I dont know. Is that true?
Is there such thing as "luck" in chess?
Sort:
Jan 12, 2025
0
#3823
"and yes as of now it's not been done for 8 pieces and it's also said there might not be that many atoms in the observable universe as the possible positions"
Did my previous comment predict the future?
Jan 12, 2025
0
#3824
SuperStar104 wrote:
In chess if you get "Lucky" It's because your opponent didn't play very well and there is always a reason. Maybe they didn't play as well because their environment was noisy, and they couldn't focus. Maybe their environment was noisy because they were playing while flying in a plane and a baby was crying. Maybe the baby was crying because he lost his pacifier. You get what I mean...
There's an infinite set of things that could affect an opponent's play.
But another misconception is that since we have all the pieces in front of us and the so-called 'perfect information' there's 'no luck'.
Which is ridiculous.
A long time ago Elroch gave a good example of a relevant situation.
Say we have a very long number in front of us.
Lets say twenty digits.
We therefore perfectly know what the number is.
But that doesn't mean we know all its factors.
---------------------------
How do many mistakes of illogic arise?
Its often because of whoever concentrating on what something means - or what they want it to mean - instead of what it Doesn't Mean.
Its so often the Doesn't Mean that is key.
Mathematicians are careful about what something doesn't mean. If they're good.
And scientists.
So are lawyers.
And engineers. They can't afford mistakes.
SuperStar104 wrote:In chess if you get "Lucky" It's because your opponent didn't play very well and there is always a reason. Maybe they didn't play as well because their environment was noisy, and they couldn't focus. Maybe their environment was noisy because they were playing while flying in a plane and a baby was crying. Maybe the baby was crying because he lost his pacifier. You get what I mean...
There's an infinite set of things that could affect an opponent's play.
But another misconception is that since we have all the pieces in front of us and the so-called 'perfect information' there's 'no luck'.
Which is ridiculous.
A long time ago Elroch gave a good example of a relevant situation.
Say we have a very long number in front of us.
Lets say twenty digits.
We therefore perfectly know what the number is.
But that doesn't mean we know all its factors.
---------------------------
How do many mistakes of illogic arise?
Its often because of whoever concentrating on what something means - or what they want it to mean - instead of what it Doesn't Mean.
Its so often the Doesn't Mean that is key.
Mathematicians are careful about what something doesn't mean. If they're good.
And scientists.
So are lawyers.
And engineers. They can't afford mistakes.
it means possibly the number of positions won't be more than the number of atoms but the various move orders/ line variations can be claimed to be greater than that number
Jan 12, 2025
0
#3829
If someone doesn't understand, you don't yap the same thing again, you put it in a way that they understand.
Jan 12, 2025
0
#3830
AkduKutta wrote:
playerafar wrote:
AkduKutta wrote:
rules-wise, there’s almost no dispute in chess most of the time because everything possible is mostly covered. in sports, however, rules and luck are intertwined. there are other aspects as well, such as gravity, maybe the ball unexpectedly stays low, bounces too much, or spins too much... in chess, if the opponent spots something that one player misses, it shouldn’t really be called luck cuz even if a player misses an idea but 'luckily' finds a saving route later, and the opponent misses that idea until after committing to a move, it only makes the game more human. humans won’t calculate the all lines like a machine
Machines won't calculate all lines either.
Why not?
Because they can't.
As it stands now - 7 pieces on the board - or less - has been 'tablebased'.
8 pieces on board has been worked on for years but could take more years.
With an addition of each piece and pawn the complexity of positions increases.
------------------------
The number of possible chess positions is approximately 5 x 10^44
In other words - 50 million trillion trillion trillion possible positions.
A daunting number.
And the tablebase projects struggle so much - that they can't even consider castling possibilities.
So its not even complete for 7 pieces on board.
you mean machine don't consider all moves? all stockfish levels calculate to different depths but they definitely must consider all moves possible
and yes as of now it's not been done for 8 pieces and it's also saidthat there might not be that many atoms in the observable universe as the number of possible positions
I think you've got it.
Machines don't consider all moves. With nine pieces or more on the board.
Exceptions? Sure. Want an example? Mate in One! That's 'all moves'.
With 7 pieces? Its flawed. It was too difficult for the tablebase projects to consider castling.
Now there's a very low percentage of 7 piece positions where castling would even be possible let alone critical - but the point is its flawed.
And as they try to build up tablebases towards 8 and 9 and 10 pieces and so on - the flaw is going to get worse and worse.
(will someone spot that I left out 8 pieces?)
Anyway - the bottom line. Literally. Machines don't look at all lines because they can't.
Jan 12, 2025
0
#3831
"Now there's a very low percentage of 7 piece positions where castling would even be possible let alone critical - but the point is its flawed."
Castles Mate is an exception
Boys, boys. Let's follow good forum etiquette. Try and get everything you want to say in one post instead of a series of multiple posts. Let's try and avoid comments that don't contribute in any way. It's difficult to follow the discussion if there is too much noise. One off is not bad but let's be gentlemen here, as chess players should be.
Jan 12, 2025
0
#3834
OctopusOnSteroids wrote:
Boys, boys. Let's follow good forum etiquette. Try and get everything you want to say in one post instead of a series of multiple posts. Let's try and avoid comments that don't contribute in any way. It's difficult to follow the discussion if there is too much noise. One off is not bad but let's be gentlemen here, as chess players should be.
Theres forum etiquette?
Jan 12, 2025
0
#3836
@AkduKutta
You're referring to 'depth' as opposed to 'all moves' apparently.
Regarding Stockfish - you might be amazed about how Stockfish gets some particular positions wrong.
Having said that though - Stockfish can be a valuable chess learning tool.
Like when you go over a tactics puzzle and you ask 'what was wrong with this move instead of the solution move?' It will often make it plain because when you play the move on its analysis board it'll show an evalutaion number and lines and often make it obvious. Fast.
But the tactics puzzles themselves are more valuable. They get to 'the main business'.
no, not all moves, suppose like it's a queen endgame and it's a mate in 8, then it'll show mate in 8 but it will not have calculated till 8 moves for every possible moves but it will definitely have a look or whatever the right term is here.. it can't ignore a move because of intuition or feel?
Jan 12, 2025
0
#3839
Optimissed wrote:
ChessAGC_YT wrote:
*glasses of gavi de Gavi
Thankyou. g isn't even next to c.
lol
rules-wise, there’s almost no dispute in chess most of the time because everything possible is mostly covered. in sports, however, rules and luck are intertwined. there are other aspects as well, such as gravity, maybe the ball unexpectedly stays low, bounces too much, or spins too much... in chess, if the opponent spots something that one player misses, it shouldn’t really be called luck cuz even if a player misses an idea but 'luckily' finds a saving route later, and the opponent misses that idea until after committing to a move, it only makes the game more human. humans won’t calculate the all lines like a machine
Machines won't calculate all lines either.
Why not?
Because they can't.
As it stands now - 7 pieces on the board - or less - has been 'tablebased'.
8 pieces on board has been worked on for years but could take more years.
With an addition of each piece and pawn the complexity of positions increases.
------------------------
The number of possible chess positions is approximately 5 x 10^44
In other words - 50 million trillion trillion trillion possible positions.
A daunting number.
And the tablebase projects struggle so much - that they can't even consider castling possibilities.
So its not even complete for 7 pieces on board.
you mean machine don't consider all moves? all stockfish levels calculate to different depths but they definitely must consider all moves possible
and yes as of now it's not been done for 8 pieces and it's also saidthat there might not be that many atoms in the observable universe as the number of possible moves