. In whose favour it goes is ofc subjective.