From Wiki:
"Game theory is the study of mathematical models of strategic interactions.[1] It has applications in many fields of social science, and is used extensively in economics, logic, systems science and computer science.[2] Initially, game theory addressed two-person zero-sum games, in which a participant's gains or losses are exactly balanced by the losses and gains of the other participant. In the 1950s, it was extended to the study of non zero-sum games, and was eventually applied to a wide range of behavioral relations. It is now an umbrella term for the science of rational decision making in humans, animals, and computers. "
'Rational'.
There would seem to be a big overlap with psychology.
Controversy in game theory? Would seem to be obviously so.
Set theory? Again - yes.
Semantics of the word 'luck'.
Do such semantics matter? Yes because the word is used a lot.
But its only a word. Meant to serve us. Not us to serve the word.
Doesn't always work out that way.
Is there such thing as "luck" in chess?
Oh, grandiose self-congratulation, is it? How come my anecdotal evidence is so poor when it actually proves what I'm saying? In any case, you lost your argument without any need for the evidence I supplied. Moreover, most people here can supply instances where the outcome of games they played was influenced by luck.
As ever, Dio, when you are out reasoned and out argued, which isn't difficult, you always resort to making personal attacks. All you're doing is showing how pathetic your reasoning ability is. I already knew that but there are mpeople reading this who may not know it yet.
I'll let you know if you ever actually out-reason anybody. Hasn't happened yet with anyone past their teens.
Incidentally, Dio, have you ever won a tournament or even won a lesser prize? Have you ever played chess competitively? Do you even know what you're talking about or is this thread another of your vehicles for making personal attacks?
To answer your frustrated "and another thing" edit, this thread is not about competitive chess, so you are the one turning it into a vehicle here. Even if I have won eleventy-one tournaments I would not have brought it up in the crassly transparent way you did. That's one of the main differences between you and...well, most people around the world. They understand that accolades must come from without, or they are meaningless ego.
If we confined the meaning of the word "chess" to game theory, no element of chance is included. If "chess" means the games we all play, the human element (and our inherent unpredictability) enters the equation, letting luck play a part.
If we defined "chess" as a game without element of chance, the definition would be objectively imperfect. That is because chess is a game where it is possible to operate by pure chance and achieve optimal outcome. This isn't even a human factor per se (which would indeed introduce another dozen factors of luck), just a part of the game rules.
But game theory is not interested in that. The purpose of game theory is to determine optimal strategy to achieve the best possible outcome. That is of course to compute the best possible move. While the game allows you to arrive at the best possible move by pure calculation or pure chance, from game theory perpective the latter is not relevant, as it's not the optimal strategy.
The OP question is an interesting one and, having forgotten my previous posts in this thread, I think I will start from scratch again.
Chess is fundamentally a deterministic game. But firstly, if you are playing an imperfect player, there is uncertainty about whether they will blunder. So the action of them blundering is correctly viewed as "luck".
Even in the case the opponent plays predictably (say the opponent is a tablebase playing the alphabetically top move), a specific imperfect player has uncertainty about what will happen because they are unable to do a complete calculation, so uncertain if _they_ will blunder. Whether they do may be their responsibility, but it is still accurately described as luck.
The uncertainty being in the beliefs of a player, it is appropriate for them to have a probabilistic model of what will happen, either a precise one (eg based on the player Elos) or a rough one ("I have a 70% chance of winning from here").
Luck is no more and no less than the variation in outcomes within the uncertainty of a specific viewpoint.
So the answer is "yes".
The OP question is an interesting one and, having forgotten my previous posts in this thread, I think I will start from scratch again.
Chess is fundamentally a deterministic game. But firstly, if you are playing an imperfect player, there is uncertainty about whether they will blunder. So the action of them blundering is correctly viewed as "luck".
Even in the case the opponent plays predictably (say the opponent is a tablebase playing the alphabetically top move), a specific imperfect player has uncertainty about what will happen because they are unable to do a complete calculation, so uncertain if _they_ will blunder. Whether they do may be their responsibility, but it is still accurately described as luck.
The uncertainty being in the beliefs of a player, it is appropriate for them to have a probabilistic model of what will happen, either a precise one (eg based on the player Elos) or a rough one ("I have a 70% chance of winning from here").
Luck is no more and no less than the variation in outcomes within the uncertainty of a specific viewpoint.
So the answer is "yes".
Thanks. You're agreeing with me if you read back through the thread. Luck is subjective, and does not objectively exist in the logical construct of a game of chess the way many on this thread like to imagine. But then, many of those people also believe in the paranormal/supernatural, so...
Uncertainty, minus a personal perspective, is not "luck". Luck is not a force, nor does it enjoy any existence outside of the human mind.
In a game design context, luck is even more restrictive, and the term applies to constructs that actually add unknown outcomes purposefully. Chess is the exact opposite of such games, and tries to remove any vestiges of the random/unknown.
Chess is a game of perfect information. If human beings cannot process the perfect information in front of them, that causes uncertainty...via a lack of skill. If a chess player could play perfectly, they could never lose...because there is no actual luck in the game to change the outcome.
In my opinion, this discussion is concerned with luck in chess. I believe that is discernable from the title and all chess is competitive to some degree since it's a kind of warfare between the controllers of two stylised armies. So all chess is competitive but tournament chess is highly competitive. Much more so than league or county chess, when we play for a team and it's the team effort that really counts. In tournament chess, each individual is either there to compete in order to bring himself up to a standard where he can compete effectively or is attempting to emerge as top dog out of a field of maybe 60 or 80 entrants, each of whom is a "competitive person", playing in a competitive spirit.
Now, if we're just messing around at chess and practising, then the idea of "luck in chess" isn't even important, since we aren't going all out to try to win our games. Consequently, the idea of "luck in chess" really only applies to the kind of highly competitive games in tournament chess and the like.
In case you don't know it, I've just shown your claim that we're not talking about "competitive chess" to be incorrect on more than one level. You won't understand you just lost another argument and that's the trouble. I bet you can invent half a dozen reasons why you haven't just lost yet another argument. None of them will be worth a light.
You couldn't show a dog the way to a fire hydrant. Unilateral declarations of your victories are par for the course.
There is no such thing as luck. The fine-tuning of the universe is evidence of design. There is empirical evidence for the God of the Bible. Because God is all-knowing, he knows everything that will happen before it happens. Therefore, there is no "luck"; everything that happens is a part of God's ultimate plan.
Actually, you aren't even aware of the meaning of the Freudian concept of ego. Anyway, your self-absorbed and self-centred egotism is inappropriate at any time but expecially in the Festive Season. Give it a rest.
I won my first tournament at 7. I played first board for my team in high school. I represented the US Air Force in Athens. But no, I don't waste my life on chess tournaments. There are far more important things to achieve in life. Competitive chess (or sports, etc.) are played either for fun (i.e. unstructured with my prizes/trophies, or very occasionally for the experience of it, like going to concerts), or...for the insecure to convince themselves they have worth. There are also some obsessive types that play endlessly for pure love of the game, but that is very narrow existence.
You should understand this underlying concept, because it drives your entire history here on the forums. Sorting marbles and pawning old books doesn't jive with your self-image, so you ergo must have something to crow about in your life. You have chosen "well-playing board game amateur almost good enough to mean something" to hang your hat on...congrats. I have made other choices. I am happy with "good enough to beat most people I meet without adding any drudgery to my leisure time".
There is no such thing as luck. The fine-tuning of the universe is evidence of design. There is empirical evidence for the God of the Bible. Because God is all-knowing, he knows everything that will happen before it happens. Therefore, there is no "luck"; everything that happens is a part of God's ultimate plan.
Peddle your prophecies elsewhere.
There is such thing. If you play a losing move, you would be lucky to win the game.
There is such thing. If you play a losing move, you would be lucky to win the game.
Of course. Yes.
But there are different definitions of luck though.
One of them could involve variables one doesn't have direct control over.
Such as the quality of the opponent's play.
-----------------------------
Another idea is to try to think of situations outside of chess where luck isn't involved and could not be.
Luck refers to outcomes but not necessarily final outcomes.
If an outcome was deliberately and totally determined then could there ever be 'luck' involved?
I would say yes. Its hard to remove it from anything.
For example a computer adds two numbers together and gets the right answer.
Many might say: 'No luck there. Its totally determined.'
But - not really.
Here's why - the computer depended on not being interfered with.
So however unlikely it was that it could have been interfered with there's still an element of fortune in that it was not.
---------------------------------
For example there was no nuclear detonation vaporizing the computer before it did the job.
So it was 'lucky' that didn't happen.
Many might argue 'No! That's an External Factor!'
An Hbomb would be coming from External and becoming very Infernal and Internal ...
but some would claim that the computer adding correctly had no element of chance as far as that particular operation was concerned.
----------------------------
I think luck can always be found in anything though.
For example the existence of computers at all in this time requires that various processes in history followed various allowing timelines otherwise computers wouldn't exist now.
Is there anything at all that is 'purely by chance' and anything at all that is 'purely determined'?
I would say the former outweighs and 'wins'.
Because if and when there's no 'sentience' around determining or trying to determine outcomes then how could outcomes be determined?
The debates between determinism and fatalism - well there's probably some famous ones.
Some could argue that sentience still isn't required for a determined outcome because the precise arrangement of all factors in the immediate past 'determines' the outcome at the next fundamental unit of time.
So some could argue that 'everything is determined' - but there's still the reality that the nature of the procession of determinations mostly cannot be known.
Which many don't react well to.
Or react to with lack of objectivity.
Oh, grandiose self-congratulation, is it? How come my anecdotal evidence is so poor when it actually proves what I'm saying? In any case, you lost your argument without any need for the evidence I supplied. Moreover, most people here can supply instances where the outcome of games they played was influenced by luck.
As ever, Dio, when you are out reasoned and out argued, which isn't difficult, you always resort to making personal attacks. All you're doing is showing how pathetic your reasoning ability is. I already knew that but there are mpeople reading this who may not know it yet.
I'll let you know if you ever actually out-reason anybody. Hasn't happened yet with anyone past their teens.
Very efficient remark by Dio there.
Yes - the o-person would need Dio to inform him as 'O' simply continues to rationalize that he's right about something because he says so. Such a tendency results in The Guy being constantly wrong. Its like a deaf person who can't hear himself speak. His speech becomes slurred. So - since The Guy can't hear his own errors his rationalizations become more and more slurred and he becomes more and more error-prone. Why can't he realize his own mistakes? Because he denies they exist. The 'tailpipe guy' has the same problem.
Thanks. You're agreeing with me if you read back through the thread. Luck is subjective, and does not objectively exist in the logical construct of a game of chess the way many on this thread like to imagine. But then, many of those people also believe in the paranormal/supernatural, so...
Uncertainty, minus a personal perspective, is not "luck". Luck is not a force, nor does it enjoy any existence outside of the human mind.
"Luck is subjective, and does not objectively exist in the logical construct of a game of chess the way many on this thread like to imagine."
This is demonstrated to be false. Let me attempt a logical proof:
A player has to choose from a limited set of options presented to him. The options represent a chess move. We assign three chess players to make a move: (1) a perfect computer calculating the optimal move deterministically, (2) an imperfect human who miscalculates, and (3) a random move generator. It is possible for all three players to arrive at the same move, the theoretically optimal one. This shows that, in some cases, skill differences may not determine the outcome, and probabilistic factors can play a role. This scenario demonstrates that luck can influence individual moves and outcomes, because the nature of a choice from multiple presented options always introduces luck as a factor.
Now if you can logically take this example apart and show why this does not demonstrate objective luck, you have a reasonable argument. What is it called when a miscalculating human or a random move generator arrive at the perfect solution, in case you don't call it luck?
"Luck is subjective, and does not objectively exist in the logical construct of a game of chess the way many on this thread like to imagine."
This is demonstrated to be false. Let me attempt a logical proof:
A player has to choose from a limited set of options presented to him. The options represent a chess move. We assign three chess players to make a move: (1) a perfect computer calculating the optimal move deterministically, (2) an imperfect human who miscalculates, and (3) a random move generator. It is possible for all three players to arrive at the same move, the theoretically optimal one. This shows that, in some cases, skill differences may not determine the outcome, and probabilistic factors can play a role. This scenario demonstrates that luck can influence individual moves and outcomes, because the nature of a choice from multiple presented choices always introduces luck as a factor.
Now if you can logically take this example apart and show why this does not demonstrate objective luck, you have a reasonable argument. What is it called when a miscalculating human or a random move generator arrive at the perfect solution, in case you don't call it luck?
It's not called anything, because it has never happened. Human beings don't arrive at perfect solutions that span entire games. They never will. Neither will a random move generator. They can choose between candidate moves, and one may be better than the next, but the human choices are not random, they are skill-based. A random move generator using current technology at speed will not play a perfect game of chess before the heat death of the universe, so...
This is why you had to capitulate last time, saying that a random move generator could play a perfect game of chess, but stipulating that it would be like winning 100 lotteries in a single lifetime. Since that is not a real or practical scenario, your attempt falls apart. In your mind, the 10 to the Nth power to one chance still means there's a chance, and so luck exists, but that same argument was made by Jim Carrey in Dumb and Dumber.
When Carlsen or any super-GM loses to a random move generator, or even a 1200 rated player, you be sure and let me know. Then I will entertain your argument...as soon as I deal with the all the flying pigs, I mean.
@DiogenesDue
You should note that the explanation stated the three different players played "a perfect move", not a perfect game. This is because logically if you would consider a perfect game by a random move generator an event of luck - the game consists of single moves that are determined by a mechanism of randomness, which also must be considered individual events of luck. A single random move is an outcome in itself. After that Magnus Carlsen could take over and win (or lose) the game but the game would still have been influenced by an event of luck.
If you consent to this, we could move onto reviewing differences between an optimal outcome by a random generator and a miscalculating human, and why both should be viewed as events of luck. There is progress to be made here.
@DiogenesDue
You should note that the explanation stated the three different players played "a perfect move", not a perfect game. This is because logically if you would consider a perfect game by a random move generator an event of luck - the game consists of single moves that are determined by a mechanism of randomness, which also must be considered individual events of luck. A single random move is an outcome in itself. After that Magnus Carlsen could take over and win (or lose) the game but the game would still have been influenced by an event of luck.
If you consent to this, we could move onto reviewing differences between an optimal outcome by a random generator and a miscalculating human, and why both should be viewed as events of luck. There is progress to be made here.
...I already told you, when a 2700 GM (or a 2700+ engine) loses to a 1500, I will seriously consider your premise worth discussing. If there's as much luck in chess as you imagine, then you have nothing to worry about, we'll be diving into it in no time.
Unfortunately, the principles you are drawing on seem to be false. One shouldn't just trust anything one happens to agree with. Yes, I agree that it's reasonable to argue for either side. You use the word "ultimately". Ultimately, any attempt at argument should take into account all aspects of luck, from "a fly lands on a player's nose" type of argument to "I picked up a book at random that morning, opened it at random and proceeded to read about a line in the Blumenfeld Gambit, where black apparently imposes a difficult question upon white. Completely by chance, since I'd only ever faced the Blumenfeld about once before, the person playing black against me that afternoon proceeded to play right through that sacrificial line in the Blumenfeld".
Indeed, exactly that happened to me in a tournament. Not only did I remember the entire line, play it out and win, I was pretty confident that I wouldn't have won had I not read about that line that day. It put me among the prizes again ... part of a run where I won money prizes in ELEVEN consecutive tournaments which I played in.
Of course, you don't like anecdotal. You've mentioned it many times. Trouble is, "anecdotal" often means "evidence from personal experience". If a chemist performs 100 experiments to confirm the results of a complicated series of reactions she is investigating and they all demonstrate the same conclusion, that conclusion is still based on "anecdotal" experience, at least until it's written up and endorsed by peer review. Perhaps even after that, in fact. I've worked as a chemist in a pharma factory btw, before going into the engineering industry.
Take the principle, which you quote, which deals with "chess has no elements of chance: every position arises via deliberate moves etc etc".
That isn't the point. It should state that there are no deliberately introduced chance elements in the rules of chess (except for drawing colours at the beginning, of course). There are so many paths via which chance actually DOES creep into the game and they have been discussed so comprehensively here and in other threads on this subject that ignoring them or pretending they are immaterial is disingenuous at best. Maybe we need MORE than 15 seconds of what you are pleased to call "scrutiny", if we are actually to apply our minds to this question in any meaningful way"?
This was just a bunch of twaddle allowing you to mention your eleven tournaments in a row. I would say you're welcome, but you've proven in the past that your ability to insert grandiose self-congratulations into almost anything is not luck, it is preparation. Much like your poor anecdotal evidence.