I agree chess is a game of perfect information too.
But - its also not solved. Which has various implications.
whether it is 'solved' or not is immaterial. no human being will ever carry perfect information in their head.
I think you don't understand the concept of luck. Luck implies some random element in the game beyond the control of the players. Games with dice, or cards, or such devices introduce luck into a game. There are no such random elements in chess. It is your brain against your opponent's brain. You have equal armies, with the only difference being that the player with the white pieces moves first. However, in a match, the players change colors each game, so that difference is negated. Pairings in tournaments are decided by the algorithm of the pairings program that tournament directors use.
I believe it is this lack of "luck" elements which makes chess so great, but also so hard. When you lose, baring cheating, it is because your opponent played better than you. This can be hard on the ego to be sure. This is both the joy and pain of chess. I think this lack of luck makes chess the world's greatest game.
well said!
luck not i
Nope
If you felt useless, remember there are 5700 commenters debating a decade old question
5700 comments. The number of commenters is vastly lower. Yesterday, two or three commenters managed more than 100 comments, none of which addressed the question.
I'm contemplating whether it is worthwhile to engage in this argument again, after the matter has been discussed with some rigour already. There has been some decent discussion, but in the end arguments that require some effort are often left ignored by opposition and after a dozen pages the same participants return to start the debate from scratch with the same arguments that have been addressed before. I'll attempt a simplified answer.
First of all luck as an element does play a role in chess.
The rules of chess assign the player a task of making a choice from a set of observable options. Those are the fundamentals of chess game design. To play the game, or to make a choice no ability is actually required. Both extremes are allowed - Player is allowed to solve chess with rigour to aid his choice, representing maximum ability, or he could generate the move randomly, representing no ability.
What we can take away from the extremes is that both minimum skill and maximum skill can result in the same outcome. A chess move would be a representative of that outcome.
Why is that? Because a design that is fundamentally a multiple choice question cannot exclude luck. Perfect information, no information or wrong information can all yield the same result.
The practical implications of this can be discussed but role of luck in chess is undeniable.
I prematurely accused optimiissed or whatever his name is of being the perfect embodiment of the dunning-kruger effect. but than i met you.
You've said this I think 3 or 4 times to different people at this point.
The inability to followup a claim with deductive reasoning leading to a conclusion is rarely a sign of a great intellect.
I believe it was Nietzsche who thought all statements had to be a form of projection on some level. In your case the projection is very strong and obvious to everyone besides you.
You are wrong. I said it a total of twice--to you and to Optimissed--just like I said. The need to exaggerate to prove one's point is rarely a sign of great inellect. Just for funsies, give me an example of what you think is luck in chess. just one. but not that black/white thing. we have already covered this.
My iq is completely out of sight to someone like you. It would take someone far more intelligent to understand the evidence for that and you haven't a clue what I'm talking about, ALL the time!! So you wouldn't get ibrust, who makes it sound more complex than it probably needs to be. @Elroch is cleverer than you by a very long way and he doesn't get it but you're roughly Dio's level, which means you can't understand what we're saying. In fact, he's more or less exactly like you, so you should get to know each other. Maybe you already have.
So stop trying to lord it over people here whom you can't hope to compare or compete with. The only reason you think ppl are dumb is because you don't even BEGIN to understand what they're saying. ibrust, imo, is quite intelligent. Put it this way, if I was stuck on a desert island with one of you, if it was you, you'd have to learn VERY quickly to do what I say, if you wanted to survive. I can tell that ibrust would be fine. He would use his intelligence and I wouldn't need to take care of him. It's how people are in real life that counts and not how they shoot their mouths off, making complete fools of themselves on the social media, which is something that you certainly do. Most exprerienced people can tell what you are at a glance.
Also, stop talking about Nietzsche and stop talking about projection. I can tell that you don't know what you're talking about, so leave it out.
I never once mentioned Nietzsche or projection, you dumbass. For someone who claims such brilliance, you suck at reading comprehension!
I prematurely accused optimiissed or whatever his name is of being the perfect embodiment of the dunning-kruger effect. but than i met you.
You've said this I think 3 or 4 times to different people at this point.
The inability to followup a claim with deductive reasoning leading to a conclusion is rarely a sign of a great intellect.
I believe it was Nietzsche who thought all statements had to be a form of projection on some level. In your case the projection is very strong and obvious to everyone besides you.
You are wrong. I said it a total of twice--to you and to Optimissed--just like I said. The need to exaggerate to prove one's point is rarely a sign of great inellect. Just for funsies, give me an example of what you think is luck in chess. just one. but not that black/white thing. we have already covered this.
My iq is completely out of sight to someone like you. It would take someone far more intelligent to understand the evidence for that and you haven't a clue what I'm talking about, ALL the time!! So you wouldn't get ibrust, who makes it sound more complex than it probably needs to be. @Elroch is cleverer than you by a very long way and he doesn't get it but you're roughly Dio's level, which means you can't understand what we're saying. In fact, he's more or less exactly like you, so you should get to know each other. Maybe you already have.
So stop trying to lord it over people here whom you can't hope to compare or compete with. The only reason you think ppl are dumb is because you don't even BEGIN to understand what they're saying. ibrust, imo, is quite intelligent. Put it this way, if I was stuck on a desert island with one of you, if it was you, you'd have to learn VERY quickly to do what I say, if you wanted to survive. I can tell that ibrust would be fine. He would use his intelligence and I wouldn't need to take care of him. It's how people are in real life that counts and not how they shoot their mouths off, making complete fools of themselves on the social media, which is something that you certainly do. Most exprerienced people can tell what you are at a glance.
Also, stop talking about Nietzsche and stop talking about projection. I can tell that you don't know what you're talking about, so leave it out.
I never once mentioned Nietzsche or projection, you dumbass. For someone who claims such brilliance, you suck at reading comprehension!
don't get so mad at optimissie ignore him when he trolls I feel like he wants to get people muted and mad like this
I prematurely accused optimiissed or whatever his name is of being the perfect embodiment of the dunning-kruger effect. but than i met you.
You've said this I think 3 or 4 times to different people at this point.
The inability to followup a claim with deductive reasoning leading to a conclusion is rarely a sign of a great intellect.
I believe it was Nietzsche who thought all statements had to be a form of projection on some level. In your case the projection is very strong and obvious to everyone besides you.
You are wrong. I said it a total of twice--to you and to Optimissed--just like I said. The need to exaggerate to prove one's point is rarely a sign of great inellect. Just for funsies, give me an example of what you think is luck in chess. just one. but not that black/white thing. we have already covered this.
My iq is completely out of sight to someone like you. It would take someone far more intelligent to understand the evidence for that and you haven't a clue what I'm talking about, ALL the time!! So you wouldn't get ibrust, who makes it sound more complex than it probably needs to be. @Elroch is cleverer than you by a very long way and he doesn't get it but you're roughly Dio's level, which means you can't understand what we're saying. In fact, he's more or less exactly like you, so you should get to know each other. Maybe you already have.
So stop trying to lord it over people here whom you can't hope to compare or compete with. The only reason you think ppl are dumb is because you don't even BEGIN to understand what they're saying. ibrust, imo, is quite intelligent. Put it this way, if I was stuck on a desert island with one of you, if it was you, you'd have to learn VERY quickly to do what I say, if you wanted to survive. I can tell that ibrust would be fine. He would use his intelligence and I wouldn't need to take care of him. It's how people are in real life that counts and not how they shoot their mouths off, making complete fools of themselves on the social media, which is something that you certainly do. Most exprerienced people can tell what you are at a glance.
Also, stop talking about Nietzsche and stop talking about projection. I can tell that you don't know what you're talking about, so leave it out.
I never once mentioned Nietzsche or projection, you dumbass. For someone who claims such brilliance, you suck at reading comprehension!
don't get so mad at optimissie ignore him when he trolls I feel like he wants to get people muted and mad like this
im not mad. he is critiquing me for something his fellow low IQ friend @ibrust said. he cant even figure out who said what.
I prematurely accused optimiissed or whatever his name is of being the perfect embodiment of the dunning-kruger effect. but than i met you.
You've said this I think 3 or 4 times to different people at this point.
The inability to followup a claim with deductive reasoning leading to a conclusion is rarely a sign of a great intellect.
I believe it was Nietzsche who thought all statements had to be a form of projection on some level. In your case the projection is very strong and obvious to everyone besides you.
You are wrong. I said it a total of twice--to you and to Optimissed--just like I said. The need to exaggerate to prove one's point is rarely a sign of great inellect. Just for funsies, give me an example of what you think is luck in chess. just one. but not that black/white thing. we have already covered this.
My iq is completely out of sight to someone like you. It would take someone far more intelligent to understand the evidence for that and you haven't a clue what I'm talking about, ALL the time!! So you wouldn't get ibrust, who makes it sound more complex than it probably needs to be. @Elroch is cleverer than you by a very long way and he doesn't get it but you're roughly Dio's level, which means you can't understand what we're saying. In fact, he's more or less exactly like you, so you should get to know each other. Maybe you already have.
So stop trying to lord it over people here whom you can't hope to compare or compete with. The only reason you think ppl are dumb is because you don't even BEGIN to understand what they're saying. ibrust, imo, is quite intelligent. Put it this way, if I was stuck on a desert island with one of you, if it was you, you'd have to learn VERY quickly to do what I say, if you wanted to survive. I can tell that ibrust would be fine. He would use his intelligence and I wouldn't need to take care of him. It's how people are in real life that counts and not how they shoot their mouths off, making complete fools of themselves on the social media, which is something that you certainly do. Most exprerienced people can tell what you are at a glance.
Also, stop talking about Nietzsche and stop talking about projection. I can tell that you don't know what you're talking about, so leave it out.
I never once mentioned Nietzsche or projection, you dumbass. For someone who claims such brilliance, you suck at reading comprehension!
don't get so mad at optimissie ignore him when he trolls I feel like he wants to get people muted and mad like this
im not mad. he is critiquing me for something his fellow low IQ friend @ibrust said. he cant even figure out who said what.
True but a quieter more insulting tone would be better an angry tone like that would likely get him to be able to roast you more
I prematurely accused optimiissed or whatever his name is of being the perfect embodiment of the dunning-kruger effect. but than i met you.
You've said this I think 3 or 4 times to different people at this point.
The inability to followup a claim with deductive reasoning leading to a conclusion is rarely a sign of a great intellect.
I believe it was Nietzsche who thought all statements had to be a form of projection on some level. In your case the projection is very strong and obvious to everyone besides you.
You are wrong. I said it a total of twice--to you and to Optimissed--just like I said. The need to exaggerate to prove one's point is rarely a sign of great inellect. Just for funsies, give me an example of what you think is luck in chess. just one. but not that black/white thing. we have already covered this.
My iq is completely out of sight to someone like you. It would take someone far more intelligent to understand the evidence for that and you haven't a clue what I'm talking about, ALL the time!! So you wouldn't get ibrust, who makes it sound more complex than it probably needs to be. @Elroch is cleverer than you by a very long way and he doesn't get it but you're roughly Dio's level, which means you can't understand what we're saying. In fact, he's more or less exactly like you, so you should get to know each other. Maybe you already have.
So stop trying to lord it over people here whom you can't hope to compare or compete with. The only reason you think ppl are dumb is because you don't even BEGIN to understand what they're saying. ibrust, imo, is quite intelligent. Put it this way, if I was stuck on a desert island with one of you, if it was you, you'd have to learn VERY quickly to do what I say, if you wanted to survive. I can tell that ibrust would be fine. He would use his intelligence and I wouldn't need to take care of him. It's how people are in real life that counts and not how they shoot their mouths off, making complete fools of themselves on the social media, which is something that you certainly do. Most exprerienced people can tell what you are at a glance.
Also, stop talking about Nietzsche and stop talking about projection. I can tell that you don't know what you're talking about, so leave it out.
I never once mentioned Nietzsche or projection, you dumbass. For someone who claims such brilliance, you suck at reading comprehension!
don't get so mad at optimissie ignore him when he trolls I feel like he wants to get people muted and mad like this
im not mad. he is critiquing me for something his fellow low IQ friend @ibrust said. he cant even figure out who said what.
True but a quieter more insulting tone would be better an angry tone like that would likely get him to be able to roast you more
He can try to roast me all he wants. I'll just keep pointing out his stupid mistakes.
I prematurely accused optimiissed or whatever his name is of being the perfect embodiment of the dunning-kruger effect. but than i met you.
You've said this I think 3 or 4 times to different people at this point.
The inability to followup a claim with deductive reasoning leading to a conclusion is rarely a sign of a great intellect.
I believe it was Nietzsche who thought all statements had to be a form of projection on some level. In your case the projection is very strong and obvious to everyone besides you.
You are wrong. I said it a total of twice--to you and to Optimissed--just like I said. The need to exaggerate to prove one's point is rarely a sign of great inellect. Just for funsies, give me an example of what you think is luck in chess. just one. but not that black/white thing. we have already covered this.
My iq is completely out of sight to someone like you. It would take someone far more intelligent to understand the evidence for that and you haven't a clue what I'm talking about, ALL the time!! So you wouldn't get ibrust, who makes it sound more complex than it probably needs to be. @Elroch is cleverer than you by a very long way and he doesn't get it but you're roughly Dio's level, which means you can't understand what we're saying. In fact, he's more or less exactly like you, so you should get to know each other. Maybe you already have.
So stop trying to lord it over people here whom you can't hope to compare or compete with. The only reason you think ppl are dumb is because you don't even BEGIN to understand what they're saying. ibrust, imo, is quite intelligent. Put it this way, if I was stuck on a desert island with one of you, if it was you, you'd have to learn VERY quickly to do what I say, if you wanted to survive. I can tell that ibrust would be fine. He would use his intelligence and I wouldn't need to take care of him. It's how people are in real life that counts and not how they shoot their mouths off, making complete fools of themselves on the social media, which is something that you certainly do. Most exprerienced people can tell what you are at a glance.
Also, stop talking about Nietzsche and stop talking about projection. I can tell that you don't know what you're talking about, so leave it out.
I never once mentioned Nietzsche or projection, you dumbass. For someone who claims such brilliance, you suck at reading comprehension!
Oh, have you deleted your post? There is one other person who behaves exactly as you do and is a troll who is very much disliked, as you are.
I feel sure that the two of you are closely acquainted with one-another.
@tempetown I just proved my point about optimissie
I prematurely accused optimiissed or whatever his name is of being the perfect embodiment of the dunning-kruger effect. but than i met you.
You've said this I think 3 or 4 times to different people at this point.
The inability to followup a claim with deductive reasoning leading to a conclusion is rarely a sign of a great intellect.
I believe it was Nietzsche who thought all statements had to be a form of projection on some level. In your case the projection is very strong and obvious to everyone besides you.
You are wrong. I said it a total of twice--to you and to Optimissed--just like I said. The need to exaggerate to prove one's point is rarely a sign of great inellect. Just for funsies, give me an example of what you think is luck in chess. just one. but not that black/white thing. we have already covered this.
My iq is completely out of sight to someone like you. It would take someone far more intelligent to understand the evidence for that and you haven't a clue what I'm talking about, ALL the time!! So you wouldn't get ibrust, who makes it sound more complex than it probably needs to be. @Elroch is cleverer than you by a very long way and he doesn't get it but you're roughly Dio's level, which means you can't understand what we're saying. In fact, he's more or less exactly like you, so you should get to know each other. Maybe you already have.
So stop trying to lord it over people here whom you can't hope to compare or compete with. The only reason you think ppl are dumb is because you don't even BEGIN to understand what they're saying. ibrust, imo, is quite intelligent. Put it this way, if I was stuck on a desert island with one of you, if it was you, you'd have to learn VERY quickly to do what I say, if you wanted to survive. I can tell that ibrust would be fine. He would use his intelligence and I wouldn't need to take care of him. It's how people are in real life that counts and not how they shoot their mouths off, making complete fools of themselves on the social media, which is something that you certainly do. Most exprerienced people can tell what you are at a glance.
Also, stop talking about Nietzsche and stop talking about projection. I can tell that you don't know what you're talking about, so leave it out.
I never once mentioned Nietzsche or projection, you dumbass. For someone who claims such brilliance, you suck at reading comprehension!
Oh, have you deleted your post? There is one other person who behaves exactly as you do and is a troll who is very much disliked, just as you are.
I feel sure that the two of you are closely acquainted with one-another.
I didnt delete any post about Nietzche or projecting, you douche bag. Because I never made any such comment. Try to keep up.
Dang it google keeps on autocorrecting optimissie 😡
You're actually correct, ibrust mentioned Nietzsche. Doesn't change my opinion about you. You are not worth taking seriously.
Cool. Glad you can admit some of your many errors.
OK I'm out of this discussion. I agree with Kotschmot.
So noted. Have a great day. And don't forget to wear your helmet!!!!
I wonder why optimissie is ignoring me also I believe there is a least (some) luck in chess the shorter the time control the more luck plus the worse they(you) are the more you have to use luck to win games
I wonder why optimissie is ignoring me also I believe there is a least (some) luck in chess the shorter the time control the more luck plus the worse they are the more you have to use luck to win games
That may be. I've heard that blitz and bullet can be total blunder fests. But I have no experience with short time frames.
Good god there's another 200 pages of fluff. And a couple threats, why not. DiogenesDue put it well and apparently he only comes back from vacation to either re-establish the objective definition of luck or to go after Optimissed. I prefer the former.
The two arguments that I see for luck are the following
1) External factors like power outage are luck. I made a counter some pages back to Mpaetz: If external probabilistic factors like power outage are luck in chess, then external conscious influences like physical harm to opponent must be ability in chess.... This is not the case and both are factors outside of chess principals.
2) Bad moves or lack of skill resulting in luck. Only thing determining results in chess is relationship of abilities. They don't produce luck. Like DiogenesDue said it's easy to demonstrate this by questioning whether optimal skill could ever lose? Surely yes if there is luck? But no. In a game of perfect information optimal skill can always produce optimal theoretic result no matter what. There is no argument for luck there.
1. Chess has existed for hundreds of years without a single power outage.
2. Now you have it!