"Part of the game" doesn't exclude luck.
That's 100% illogic claiming that it does.
And the presence or absence of computers cannot change that humans are part of the game.
Yes humans are part of the game but that means the game has luck not that it hasn't.
What would be an analogy for a claim that something is part of something - 'excludes' something?
Try - aircraft fly. But cars can be held in large aircraft.
Including in the hangar. Or on the tarmac. Or the runway.
But the cars can't fly. Does this mean therefore that the plane can't take off?
Of course it can!
But illogic is fun.
'Humans are part of the game' means: 'the reverse of what it means'.
Just take any fact that refutes you and instead claim it supports you.
Usually I don't see illogic that gross though.
Is there such thing as "luck" in chess?
No. Wrong.
Chess has luck. Lots of it. Constantly. Both in theory and in practice.
Year in year out. For over 500 years now.
And since chess isn't solved - there's never been a game that didn't have luck of some kind.
If it is ever solved - then you could have two computers play a 'perfect' game with each other. Whether win or loss or draw. And claim that game 'had no luck'.
But that doesn't 'wipe out' luck from the Universe. Nor from chess.
Because humans could still play - hence 'luck' is there.
So is bad luck. And so is motivation consternation excitement elation dismay anticipation and an endless list of other things that rockslides and volcanic eruptions 'can't have'.
I've got some experience in discussions regarding chess outcomes.
Terms often get thrown about like 'weakly solved' and 'game theoretic value' all under a supposedly noble heading of 'Game Theory'.
And although 'Game Theory' might be extremely valid -
that doesn't mean it 'works' in discussions like these.
-------------------------------
Supposedly Checkers was 'weakly solved' in 2007.
Found to be a draw with 'optimal play' by both sides.
But apparently without being 'strongly solved'.
When you look up 'weakly solved' you'll find a reference to 'game theoretic value' - which supposedly is a valid term because different games have different outcome 'structures'.
But to most people arriving in discussions like this 'game theoretic value' is going to be 'Gobbledygook'.
--------------------------------------
Idea - yes just idea not even 'suggestion' - is to speak generically.
No brand names.
If such good avoidance means more words are necessary - then let that be.
Further idea: if such generic speech can be further condensed but without becoming 'dogmatic' (oversimplified and therefore inaccurate) then that could be done too. But if things need to be qualified then there may be no good shortcuts.
Apparently about the time the Renaissance began there was somebody who became famous leading to a term named after him.
Occam's Razor.
I am glad you did some research on game theory.
First, checkers have not been weekly solved. Checkers are not a game but a family of games. English draughts have been weekly solved, but most of other chekers/draughts games have not. But that's a tangent.
Let's consider English draughts and heads-up limit Texas holdem. Both are weekly solved. If two engines play a game of English draughts they draw each other every single time, no exceptions. When two engines play heads-up limit Texas holdem, all three results are possible, with a draw being the least likely outcome.
Why? Because luck is built into the rules of poker. And it is not for checkers, or chess for that matter.
Hey AE - looks like you did Not do research.
2007. Weak solution of checkers. Schaeffer.
And 'Game Theory' is not a bible.
But you don't get that right?
Somebody does not become right or wrong here because they know more 'game theory'.
But I'm expecting you would think so.
Hey AE - looks like you did Not do research.
2007. Weak solution of checkers. Schaeffer.
And 'Game Theory' is not a bible.
But you don't get that right?
Somebody does not become right or wrong here because they know more 'game theory'.
But I'm expecting you would think so.
Looks like you don't understand what you read. There's no such thing as the game called checkers. Checkers is not a game but a family of games. English checkers (only one of the variants of checkers) is indeed weakly solved (which I clearly state in my post). International checkers, on the other hand, is not.
But again that was not the point. The point was in the third and fourth paragraph.
> And 'Game Theory' is not a bible.
You are absolutely right. The Bible is a collection of questionable historical accounts mixed with equally questionable moral principles.
Game theory is a branch of mathematics.
I am glad you did some research on game theory.
First, checkers have not been weekly solved. Checkers are not a game but a family of games. English draughts have been weekly solved, but most of other chekers/draughts games have not. But that's a tangent.
Let's consider English draughts and heads-up limit Texas holdem. Both are weekly solved. If two engines play a game of English draughts they draw each other every single time, no exceptions. When two engines play heads-up limit Texas holdem, all three results are possible, with a draw being the least likely outcome.
Why? Because luck is built in the rules of poker. And it is not for checkers, or chess for that matter.
You're correct that in a 'solved' game of chess there is no luck involved.
What do you think about the fact that chess by game design is a multiple choice question? What this means in practice is, that one doesn't need perfect information nor information at all to achieve an optimal outcome.
A player can have also completely wrong information (more likely in practice) but as the choices are laid out infront of you, theres always a chance you get the move right anyway.
I find it quite clear that such fundementals will always allow luck to be part of the game itself.
You're correct that in a 'solved' game of chess there is no luck involved.
What do you think about the fact that chess by game design is a multiple choice question? What this means in practice is, that one doesn't need perfect information nor information at all to achieve an optimal outcome.
A player can have also completely wrong information (more likely in practice) but as the choices are laid out infront of you, theres always a chance you get the move right anyway.
I find it quite clear that such fundementals will always allow luck to be part of the game itself.
So when is a 1000 rated player going to randomly play perfectly and beat a GM? Not some unverifiable anecdote or a simul of 100 players where they have coached in advance or something, an actual head-to-head game, preferably rated. I mean, it's only a matter of time, right? Surely you must have run into an example in your lifetime...
You're correct that in a 'solved' game of chess there is no luck involved.
What do you think about the fact that chess by game design is a multiple choice question? What this means in practice is, that one doesn't need perfect information nor information at all to achieve an optimal outcome.
A player can have also completely wrong information (more likely in practice) but as the choices are laid out infront of you, theres always a chance you get the move right anyway.
I find it quite clear that such fundementals will always allow luck to be part of the game itself.
So when is a 1000 rated player going to randomly play perfectly and beat a GM? Not some unverifiable anecdote or a simul of 100 players where they have coached in advance or something, an actual head-to-head game, preferably rated. I mean, it's only a matter of time, right? Surely you must have run into an example in your lifetime...
You know as well as I do thats not an argument. I'd propose a theoretical answer to a theoretical question atleast before some bad practical examples.
The example doesn't have to be a monkey beating a super computer, which of course is theoretically possible but extremely unlikely. An example of this feature of the game design can be just a single theoretically perfect move by a random number generator or a player who completely miscalculated a line.
Now it looks like AE is claiming there's no such thing as checkers.
And if AE knows that game theory is not a bible then he should stop trying to make it one.
And again - it appears that AE doesn't know about the 2007 'weakly solving' of chess. Doesn't want to talk about it? Maybe because he didn't know about it.
He's definitely a credentialist.
That usually becomes apparent quite quickly.
You know as well as I do thats not an argument. I'd propose a theoretical answer to a theoretical question atleast before some bad practical examples.
The example doesn't have to be a monkey beating a super computer, which of course is theoretically possible but extremely unlikely. An example of this feature of the game design feature can be just a single theoretically perfect move by a random number generator or a player who completely miscalculated a line.
It is very much an argument since your premise is that chess is like a multiple choice exam, so any beginner can just pick A, B, C, or D all the way to a win over Carlsen, completely randomly choosing the best move the entire game but without understanding of it. Ergo, that would prove luck in chess. You are actually correct in this, but I am just pointing out that the odds are so astronomical that nobody has ever seen it occur. Nor will they in the future (cheaters notwithstanding).
You're correct that in a 'solved' game of chess there is no luck involved.
What do you think about the fact that chess by game design is a multiple choice question? What this means in practice is, that one doesn't need perfect information nor information at all to achieve an optimal outcome.
A player can have also completely wrong information (more likely in practice) but as the choices are laid out infront of you, theres always a chance you get the move right anyway.
I find it quite clear that such fundementals will always allow luck to be part of the game itself.
So when is a 1000 rated player going to randomly play perfectly and beat a GM? Not some unverifiable anecdote or a simul of 100 players where they have coached in advance or something, an actual head-to-head game, preferably rated. I mean, it's only a matter of time, right? Surely you must have run into an example in your lifetime...
You know as well as I do thats not an argument. I'd propose a theoretical answer to a theoretical question atleast before some bad practical examples.
The example doesn't have to be a monkey beating a super computer, which of course is theoretically possible but extremely unlikely. An example of this feature of the game design can be just a single theoretically perfect move by a random number generator or a player who completely miscalculated a line.
The more lopsided the difference in strength between the competitors - then the more unlikely the internal event that could cause a lucky or unlucky outcome. Regarding external events that are 'luck' or would be or could be - then it becomes less about unlikely and more about the intensity of the external event.
Somebody in the playing hall sneezing once is unlikely to disrupt a GM's win over a player rated 1000.
A much more intense event would be necessary.
Phone call: 'Your wife just went into labor but there are complications. She's at the hospital in difficulties. She's asking for you. That she needs you there immediately'
So does the GM say 'Okay' and hang up and continue with his game?
Now it looks like AE is claiming there's no such thing as checkers.
And if AE knows that game theory is not a bible then he should stop trying to make it one.
And again - it appears that AE doesn't know about the 2007 'weakly solving' of chess. Doesn't want to talk about it? Maybe because he didn't know about it.
He's definitely a credentialist.
That usually becomes apparent quite quickly.
You really should work on you reading comprehension. I did not say there's no such thing as checkers. I said checkers is not a game but a collection of games.
> And if AE knows that game theory is not a bible then he should stop trying to make it one.
I am not.
> And again - it appears that AE doesn't know about the 2007 'weakly solving' of chess.
(you mean checkers not chess, of course) Are you intentionally lying or just fail to understand what you are reading? I mentioned English checkers being weakly solved here.
Do you even have an argument or a point?
You're correct that in a 'solved' game of chess there is no luck involved.
What do you think about the fact that chess by game design is a multiple choice question? What this means in practice is, that one doesn't need perfect information nor information at all to achieve an optimal outcome.
A player can have also completely wrong information (more likely in practice) but as the choices are laid out infront of you, theres always a chance you get the move right anyway.
I find it quite clear that such fundementals will always allow luck to be part of the game itself.
So when is a 1000 rated player going to randomly play perfectly and beat a GM? Not some unverifiable anecdote or a simul of 100 players where they have coached in advance or something, an actual head-to-head game, preferably rated. I mean, it's only a matter of time, right? Surely you must have run into an example in your lifetime...
You know as well as I do thats not an argument. I'd propose a theoretical answer to a theoretical question atleast before some bad practical examples.
The example doesn't have to be a monkey beating a super computer, which of course is theoretically possible but extremely unlikely. An example of this feature of the game design feature can be just a single theoretically perfect move by a random number generator or a player who completely miscalculated a line.
It is very much an argument since your premise is that chess is like a multiple choice exam, so any beginner can just pick A, B, C, or D all the way to a win over Carlsen, completely randomly. I am just pointing out that the odds are so astronomical that nobody has ever seen it occur. Nor will they in the future (cheaters notwithstanding).
I agree that wont happen just like I wont win 100 lotterys during my lifetime. Both are theoretically possible.
In practice it can be two lottery numbers that I get right. The beginner without understanding or random move generator manage to make 2 theoretically perfect moves against Carlsen. Down to luck.
If you agree that the beginner playing a perfect game against Carlsen would be a lucky event (which of course it is), then you consequently agree that them getting a few perfect moves in against Carlsen is a lucky even as well. Only the odds differ. This is why I'm confused with your argument and the conversation.
I agree that wont happen just like I wont win 100 lotterys during my lifetime. Both are theoretically possible.
In practice it can be two lottery numbers that I get right. The beginner without understanding or random move generator manage to make 2 theoretically perfect moves against Carlsen. Down to luck.
If you agree that the beginner playing a perfect game against Carlsen would be a lucky event (which of course it is), then you consequently agree that them getting a few perfect moves in against Carlsen is a lucky even as well. Only the odds differ. This is why I'm confused with your argument and the conversation.
Playing two perfect moves against Carlsen would not mean anything. Heck, 1. e4 and 2. Nf3 might qualify and they are the most common opening duo in the game. Playing 40 moves in a game and assuming 35 "random" moves to choose from each move gives odds of about 10^-62 of playing a perfect game.
If you would like to call chess a game that is 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% luck, I would probably not argue the point 
...
If a beginner playing against Carlsen had an average of 30 move choices available each move and he had an average one in five chance of randomly picking a surviving move each move then what are his chances of having a 'surviving chance' after 40 moves?
One in 5^40 th power.
That's one in 10 billion quadrillion.
One's odds in the Powerball competition or getting hit by an asteroid would be quite a bit 'better' than that.
But that's leaving out 'other luck'. Like Carlsen having a stroke in the middle of the game.
Or a battery-powered pterodactyl getting in the playing area.
...or 10 trillion trillion. But the 1 in 5 thing probably needs some refining.
Hi llama !
Nice to see you!
Really.
Anyway I was trying to reason that a beginner would have more chance in the Powerball lottery than beating Carlsen.
But he'd have a better chance of beating Carlsen than of getting nuked by visitors travelling backwards in time from the year 3100.
Because that 'can't' happen. That's in the ethereal. The 'ether'.
I agree that wont happen just like I wont win 100 lotterys during my lifetime. Both are theoretically possible.
In practice it can be two lottery numbers that I get right. The beginner without understanding or random move generator manage to make 2 theoretically perfect moves against Carlsen. Down to luck.
If you agree that the beginner playing a perfect game against Carlsen would be a lucky event (which of course it is), then you consequently agree that them getting a few perfect moves in against Carlsen is a lucky even as well. Only the odds differ. This is why I'm confused with your argument and the conversation.
Playing two perfect moves against Carlsen would not mean anything. Heck, 1. e4 and 2. Nf3 might qualify and they are the most common opening duo in the game. Playing 40 moves in a game and assuming 35 "random" moves to choose from each move gives odds of about 10^-62 of playing a perfect game.
If you would like to call chess a game that is 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% luck, I would probably not argue the point ...
Where we agree is that the game design of chess allows very little luck, as you have in a way illustrated there.
On the other hand I don't believe you can take the theoretical instance of Carlsen and an elo 0 player, calculate the odds of a full perfect game occurring and draw the line exactly there - this is the amount of luck in chess. There's much more than that to the discussion but if we need to dive into the numbers I'm probably not willing to take that route for now atleast.
A perfect game of chess has never been established to have ever happened in any case - no matter how 'equal' the competitors no matter how strong they are nor how many consecutive draws they had.
The fact that that might happen someday - whether this century or trillions of years from now - will never wipe out 'luck' in the game unless there's only perfect machines playing with humanity extinct.
One could consider other intelligent life whatever number of galaxies and Big Bangs from this one - playing a similiar game. But it seems unlikely it would have the same rules.
Poker vs. chess are two different classes of games. Perfect play can still loose in poker due to hidden variables (literally), in chess perfect play is pure computation, albeit very hard in practice. Playerafar seems to be arguing the mechanisms here. It is impossible in principle to guarantee the outcome of a hand of poker playing "perfectly", whereas in principle you can in games like chess. In principle there is the correct answer to the question: how many birds are in flight throughout the globe right now, but in practice it cannot be determined. That doesn't change the fact that the correct answer exists each time it's asked. This doesn't have to be an impasse when one acknowledges the distinction between principle and practice.