Is there such thing as "luck" in chess?

Sort:
Abtectous
I’m so good at chess
playerafar

Chess is a game of perfect information. Poker is not.
Stands.

Abtectous
uhhh. Chess is chess. Technically speaking, there is no luck in the game of chess. The game itself has no luck involved however you can get lucky because while the game doesn’t have any random chance, reality does and chess is played by two people in reality
playerafar

I'll just continue to post around 'the Guy' - he has a 'use' - so I don't end up with too many consecutive posts. (while mostly skipping reading his posts)
----------------------------
Regarding chess study - AI can probably be applied to that too.
But by those who understand about methods of using AI -
not by those who make it their business to trash AI.
Chess even exists in some college curricula.
You can get 'credits' towards a degree from 'chess'.
I mean that literally. It happens. Is it common? I don't know.
But if I wanted to find out - I'd ask AI before I ask google search.
AI is probably 'blending in' behind the scenes though.
The point is that AI can understand the language nuances of questions much better than the old google search.
That's one of the big AI breakthroughs.

playerafar

('the guy' post just now. Skipped reading it.)
For those who question 'hey we don't like those endless back and forths!')
be informed - I'm essentially not responding to him.
I don't talk to him.
If you don't like his desire for endless one-on-one - speak to him about it not I.

Tempetown
Optimissed wrote:

Incidentally, Combinatorial Game Theory isn't applicable to chess, since chess isn't a game with perfect information, from the point of view of applying perfect information to a perfect solving of chess, which is at least for the present, not fully solveable.

Incorrect again. Chess is fully solvable, it just hasnt been done yet. It is fully solvable because the total number of possible positions in chess is finite. It hasnt been solved yet because that number is incredibly large, and this is what makes chess such a great game.

Tempetown
Optimissed wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
playerafar wrote:

Chess is a game of perfect information. Poker is not.
Stands.

No you don't understand what perfect information is. It's no use your just claiming something but being completely unable to make an argument to support your claim.

Let me explain.

If you had a message telling you where some treasure was buried but it was written in a code which you couldn't break, would you know where the treasure is?

I'll now answer. From the point of view of obtaining a clear solution of chess, the initial position of chess does not lead us to that because, quite simply, chess HASN'T been solved. Therefore, from the point of view of solving chess, chess is not a game of perfect information.

Therefore, combinatorial game theory is useless and algorithmic game theory has to be employed. It doesn't take too much intellect to understand that. Or it shouldn't. Got it yet? No?

Wrong. Chess IS a game of perfect information. Perfect information exists. We simply dont have it--yet.

Tempetown
Optimissed wrote:
Tempetown wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
playerafar wrote:

Chess is a game of perfect information. Poker is not.
Stands.

No you don't understand what perfect information is. It's no use your just claiming something but being completely unable to make an argument to support your claim.

Let me explain.

If you had a message telling you where some treasure was buried but it was written in a code which you couldn't break, would you know where the treasure is?

I'll now answer. From the point of view of obtaining a clear solution of chess, the initial position of chess does not lead us to that because, quite simply, chess HASN'T been solved. Therefore, from the point of view of solving chess, chess is not a game of perfect information.

Therefore, combinatorial game theory is useless and algorithmic game theory has to be employed. It doesn't take too much intellect to understand that. Or it shouldn't. Got it yet? No?

Wrong. Chess IS a game of perfect information. Perfect information exists. We simply dont have it--yet.

So it doesn't exist with respect to chess, because we don't have it yet.
So it isn't a game of perfect information.

You know, when you corrected a phrase I used, a few posts ago, I wasn't sure whether you were intelligent and playing around or erm ... not. Anyway, we seem to have cleared that mystery up. As a genreal rule, player CAN be right but there's an easy way to tell if he's wrong in anything. There are certain people here, more intelligent and knowledgeable than he is, who will disagree with him. It pays to keep your eyes open.

OMG: are you serious? Try actually thinking before you post . Your 'words:knowledge ratio is out of control.

Tempetown
Optimissed wrote:

I mean, to put my last comment differently, I'm assuming that it requires intelligence to make accurate comments here, in these off-topic threads concerned with theoretical ideas. I'm assuming that if you can work out an answer and you're sure you're correct, then there';s nothing wrong with stating it.

Of course, I might be making an jujustifiable assumption. If you think, like playerafar obviously thinks, that it doesn't require any kind of intelligence or ability to make good comments here, then please tell me.

Resorting to deflection again doesnt enhance your argument, sweetpea.

Tempetown
Optimissed wrote:
Tempetown wrote:
Optimissed wrote:

I mean, to put my last comment differently, I'm assuming that it requires intelligence to make accurate comments here, in these off-topic threads concerned with theoretical ideas. I'm assuming that if you can work out an answer and you're sure you're correct, then there';s nothing wrong with stating it.

Of course, I might be making an jujustifiable assumption. If you think, like playerafar obviously thinks, that it doesn't require any kind of intelligence or ability to make good comments here, then please tell me.

Resorting to deflection again doesnt enhance your argument, sweetpea.

You actually think you're something, don't you. Yet I haven't seen a rational argument from you. All you were saying is that you don't understand what I'm talking about because you aren't capable of it. If you think you're capable of it then show it. Player can't show it because he doesn't have the ability to do so. Do you?

OK. Where have I been irrational? Point it out. Be specific, Cutie Pie!

Ziryab

Seems that someone may be off his meds again.

playerafar
Tempetown wrote:
Optimissed wrote:

Incidentally, Combinatorial Game Theory isn't applicable to chess, since chess isn't a game with perfect information, from the point of view of applying perfect information to a perfect solving of chess, which is at least for the present, not fully solveable.

Incorrect again. Chess is fully solvable, it just hasnt been done yet. It is fully solvable because the total number of possible positions in chess is finite. It hasnt been solved yet because that number is incredibly large, and this is what makes chess such a great game.

Tempetown is correct of course.
And the idea that chess is a draw with perfect play is not an 'argument'.
Its a notion. An invalid notion because its not proven.
Its not proven because chess is not solved.
And that doesn't mean it will be proven when chess is solved either.
Its called 'the unknown' ... and people react differently to that.
'Somebody' (not named) keeps forgetting chess isn't solved while having admitted it already. Including in this forum.

playerafar

And I have already made the argument that chess is a game of perfect information.
But 'somebody' wants to nitpick the word 'perfect'.
The Guy has no authority here - he cannot compel anybody to do anything.
His goal is to bait whoever enough if he can and then report them.
Ironically its he who then gets reported and muted.
happy

Tempetown
Optimissed wrote:

Make a rational argument as to why chess is a game of perfect infomation. Try it. I know that player is incapable of it and yet he states it as a fact.

Your attempted rational argument isn't going to be correct but that's taken for granted and merely attempting it shows you are worthy of at least a little respect. Could you make a logically based argument to save your life?

I've already made multiple rational arguments. The onus is not on me to make yet another. The onus is on you to demonstrate where I have been irrational in any of my previous posts because it is you who is accusing me of irrationality. I'm guessing you didnt have much success on the jr. high debate team, cupcake.

Tempetown
Optimissed wrote:

Make a rational argument as to why chess is a game of perfect infomation. Try it. I know that player is incapable of it and yet he states it as a fact.

Your attempted rational argument isn't going to be correct but that's taken for granted and merely attempting it shows you are worthy of at least a little respect. Could you make a logically based argument to save your life?

I already have .

Tempetown
Optimissed wrote:

No, you made a baseless claim. Just as without value as yours and player's claim that you have made rational arguments in support of your pronouncements. You have never made a proper argument on anything here.

Great! Now we are getting somewhere. Point out my 'baseless' claim, Honeybun!

playerafar

The 'guy' will now want to 'make rules' as to what is 'rational and proper'.
Slight problem: he doesn't know but mistakenly thinks that's 'up to him'.
But I and others don't have time to babysit him and have better things to do -
whether its the forum topic or related topics or whatever - including in forums where he's blocked.

Tempetown
Optimissed wrote:

No, you made a baseless claim. Just as without value as yours and player's claim that you have made rational arguments in support of your pronouncements. You have never made a proper argument on anything here.

If you have, it must surely stand out in your memory, so show it. If you've made many, you'll have no trouble finding one.

Fact is, you have never made what amounts to a proper argument.

Once again, the onus is on YOU to find some irrationality on my part. YOU are the only one accusing me of it! This isnt so hard to understand, is it?

OctopusOnSteroids
Ziryab wrote:

Seems that someone may be off his meds again.

A large portion of the population here is atleast on the wrong medication.

playerafar
OctopusOnSteroids wrote:
Ziryab wrote:

Seems that someone may be off his meds again.

A large portion of the population here is atleast on the wrong medication.

On the wrong Steroids. And its a small portion.