i thought the "monsieur" mentioned was me xD
Is there such thing as "luck" in chess?
Sort:
Optimissed wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:
It seems like both sides are right. There is no luck in chess, the game itself. But there is luck in the circumstances that it's played.
Tournament pairings, which color you have, opponent slipping on a banana peel, etc are all chance or luck. But it seems the game itself has no luck. So what about what Julia said. What about two supercomputers playing the exact same game, with the exact same rules as two humans playing? Is there any luck involved in two supercomputers playing chess?
I don't understand why you think there's no luck in the game itself. The game is between two people, who choose their moves. From the perspective of each player, who is to say that luck can play no part in the moves a human may choose, in situations where there's no over-riding reason to choose one over another?
It could be impulse only, in some cases. That impulse could be influenced by the colour of the socks the player's mother randomly put out for him that morning. He plays one move and you win. He plays another and you lose because your memory of a line you were reading up on, over a hurried breakfast a week ago last Thursday, is slightly faulty.
There could even be luck regarding the supercomputers. One could experience a split second power spike or failure, that causes a slight difference from its normal behaviour for just long enough to influence an assessment by 0.02 pawns and cause it to vary from what would be its normal move selection and win instead of drawing. Or a chip could start to fail and give intermittently spurious results, depending on ambient temperature variations.
I probably worded it wrong. I was saying things like slipping on a banana peel ARE chance or luck. But computers don't generally do that. With two people playing there is always some element of chance in almost anything. But I think that only applies to how the game is played, not the game itself.
So with two computers any element of luck seems to be much smaller or even non existent. I get that one could have a faulty chip but that just means one is better than the other. I don't think it's luck that one is not as well prepared as the other.
Probably not a great example but during the Masters tournament this last weekend Tyrell Hatton, of England, was complaining about the golf course because he didn't score as well as he hoped. But most of the things he complained about, Scottie Scheffler (the winner) did very well and had no problem with.
So preparation and ability seem to play a far greater role than luck. With two supercomputers playing chess it seems to me the things that could be called luck are so small, so insignificant, they could be called something else, or not even luck at all.
Apr 13, 2022
0
#424
Optimissed wrote:
And not a sport. According to actual law.
Oh, don't start that again!!!
Apr 13, 2022
0
#425
CooloutAC wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
Chess is entirely a game of luck, except at the top levels. No players below 2400 are capable of the calculation necessary to win by skill alone.
Complete nonsense. Players win based on their skill in relation to their opponent. They are not making their moves based on chance but their own personal calculations or miscalculations as you already admit to. You sound like someone that also has no sense of competitiveness or sportsmanship. The beauty of online chess is it doesn't matter how good you are since you can still have competitive matches with others around your own "skill" level.
I was thinking specifically of your games.
Apr 13, 2022
0
#426
CooloutAC wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
Chess is entirely a game of luck, except at the top levels. No players below 2400 are capable of the calculation necessary to win by skill alone.
Complete nonsense. Players win based on their skill in relation to their opponent. They are not making their moves based on chance but their own personal calculations or miscalculations as you already admit to. You sound like someone that also has no sense of competitiveness or sportsmanship. The beauty of online chess is it doesn't matter how good you are since you can still have competitive matches with others around your own "skill" level.
I was thinking specifically of your games.
I expect nothing less then this elitist and smug response. Like I've said many times before, I think its terrible that you coach children. When you don't even know the true definition of competitive, or sporting and apparently a skill based game. That false self entitlement is why chess is not more popular in society. Its unbecoming and unacceptable to most of society who is not as dumb as you think they are. And your terrible attitude is what encourages sandbaggers and tier slumming alt account cheaters. Its why chess.com thinks there is nothing wrong with allowing people to speedrun. Shame on you.
Is this some kind of put-on? His lordship says, harrumph!
Apr 13, 2022
0
#428
CooloutAC wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
Chess is entirely a game of luck, except at the top levels. No players below 2400 are capable of the calculation necessary to win by skill alone.
Complete nonsense. Players win based on their skill in relation to their opponent. They are not making their moves based on chance but their own personal calculations or miscalculations as you already admit to. You sound like someone that also has no sense of competitiveness or sportsmanship. The beauty of online chess is it doesn't matter how good you are since you can still have competitive matches with others around your own "skill" level.
I was thinking specifically of your games.
I expect nothing less then this elitist and smug response. Like I've said many times before, I think its terrible that you coach children. When you don't even know the true definition of competitive, or sporting and apparently a skill based game. That false self entitlement is why chess is not more popular in society. Its unbecoming and unacceptable to most of society who is not as dumb as you think they are. And your terrible attitude is what encourages sandbaggers and tier slumming alt account cheaters. Its why chess.com thinks there is nothing wrong with allowing people to speedrun. Shame on you.
Here you go again, resorting to ungrounded personal attacks. That seems your main mode when someone challenges your views. How about taking whatever mild criticism that comes your way as something that could help you improve your chess. I’ve looked at a lot of your games. I’ve offered suggestions to improve your play. I’ve found a game of yours that you won useful because your opponent missed a simple mate in four in exactly the manner described as characteristic of beginners in Georges Renaud and Victor Kahn, The Art of the Checkmate. You were lucky.
My own games are no different—they are so full of errors that any claim that chess is wholly a game of skill must appear absurd. But, having observed games where moves seem completely random (yours), I realize that even a patzer like me has something to teach weaker players.
Apr 13, 2022
0
#429
35 pages later and those arguing against luck still have not resolved the very simple point that nothing humans do is fully deterministic. If one believes that more than 1 trial is needed to determine one's relative skill/competency at a task, then they are admitting that luck in inherent in said task.
It's why poker players run it out twice, NBA champions are crowned based on a series rather than a single game, portfolio managers are judged based on multi-year track records rather than yesterday's daily return, etc. Variance is part of life.
Fischer famously took FIDE to task for exactly this point, wanting to extend the number of games in the world championship match (since increasing trials reduces variance and therefore increases the likelihood that the more skilled player will win).
Apr 14, 2022
0
#430
CooloutAC wrote:
Complete nonsense. Players win based on their skill in relation to their opponent. They are not making their moves based on chance but their own personal calculations or miscalculations as you already admit to. You sound like someone that also has no sense of competitiveness or sportsmanship. The beauty of online chess is it doesn't matter how good you are since you can still have competitive matches with others around your own "skill" level.
Consider this--you start a game vs someone rated 1000 points higher than you. Three moves into the game there is a power failure in your opponent's city and you win on time as he never can respond. Will you post this game as one of your best? Will you claim that you have proved your superior skill?
Chess exists in the real world, not only in dictionary definitions. In life things sometimes happen randomly in ways that are beyond human control. This is called luck. In this sense--resiults obtained from factors outside the play over the board--there IS luck in chess, as in any other human activity.
Apr 14, 2022
0
#431
CooloutAC wrote:
LeeEuler wrote:
35 pages later and those arguing against luck still have not resolved the very simple point that nothing humans do is fully deterministic. If one believes that more than 1 trial is needed to determine one's relative skill/competency at a task, then they are admitting that luck in inherent in said task.
It's why poker players run it out twice, NBA champions are crowned based on a series rather than a single game, portfolio managers are judged based on multi-year track records rather than yesterday's daily return, etc. Variance is part of life.
Fischer famously took FIDE to task for exactly this point, wanting to extend the number of games in the world championship match (since increasing trials reduces variance and therefore increases the likelihood that the more skilled player will win).
My friend, you are exposing yourself as someone who doesn't know what skill is. Of course what you are determined to happen doesn't always happen, but it was still of your own making. It was not the making of some totally randomized device. Again, what separates pros from amateurs is not only their level of "skill" but how consistent they are at "pulling off what they determine" I can't believe you even made this statement. Of course people are still arguing about this, because most of you don't know what a sport is, don't know what a competitive match is, can't even determine what games of chance verse games of skill are, and are only here to fulfill a self fulfilling prophecy that chess is unpopular by claiming only those at the top are worthy to be called players. Shameful imo. And so disgusting when people in their own community denigrate their own game, that is no wonder Society labels them with negative and disrespectful stereotypes with no interest in being a part of them. I truly don't believe it is the game of chess itself that attracts ego maniacs and sociopaths. I think it is the fault of the communities who were originally born out of bigotry and elitism, controlled by old people, and still holding on to outdated traditions.
Bruh, you're like 12. Eat a snickers. You're not you when you're hungry. Also, as a former 600 and current 1600, half of my wins are luck. Nobody below 2000 is calculating more than like 5 moves in the future in Blitz, if that, and people often make moves missing one very obscure variation that makes them lose. The other person made a very skillful play, but it's also bad luck that in the brief moment you were trying to calculate a complicated line, you missed a move. If you're discussing Advanced to Master OTB play, then sure, I thin that luck is much less of a factor, but talking about the Blitz and Rapid games of 99% of cc users, luck definitley plays a role in the outcome of the match.
Apr 14, 2022
0
#432
CooloutAC wrote:
LeeEuler wrote:
35 pages later and those arguing against luck still have not resolved the very simple point that nothing humans do is fully deterministic. If one believes that more than 1 trial is needed to determine one's relative skill/competency at a task, then they are admitting that luck in inherent in said task.
It's why poker players run it out twice, NBA champions are crowned based on a series rather than a single game, portfolio managers are judged based on multi-year track records rather than yesterday's daily return, etc. Variance is part of life.
Fischer famously took FIDE to task for exactly this point, wanting to extend the number of games in the world championship match (since increasing trials reduces variance and therefore increases the likelihood that the more skilled player will win).
My friend, you are exposing yourself as someone who doesn't know what skill is. Of course what you are determined to happen doesn't always happen, but it was still of your own making. It was not the making of some totally randomized device. Again, what separates pros from amateurs is not only their level of "skill" but how consistent they are at "pulling off what they determine" I can't believe you even made this statement. Of course people are still arguing about this, because most of you don't know what a sport is, don't know what a competitive match is, can't even determine what games of chance verse games of skill are, and are only here to fulfill a self fulfilling prophecy that chess is unpopular by claiming only those at the top are worthy to be called players. Shameful imo. And so disgusting when people in their own community denigrate their own game, that is no wonder Society labels them with negative and disrespectful stereotypes with no interest in being a part of them. I truly don't believe it is the game of chess itself that attracts ego maniacs and sociopaths. I think it is the fault of the communities who were originally born out of bigotry and elitism, controlled by old people, and still holding on to outdated traditions.
Among your common misnomers:
1) thinking that skill is the absence of luck
2) thinking that deterministic means "determined to happen"
3) thinking that correctly identifying aspects of the game we love is denigrating it
4) thinking that chess is somehow unique in that it contains luck, rather than just one of a host of human pursuits that requires skill to excel at (precisely because there are elements of luck in it...let that one sink in)
Unless a task can correctly attribute each success and each failure with a single trial (i.e. 0% false positive, 0% false negative) then there are elements of luck inherent in the task
Apr 14, 2022
0
#433
CooloutAC wrote:
If you don't know the meaning of competitive, sportsmanship, or can't even define what a sport is, I don't think you should be coaching kids. If you think that is a personal attack, so be it. It must hit home with you.
None of these are at issue in this thread.
But, as a matter of fact, I have been competing at chess for decades and at a level where performance matters. You have no experience with chess as sport.
You repeat your views of chess as sport in every thread, no matter the subject. You imagine other people say or believe things that can in no way be derived from their words.
FYI. Look at the many threads about chess as sport on this site. You’ll find I’ve argued the affirmative in all of them going back ten years.
Your notion of sport, however, is seriously flawed. In true sports, competitors strive to de their best. They develop skills. You confuse playground sports with the real thing.
Ziryab wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
If you don't know the meaning of competitive, sportsmanship, or can't even define what a sport is, I don't think you should be coaching kids. If you think that is a personal attack, so be it. It must hit home with you.
None of these are at issue in this thread.
But, as a matter of fact, I have been competing at chess for decades and at a level where performance matters. You have no experience with chess as sport.
You repeat your views of chess as sport in every thread, no matter the subject. You imagine other people say or believe things that can in no way be derived from their words.
FYI. Look at the many threads about chess as sport on this site. You’ll find I’ve argued the affirmative in all of them going back ten years.
Your notion of sport, however, is seriously flawed. In true sports, competitors strive to de their best. They develop skills. You confuse playground sports with the real thing.
Sometimes I like you.
Apr 15, 2022
0
#435
lfPatriotGames wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
If you don't know the meaning of competitive, sportsmanship, or can't even define what a sport is, I don't think you should be coaching kids. If you think that is a personal attack, so be it. It must hit home with you.
None of these are at issue in this thread.
But, as a matter of fact, I have been competing at chess for decades and at a level where performance matters. You have no experience with chess as sport.
You repeat your views of chess as sport in every thread, no matter the subject. You imagine other people say or believe things that can in no way be derived from their words.
FYI. Look at the many threads about chess as sport on this site. You’ll find I’ve argued the affirmative in all of them going back ten years.
Your notion of sport, however, is seriously flawed. In true sports, competitors strive to de their best. They develop skills. You confuse playground sports with the real thing.
Sometimes I like you.
That goes both ways. 
The only luck inherent to the game of chess is selection of color. If you play in tournaments, there is usually luck in pairings (but this is not actually part of the game of chess).
Luck from the environment you play in (lag, power outages, feeling ill, heart attacks, building on fire, nuclear bombardments, etc.) is not part of the game construct, but can be part of a game instance. The game itself is only the logical construct of the rules/objectives, which requires two playing entities. Do you need a board to play chess? No. Do you need pieces to play chess? No. Do you even need a visual representation of either to play chess? No.
So if you want to answer the question: "Is there luck in the game of chess?", the answer is yes, the selection of color/who goes first.
Apr 15, 2022
0
#437
Jeez man, you are incorrigible. People have been correcting these same errors for months.
CooloutAC wrote:
You sound so much older and much more mature then me. well done.
*than
CooloutAC wrote:
Then you have no understanding of what a competitive match even means. Period. You are like the kids online who think stomping noobs is being competitive. When a truly competitive player always wants a challenging match with players of equal or slightly better skill.
*game
Maybe
Apr 15, 2022
0
#439
CooloutAC wrote:
And as I've said in the past. You argue that chess is a sport on these forums to be politically correct, but its obvious you don't treat it like one.
You are more wrong than you will ever understand. Perhaps you should start by reading what I wrote.
Although the term "politically correct" is usually deployed by bigots who want to protect their bigotry, you use to mean standing against the vast majority of posters, including several whom I like and respect, is a wholly novel meaning.
Apr 15, 2022
0
#440
LeeEuler- "nothing humans do is fully deterministic"
Coolout- "Of course what you are determined to happen doesn't always happen"
LeeEuler- "[it is a misnomer to think that] deterministic means 'determined to happen'"
Coolout- "i don't know why you think determine means deterministic...just because what you determine should happen and what you want to happen, don't actually happen, doesn't mean its lucky for the other person "
The above is a pretty good encapsulation of his arguments in this thread.
I am almost positive there is a specific term for the fallacy he's exhibiting, but am blanking on the name. It is like a cross between the Fundamental Attribution Error and Texas Sharpshooter.
To that end I'm curious about what types of events he would consider as having elements of luck. Since a player is the one to spin the wheel in roulette, and the rules of roulette themselves are black and white just like chess, does that mean a player is skillful when he wins? Or for another example that a golfer who doesn't even hit the green for 1000 straight shots off a par 3 but manages a hole-in-one on the 1001st try is somehow more skillful in his 1001st shot than a PGA tour pro who is within 15 feet every time but never holes out?
To help you think on why luck and skill are not "opposite words with opposite definitions": why do you think that in open tournaments with stack limits, top poker pros consistently beat amateurs? Or that in a given at bat, a college hitter may get a hit off a pro pitcher? Could it have something to do with needing multiple trials to help determine if someone is skillful or not? To that end, could the number of trials needed to determine someone's skill level be itself representative of where an activity sits on the luck-to-skill spectrum?
Chess is entirely a game of luck, except at the top levels. No players below 2400 are capable of the calculation necessary to win by skill alone.