If you believe in a deterministic universe then there is only good or bad back. No-one can take any credit or blame for what happens. Free will is an illusion. You had no choice in your genes, parents, environment you grew up in. And yet they all contribute to how you play your chess.
Is there such thing as "luck" in chess?
Sort:
Aug 16, 2024
0
#3244
EwingKlipspringer wrote:
in life folks don't take turns let alone play by the rules or even know them modern life's so hideous people are running to chess as an escape because it's sometimes fair working for the boss night & day I need a love that will keep me happy baby won't you keep me happy baby please keep me
EK your posts are coming out in very small print.
Maybe you're using a particular device.
Mentioning because I don't think you're aware of it.
Aug 16, 2024
0
#3245
@OctopusOnSteroids
you just posted
'how you should think of it ... '
you're out of line there right away.
I didn't read your post further after that.
-------------
Dio makes very good posts. He's very sharp.
His point about the chess pieces and rules - when put next to 'dice rolling'
is technically valid.
But its a micro-point.
He knows about luck 'in' chess and demonstrated that too.
And being familiar with his posts I don't argue. I see his reasoning.
I believe he would realize about the semantics of 'luck' and 'in' and 'chess'.
-----------------------------------
If he wants to he could debate with me about the aircraft analogy if he chooses to consider that post I made about that.
But for convenience
Quick restate:
Lighting hitting a plane but the lightning is 'external' to the plane means there's no luck 'in' piloting??
Of course not.
Is it so obvious that there's no 'debate' there?
Concern about the word 'in' reminds me of a famous person who pronounced publically 'it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is'
but he was referring to a legal situation if I remember correctly - so it was a legitimate point in that context.
Aug 16, 2024
0
#3246
EwingKlipspringer wrote:
Thanks for hollaring at me I'm just politely whispering quietly library style while others scream to be heard in 15 font
Everybody else seems to be posting in the same size I am.
You're making hieroglyphics in 11 point.
The only thing in chess that you can have luck for is your opponent.
Aug 16, 2024
0
#3248
Yes, would say nearly the same...
But there is a good chance to make moves, where you dont understand, how good they are.
One may call that luck.
playerafar wrote:
@OctopusOnSteroids
you just posted
'how you should think of it ... '
you're out of line there right away.
I didn't read your post further after that.
-------------
Dio makes very good posts. He's very sharp.
His point about the chess pieces and rules - when put next to 'dice rolling'
is technically valid.
But its a micro-point.
He knows about luck 'in' chess and demonstrated that too.
And being familiar with his posts I don't argue. I see his reasoning.
I believe he would realize about the semantics of 'luck' and 'in' and 'chess'.
-----------------------------------
If he wants to he could debate with me about the aircraft analogy if he chooses to consider that post I made about that.
But for convenience
Quick restate:
Lighting hitting a plane but the lightning is 'external' to the plane means there's no luck 'in' piloting??
Of course not.
Is it so obvious that there's no 'debate' there?
Concern about the word 'in' reminds me of a famous person who pronounced publically 'it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is'
but he was referring to a legal situation if I remember correctly - so it was a legitimate point in that context.
Piloting is a concept that contains the action of piloting the aircraft, the pilot, the aircraft as an object and the natural setting piloting takes place in.
Chess is a concept that contains the technical set of game rules and thats all. It can take place on the board, online, between humans, between engines or just as an abstract concept thats studied. The concept itself doesnt contain any external factors outside the game rules. What is "in chess", is within the concept. There is no luck in the concept, no external factors that contribute luck.
You could also conceptualize piloting just as a set of game rules without any external factors if you wish to, but it would be completely different from piloting as we know it now.
Aug 16, 2024
0
#3250
OctopusOnSteroids wrote:
LeeEuler wrote:
OctopusOnSteroids wrote:
playerafar wrote:
OctopusOnSteroids wrote:
playerafar wrote:
mpaetz wrote:
Certainly in the normal course of events there is no luck in chess. This doesn't mean that extraordinary events never occur. If you have read many chess.com forums you will have noticed the number of outraged complaints concerning power outages or interrupted connection resulting in undeserved losses. If we consider the ultimate result of a game as part of chess we can't ignore unfortuitous events that determine some results.
In tournaments players often 'get lucky' according to who they're paired with.
Or not paired with.
An issue of how temperaments and playing styles go up against each other.
The weaker player might win because his way of playing was anathema to the stronger.
Many might then try to 'insist' that the weaker was therefore 'stronger' on that occasion.
Let them. Everyone has their own take.
It doesn't have to be a 'terrible take' because there's disagreement.
As mentioned, things outside of a chess game can bring an element of luck that contributes to the game itself. Both stroke and tournament pairings are in this category.
Pairings are not 'outside' of the game unless you want them to be.
Insistency to the contrary is misinformation.
Everybody does their own categorizations and the dictionary is not bible.
The pairings absolutely are outside the game. It is a human construction to decide who plays chess against who, but it's not a part of a chess game itself. The pairings could be decided by a roll of dice, of course it's down to luck and of course it's a factor outside of the game itself.
"The pairings could be decided by a roll of dice, of course it's down to luck"
By your own previous arguments ("There is no luck in chess or sports. You control every move your body makes", " skill is a range, not a spot", "Anything about human performance is never down to luck."), your highlighted statement above is an admission that luck is a part of chess, (if humans are the ones rolling the dice, and if you are being logically consistent).
I'm not exactly sure what you mean. Humans have no ability to control a dice roll. That's the purpose of the dice, human can't affect the result, which means it's a tool of luck.
If humans didn't control the dice roll, then the dice would not roll. You had said earlier that humans control every move their body makes and that human performance is never down to luck... well, if your "performance" is your ability to roll a 1, and you are the one actually controlling your body to make the roll, then, if you use your logic that skill is a range (true, but misapplied/misused here), the outcome of the dice is completely down to you getting better/worse at rolling that 1.
Aug 16, 2024
0
#3251
JailhouseTaught wrote:
You only “luck out” when your opponent messes up. No, there is not an element of luck in chess like there is games like poker.
That post has good points.
-----------------
But this can be tried.
It happened that the way the forum topic was worded - included the word 'in'.
Another way to word the topic is ...
Does chess have luck? Yes. I'll go further. Now.
Does chess have luck? Yes and people know it.
--------------------
Does poker competition have bigger elements of luck than chess competition?
Yes. And people know that too.
But that's scalar. Not binary.
Whether we're talking about chess or poker or flying a plane they're all subject to luck. The presence of skill factors doesn't send 'luck' to another galaxy somewhere.
---------------------
Regarding imposing a 'take' or opinion or even a fact - can anybody do that anytime?
No.
But it happens a lot though. Depends on the setting.
Here? Hardly. Its a leisure forum.
In boot camp and police stations and classrooms and doctor's offices yes.
Opinions and facts get 'imposed' a lot in those places.
Aug 16, 2024
0
#3252
OctopusOnSteroids wrote:
"An instance of the game of chess isn't life. It's a separate logical construct and its own little universe, effectively."
How you should think of it is, a chess game can exist without a human participant. It can be two higher beings playing a game of chess in a separate universe where there are no external factors. Only the game and the rules. The game itself knows no element of luck but if you introduce two human players and the outside word to be the setting, all external factors affect them.
So we should think of your ideal conception of chess as existing only in a scifi/fantasy world? Unfortunately, we poor humans are stuck in the actual world. Whatever perfect conceptions we may create, once we try to implement them with human participants human foibles are introduced. You posit that the organization of tournaments, rating systems, conditions of play, arbiters' decisions, heart attacks at the board, and other fallible human intrusions into the ideal are not really part of "chess", but the game would not exist for human players without them.
maybe
mpaetz wrote:
OctopusOnSteroids wrote:
"An instance of the game of chess isn't life. It's a separate logical construct and its own little universe, effectively."
How you should think of it is, a chess game can exist without a human participant. It can be two higher beings playing a game of chess in a separate universe where there are no external factors. Only the game and the rules. The game itself knows no element of luck but if you introduce two human players and the outside word to be the setting, all external factors affect them.
So we should think of your ideal conception of chess as existing only in a scifi/fantasy world? Unfortunately, we poor humans are stuck in the actual world. Whatever perfect conceptions we may create, once we try to implement them with human participants human foibles are introduced. You posit that the organization of tournaments, rating systems, conditions of play, arbiters' decisions, heart attacks at the board, and other fallible human intrusions into the ideal are not really part of "chess", but the game would not exist for human players without them.
Chess as a concept does not include human health conditions and I think thats a wrong and lame direction to take in this discussion.
Aug 16, 2024
0
#3255
OctopusOnSteroids wrote:
Chess as a concept does not include human health conditions and I think thats a wrong and lame direction to take in this discussion.
Vladimir Simagin suffered a heart attack at the board during the Kislovodsk tournament Sept. 25, 1968. Vladimir Bagirov suffered a heart attack at the board while leading the Heart of Finland (he was up a pawn in a time scramble when the attack struck) on July 20, 2000. Adolf Olland (Holland's top player before Euwe) had a heart attack at the board during the Dutch Championship tournament in 1933.
Chess (shatranj--king is dead--in Persian) is a war game--the goal is to get to the opponent's king before they get to yours. Whether moves are judged to be good or bad depends on how well they contribute to this purpose. The object is to WIN by "killing the king".
Can you explain how the opponents' superior "skill" at chess won the three games I just mentioned? There can be other "outside" causes for victory/defeat in a chess game, but those were the result of "human health conditions".
As long as we have chess games between humans, human factors will intrude into chess' "own little universe" and luck is one of those human factors.
EwingKlipspringer wrote:
There is no luck in computer chess. 🖥️ 💻 engine chess is luckless.
Human chess has loads of luck. Why just look at Steamin' who beat the champ cos he lucked out that morning preparing that very opening!
So then you support the notion that three's no luck in chess, whether you realize your logical error or not.
There's luck plenty of times the best players are usually the luckiest (and the most skilled )
Again, this is just rehashing from earlier in the thread, so there's little point.
Somebody mentioned the actual words being used, which are the crux of the problem. let me try to demonstrate:
First take:
There is no
luck (game designer's definition of luck)
in (intrinsic to, built into the game)
chess (an instance of the basic game using the base rules, without tournament rules, clocks, etc.)
beyond the selection of color.
Second take:
There is
luck (colloquial and loose definition)
in (affecting players of, taking place during, etc.)
chess (a generalized notion of chess including competition rules, pairings, etc.)
including selection of color.
----
When you find a basic rulebook for chess that incorporates rules for lightning strikes, tornadoes, tsunamis, hurricanes, earthquakes, meteor strikes, shark attacks, bad burritos, and cardiac arrest, let me know.
Aug 16, 2024
0
#3259
EwingKlipspringer wrote:
There is no luck in computer chess. 🖥️ 💻 engine chess is luckless.
Human chess has loads of luck. Why just look at Steamin' who beat the champ cos he lucked out that morning preparing that very opening!
A very good post by EK there.
Is engine chess 100% luckless?
I would say that there's much less luck factor there than in GM level chess.
But consider the factors as to how each of the computers was programmed.
Different hardware and if the same hardware - different software.
And if you've got the same hardware and software essentially playing against itself in a different computer unit ... then have you removed all 'luck'?
Even there i would say no.
Not completely.
Like this:
How much is the software programmed to play for the win or the draw?
Same programmer of both computers ????
Is that 'skill' if the engines just keep getting tired old draws against each other???
Aug 16, 2024
0
#3260
The forum topic is almost a rhetorical question.
Its like the continuation is
'of course there's luck. But issues include - how is luck concerning chess defined? In what ways does it come in or be relevant?
Is it way or ways?
Ways of course.
How many ways?
What are they?
What about the 'intangibles'?'
----------------------------------------
Consider a hard fought game between two top GMs.
With a position that is sharp on move 25 ... the fact that neither player seems to be dominating does not mean it is 'drawish'.
Do the two players know what the position will look like by move 35?
Do they know the exact ten moves to come?
----------------------
Almost never.
Neither player had a 'bad burrito'
There was no seagull that got in the playing area.
Neither player has a 'lapse of concentration'
But by move 45 - somebody prevails.
------------------------------
Journalist to winner:
"Was this luck or skill?"
Winner wants to be polite to journalist:
'Winners can always try to claim that they won 100% by skill - but its not like you have determinism over how your opponent played that day.
If it happens you win a game because the variations in his skill level from day to day happened to lead to a win for you that day - there's an element of luck there.
Applies in most sports.
Chess has no halo over it nor light coming out of its armpits."
(if he wants to be hard on the reporter)
"Whether chess or golf or whatever - your result partly depends on how well your opponent played"
-------------------------------
Reporter: But that's 'Skill' by the opponent'
Winner: 'Skill whether more or less by him isn't 'skill' by you.'
If he happened to play 'under' and you won thereby there's some element of luck for you it went that way.
Goes on constantly. Like the weather'.
------------------------
Reporter: 'Can you give me a famous example?'
Winner continues to be 'patient' with journalist ...
'You could try Schlecter-Lasker' if you want but if you're trying to make that an 'outlier exception' that would be misleading I think'
---------------------------
Reporter: "Is there a way to simply sum up? If you'll indulge me? I appreciate the interview."
Winner: 'There's 'intangibles' in chess like in other sports. Nobody knows how the human brain works and how that might influence exact playing levels at any time. Anytime you have a champion he can be proud of himself that he won but he can also admit to himself that he doesn't have 100% determinism at his opponent's end. And maybe not even 20% determinism. Your play influences your opponent's play in chess and tennis more than it does in golf - but that doesn't mean you have mind control over him'
Winner: 'That's all I've got for now.'
Reporter: 'Our New Champion Everybody !!'
One could obsess all day over the meaning of the word 'luck'.
But even more to the point is the word 'in'.
If a person wants to restrict the meaning of the word 'in' so that his/her preconceived position looks more accurate - then that's an invalid argument.
Luck 'in' chess.
Of course there is.
If it influences the game its not 'in' the game?
Come on now.
-----------------------------
Try an analogy to show how silly restricting 'in' is.
Is there luck in aircraft piloting?
Some lighting hits a plane ... it crashes.
Is whoever going to now be vehemently trying to Insist:
'Oh - the lighting was 'external' to the aircraft.
That doesn't count.
The lightning wasn't 'in' the plane.'
Of course there's luck 'in' chess - no matter how much whoever tries to obsess over 'luck' or 'in' or 'chess' semantics.
-------------------
Trying to say that something within an activity is 'pure' and therefore other factors are 'disqualified' is kind of silly.
--------------
Why would whoever try to impose such an invalid view?
Perhaps to feel more comfortable in the choice made?
'cognitive disonnance' and its big brother 'cognition bias' can be looked up and studied.
Diogenesdue described it well.
"An instance of the game of chess isn't life. It's a separate logical construct and its own little universe, effectively."
How you should think of it is, a chess game can exist without a human participant. It can be two higher beings playing a game of chess in a separate universe where there are no external factors. Only the game and the rules. The game itself knows no element of luck but if you introduce two human players and the outside word to be the setting, all external factors affect them.