@playerafar Yes, the rules could be called "the structure of chess" maybe. One important purpose of defining the structure is to completely exclude elements of chance that perhaps could otherwise be introduced via interpretations of rules. The rules, of course, specify a human input of choice, regarding the implementation of the rules of the game, which produces the game itself. We do not always make choices according to 100% rationally deductive processes and randomness does enter into all human choice which is not specifically following a set of rules as to how the CHOICE ITSELF should proceed or be executed.
If the above is correct, it means that at the very least, no-one can prove that randomness (and therefore luck) does NOT enter into the game of chess. Therefore, the assumption that luck does exist in games of chess should be much more difficult to refute than some people here wish to make it seem. There can be no simple argument which shows that luck does not exist in chess.
I also agree that computers and therefore engines are or can be subject to chance. I believe that I've known that to be true ever since I was experimenting with programming techniques in the 1980s. Obviously, back then, programming languages were less sophisticated than they are now but they were compilable and could work quite fast. I was interested partly in idiosyncracies of operation of particular languages being run on particular hardware, which made programming shortcuts available (for higher computing speed) which might not have been understood on reading the code, even by anyone familiar with the language in question. I know this is a bit off topic but it's one type of instance of apparently random variability when you apply specific software to hardware which might contain small variations in values of components etc.
Well again we agree.
It doesn't mean either of us has changed.
It means things are following a different course. For now.
I think you are seeing that the critical issues of the forum 'subject-question'
are at the center of the matter -
and that the more lopsided (and dogmatic) issues are around the periphery.
Or more likely - you already knew this.
Until I spotted this forum - I never much considered the matter.
Partly because its quite obvious.
There are substantial skill factors in competitive sports and games -
but the mistake that can be made is illogic in reaction to that - resulting in a misguided view regarding luck.
------------------
At the center - there's not much to consider.
A mathematical system of rules.
But there's also the playing out of those rules.
And the fact that chess isn't solved.
---------------------------------------
but in the periphery - other things.
You reach out an make a pawn move because you don't know just what to do. Many moves later that particular pawn proves invaluble. It could not have been foreseen. All the time we are taking advantage of luck from positions we could never have forseen.
Who can tell what the position will be in ten moves time. Answer nobody.
Chess is just like life you attempt to steer things for the best but the future is unknown. If the future was known then there would be no point in having any tournaments.
The better players merely guide the thing as best they can and avoid unbalance.
well put! i couldn’t agree more!
In life you don't have every variable right in front of you. Precisely why there is no luck in chess.
We make every move ourselves and every benefit we are able to get is a result of skill.
Couldn't you equally say, "you don't have every variable in front of you, therefore there is luck in chess"? I don't see you making an actual argument.
I left a little bit unwritten for the readers intelligence to connect the dots and see what I'm saying. Tell me if you need a hint.
I need a hint.
In life you don't have all the variables in front of you and this means unpredictable things will happen and luck exists.
In chess you do have all the variables right there for you to study. Nothing happens randomly but exactly according to the script in front of you. This is the difference between life and chess and the reason why luck exists in life but not in the game of chess.
Nice, that's deep and true, unlike the guys who say supposed "chance" is involved in chess