Is there such thing as "luck" in chess?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

Seems that someone may be off his meds again.

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