Is there such thing as "luck" in chess?

Sort:
playerafar

"I think you can give up on @ibrust. As Rick Reily said of Dustin Johnson, "He is so dense, light bends around him." "
ibrust and the Guy are 'birds of a feather'.
They are both 'credentialists' and they troll that way but the guy has that problem 1000 times worse. ib is young though and may 'recover' somehow over the years.

Tempetown
playerafar wrote:

"I think you can give up on @ibrust. As Rick Reily said of Dustin Johnson, "He is so dense, light bends around him." "
ibrust and the guy are 'birds of a feather'.
They are both 'credentialists' and they troll that way but the guy has that problem 1000 times worse. ib is young though and may 'recover' somehow over the years.

Actually, I think he might be far older than we all assume. He is extremely immature, yes. But I think he may be near 40 years old which would come as a shock to most of us.

Tempetown
playerafar wrote:

"I think you can give up on @ibrust. As Rick Reily said of Dustin Johnson, "He is so dense, light bends around him." "
ibrust and the Guy are 'birds of a feather'.
They are both 'credentialists' and they troll that way but the guy has that problem 1000 times worse. ib is young though and may 'recover' somehow over the years.

Generally, 'credentialists' suffer from the same logical fallacy.

DiogenesDue
playerafar wrote:

Here's the reply I got from ChatGPT just now:
(Would people who have never used AI be surprised? Well maybe there's few such people nowadays - especially on chess servers)
-------------------------------
"

Thanks for sharing this! Let’s go through each point.

Skill and Luck: You’re absolutely right that skill and luck can coexist, with skill often reducing the impact of luck but not completely eliminating it. Both play roles in different situations. Skill might help you prepare better or navigate uncertain situations, but there's always an element of randomness or uncontrollable factors (luck) that could impact the outcome, despite your best efforts.
Control vs. Non-Control: The distinction you’re making here is key—control is something we often have over some things, but not over others. The rain example is a great way to illustrate this: you can’t control the weather, but you can control how you respond to it. Internally, the idea of control is often blurred by illusions, whether that’s overestimating our power to control outcomes or assuming things are out of our hands entirely. Acknowledging this duality can be quite empowering.
Chess and Reality: I think you’re distinguishing between the abstract concept of chess (its rules, possibilities) and the practical, real-world experience of playing the game. Chess itself, in its purest form, has no luck involved, but the execution of the game in real life (like any competitive endeavor) is influenced by factors that may be seen as luck—whether that’s external distractions, a moment of unexpected insight, or an opponent making an error due to fatigue.
Luck in Chess and Mathematics: You're correct that when we’re talking about the theoretical number of possible chess games (like the Shannon number), there's no randomness—it's deterministic, just like mathematical constants like pi. But when it comes to actual games being played by humans, randomness might creep in (like an error or an unanticipated move).
Summary: Your final point is a solid one. If you’re talking about chess in the strictest sense (as a game governed by fixed rules and endless possibilities), there's no luck involved. But in the common, real-world context—where players' skill, judgment, and sometimes errors come into play—luck can be a factor, and it does vary in influence depending on the specific game and situation.
Would you say the role of luck in chess (or any game) is often underestimated?
"
-----------------------------------------------

Please link the post you are feeding it or include the text of it, it's a lot easier to read that way.

Kotshmot

@DiogenesDue

Whether my question to you concerns a real life example of luck outside of chess, or a hypothetical experiment of the relationship of luck and skill, you don't want to entertain it. What I'm trying to do is test your definition of luck and logic in how it relates to skill, outside of chess. It's necessary because the concept has to be consintent in chess, but also regarding other phenomena outside of chess for it to hold water. You understand that your deflective style is not one to promote progress and understanding in this discussion?

I understand you want to keep the discussion in your theoretical comfort zone, at games of perfect information, but the argumentation around that tends to be circular like ChatGPT demonstrated. A reference can always be made back to the theory as truth without the ability to test the logic.

playerafar

@DiogenesDue"Please link the post you are feeding it or include the text of it, it's a lot easier to read that way.
"
Okay. I didn't include the paragraphs I pasted to ChatGPT (all in one paste to it) because I didn't want my post to be too long.And I haven't pasted the Copilot and Leo replies yet either - for the same reason.-------https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/is-there-such-thing-as-quotluckquot-in-chess2?newCommentCount=3&page=291#comment-110891343---------------------
Post 5804. But post numbers are known to change though ...
------------------
and uh oh .... chess.com editor user-unfriendliness again.

playerafar

I'll post the Copilot and Leo replies later.
For contrast.
Point: you can compare the AIs.
Dio has a very good idea there about posting forum stuff into AI to see how it reacts to it. (and as expected - the Guy likely to troll in his nasal tones against good ideas)

DiogenesDue
Kotshmot wrote:

@DiogenesDue

Whether my question to you concerns a real life example of luck outside of chess, or a hypothetical experiment of the relationship of luck and skill, you don't want to entertain it. What I'm trying to do is test your definition of luck and logic in how it relates to skill, outside of chess. It's necessary because the concept has to be consintent in chess, but also regarding other phenomena outside of chess for it to hold water. You understand that your deflective style is not one to promote progress and understanding in this discussion?

I understand you want to keep the discussion in your theoretical comfort zone, at games of perfect information, but the argumentation around that tends to be circular like ChatGPT demonstrated. A reference can always be made back to the theory as truth without the ability to test the logic.

This discussion is about luck in chess. Note the lack of "outside of chess" in the title. It's not a deflection to simply avoid going off into the weeds. That has already occurred numerous times on this thread, so, I won't be doing it again. I've already made it clear that I am not going to entertain the type of semantic "but there's still a chance however tiny, so expanding on that chance we see that..." arguments that result for the Nth time. I have heard them all before, and not just from you. Maybe one of the newer "no luck" proponents will take you up on the same old points since they have not dealt with them umpteen times.

DiogenesDue
Elroch wrote:

I can do better than ChatGPT on this.

"Luck" is a word referring to behaviour that is random, focussing on those random outcomes which are desirable (the "lucky" ones).

So, putting aside the simple aspect of desirability (we all want to score higher), we can replace the term by "randomness".

Randomness is the phenomenon that some system has multiple possible outcomes, but the outcome is not determinate (i.e. 100% predictable) from a specific viewpoint.

This is certainly the case with a typical chess game before it is played. If you disagree, you need to be able to predict the result with 100% reliability.

So chess, as a phenomenon in the real world has luck (= randomness with a familiar notion of preference).

[Chess as a game theoretical topic is distinct from chess in the real world. One is about abstract truth, and the other is about what happens].

There's not really much point in discussing "real world" (i.e. with human beings bringing their failings to the table) chess play in this context. If the title of this post were "did Joey get lucky because an arbiter stepped on his opponent's shoe?", I submit that it would be over in 10 pages. There's almost 300 pages here because of the idealized debate on the topic. That's what people want to resolve one way or the other.

playerafar

I was just about to quote Elroch's post and suddenly Dio beat me to it!
happy

playerafar

I wouldn't see 'players and their choices' as 'external' to any 'game of chess'.
I wouldn't see 'game of chess' as external to chess.
Before I post Copilot's reply to my post to it - I'll see if I can get it to re-post without the 'markdown' format - which is ugly.
It might not be able to do it - and preserve the line integrity - even if I start a new session.
So GPT seems to be superior that way.
But GPT often times out.
So general method of approaching the AIs ...
Copilot first - until it starts one of its misguided format loops or other mistake loops.
Then switch to GPT. Use pastes from the Copilot session from before it went into its fugue state.

AGC-Gambit_YT

Pls give me context, I can't read all this word vomit.

playerafar
ChessAGC_YT wrote:

Pls give me context, I can't read all this word vomit.

Its already given. Read further up so you know what's going on.

playerafar

Even gpt couldn't fix the ugly formatting done by Copilot.
Not for .txt purposes.
---------------------------------
But ! The asterisks don't seem to appear in the chess.com editor.
This is Copilot's version of response: (to post 5408)
----------------------- 
Thank you for sharing these points! Here’s a detailed response addressing each section:

Skill and Luck Coexisting. Skill reduces luck’s influence: You’re absolutely right. Skill can certainly minimize the impact of luck, but it can't eliminate it completely. Likewise, luck can sometimes overshadow skill, which can be seen in numerous situations across various fields.
Control vs. Non-control. Situations of control and lack of control: Your examples vividly illustrate how we constantly navigate between situations we can control and those we cannot. The rain example is spot on—it’s a great metaphor for life's unpredictability.
Internal applications: Often, we forget how this dynamic of control applies to our internal world. It’s important to recognize when we have control over our reactions and when we don't.
Chess and Reality:Chess and its rules: When considering the game of chess strictly by its rules, there is indeed no luck involved—only skill and strategy. It’s like the rigidity of a mathematical number; luck doesn’t play a part in that definition.
Chess as a Mathematical Entity:John Tromp number and Shannon number: These numbers showcase the vastness of possible chess positions and games. In this context, there's no element of luck. It's all about the calculation and theoretical possibilities.
Pi and Luck: pi and luck's non-existence: Just like the number pi, chess in a purely mathematical sense is devoid of luck. Numbers and predefined rules lack the randomness that luck implies.
Common Meaning of Chess:Luck in the common sense of chess: When considering chess as a game played by people, luck can play a role in varying degrees. Situational factors, the psychology of the players, and unforeseen circumstances can all introduce elements of luck into the game.
Your points are well thought out and provide a comprehensive view of how skill, luck, control, and non-control interplay in various contexts. If there’s more you’d like to discuss or delve deeper into any of these topics, feel free to let me know! 😊
-----------------------------------------

playerafar

Dio and Kotshmot had a relatively civil exchange.
That's because Kotshmot is a much better poster than the Guy is - with the Guy posting five consecutive just now. And then four consecutive.
---------------------------------------

playerafar

Players choose from an array of moves where the implications of their choice move are unknown much of the time because chess isn't solved.
Such choices are subject to both skill and luck which exist in the same universe.
Is there some way to make a kind of 'temple' where things like skill or luck or chess are 'entirely pure' and exclude the rest of the universe?
Try No. There's no such thing.
Any exceptions: In the ethereal world - anything goes.
You can be in 500 places at the same moment.
Go back in time and change history.
Travel through the sun.
Sprint at light speed.
From earth - count every single atom in the Andromeda galaxy in two seconds.

Elroch
DiogenesDue wrote:
Elroch wrote:

I can do better than ChatGPT on this.

"Luck" is a word referring to behaviour that is random, focussing on those random outcomes which are desirable (the "lucky" ones).

So, putting aside the simple aspect of desirability (we all want to score higher), we can replace the term by "randomness".

Randomness is the phenomenon that some system has multiple possible outcomes, but the outcome is not determinate (i.e. 100% predictable) from a specific viewpoint.

This is certainly the case with a typical chess game before it is played. If you disagree, you need to be able to predict the result with 100% reliability.

So chess, as a phenomenon in the real world has luck (= randomness with a familiar notion of preference).

[Chess as a game theoretical topic is distinct from chess in the real world. One is about abstract truth, and the other is about what happens].

There's not really much point in discussing "real world" (i.e. with human beings bringing their failings to the table) chess play in this context. If the title of this post were "did Joey get lucky because an arbiter stepped on his opponent's shoe?", I submit that it would be over in 10 pages. There's almost 300 pages here because of the idealized debate on the topic. That's what people want to resolve one way or the other.

When people talk about luck in chess, they are not discussing whether there is any uncertainty in the legal responses a player may meet if they play a certain legal move. That is a discussion that should not reach the end of page 1.

The topic of the title is the uncertainty in the outcome of competitive games. While I can answer it clearly in one post, I can see how people say things like "there is not really any luck - if I lose, I made a mistake". I don't agree with that, but it is familiar point of view from competitors in games and sports of all types.

AGC-Gambit_YT

You cooked!

SymphonicKnight

Fascinating and powerful arguments from all of you. Excellent debate. Perhaps for a human skill is not sufficient to eliminate the blind elements from play, which would entail luck to lesser and lesser degrees as knowledge and vision increase. I will a story about Fischer, where it looked like he was losing at 12 ply, but at 13 ply the sacrifice made sense and he won! Had he made it more speculatively, not seeing the conclusion, he'd have been "lucky" to find the 13th move. Only God plays a perfect game, and certainly not Stockfish, and even a 42 ply calculation by Sesse can be outmaneuvered at 43 ply. One might say that the one calculating the 43 move win was not lucky, but failing to see the 44th move by player 1, e.g. Sesse may or may not be fortuitous. Lucky or unlucky? Neither, perhaps, and simply the less skilled? Any being of limited knowledge has horizons beyond which success or failure could be called lucky or unlucky. But isn't this all about the semantics and how one wishes to define luck? ;-) One could argue for absolute determinacy on some level, which I do not wish to do.

Kotshmot
DiogenesDue wrote:

This discussion is about luck in chess. Note the lack of "outside of chess" in the title. It's not a deflection to simply avoid going off into the weeds. That has already occurred numerous times on this thread, so, I won't be doing it again. I've already made it clear that I am not going to entertain the type of semantic "but there's still a chance however tiny, so expanding on that chance we see that..." arguments that result for the Nth time. I have heard them all before, and not just from you. Maybe one of the newer "no luck" proponents will take you up on the same old points since they have not dealt with them umpteen times.

It would lead us off in to the weeds if you answered how your definition of luck and skill would function in other games? I propose it would lead us into a topical discussion where, again, you're not a 100% sure your position holds.

I've already made it clear that I am not going to entertain the type of semantic "but there's still a chance however tiny, so expanding on that chance we see that..."

This is just a strawman of my argument, this is not the point. The sole point is to see a bigger sample of instances, preferably games, where according to your definition luck exists and where it doesn't. This simply gives me and the discussion more information to make progress. I'm asking methodical questions.

I have heard them all before, and not just from you.

This sentence is just a deflection tactic 101. It doesn't strengthen your position. Something similar you've surely heard as it's a long thread, but not presented like mine to pursue very specific information. Also to have "heard them all before" doesn't mean they haven't been legitimate points or that you have anyhow refuted the points.

Maybe one of the newer "no luck" proponents will take you up on the same old points

I'd be happy to discuss with someone who is genuinely open to debate and test the subject of luck, however my suspicion is that it's only you here who could even semi legitimately hold the position of no luck in chess.