Is there such thing as "luck" in chess?

Sort:
LeeEuler
btickler wrote:
LeeEuler wrote:

"you all" is to anyone who is ignorant about the role of randomness in everything humans do.

In any activity, if you can not completely categorize something after a single trial (meaning 0% false positive, 0% false negative) with any amount of initial conditions (relative elo in chess, handicap in golf, etc.) then the activity itself has built in randomness. 

If your determination of more skilled vs. lesser skilled is based on the outcome itself (win or lose, hit or miss, convict or acquit, make money or lose money etc.), rather than any sort of prior (elo, batting history, conviction rate, historical RoR etc.) you are being fallacious with your reasoning as shown earlier: "The Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy is when outcomes are analyzed out of context, giving the illusion of causation rather than attributing the outcomes to chance. The Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy fails to take randomness into account when determining cause and effect, instead emphasizing how outcomes are similar rather than how they are different."

That is why sometimes the more skilled player doesn't prevail in a match, why higher-ranked teams want longer series in the playoffs, and why the golfer who misses the green 1000 straight times and then holes out on the 1001st isn't suddenly skillful in his shot. He's just a bad player who got lucky

Not being able to accurately measure something doesn't negate it's existence, as any religious person will happily point out to you when you try to tell them there's no God.  Not having enough data points to measure skill (which is a range, not a discrete value) doesn't mean it's therefore random...you are misinterpreting the Sharpshooter fallacy, and it does not support your position.  This is fairly common for posters here.  Ask Ponz, who wouldn't know a real straw man argument if it walked up and slapped him in the face.

That's incorrect. If you reject any prior and have no context, then the fallacy is vacuously true as has been explained.

Again, there is a whole book, a best seller even, that is accessible to a lay audience and that will help you learn about this sort of thing: "Fooled By Randomness"

LeeEuler

That is your job?   hahahahaha.   what a waste of time that is.   

And you absolutely are equating bad players with luck.   No matter how much you deny you are,  every one of your comments is doing just that.  Exactly as ziryab and others have described as well.   Its exactly what you are doing.    

This is like you admitting the definition of skill is  vs luck   is success or failure based on ones actions and not random chance.    Yet when you describe luck or skill you describe the opposite of this definition.  You have absolutely no credibility, which is no surprise since your very work is not a credible job.

I know man, who would ever want to parse out randomness? Besides money managers, insurance adjusters/underwriters, sports GMs, casinos, and many more, all of whose competitive advantage is largely built around or maintained through such research. But what do they know, am I right. Probably throwing away millions just for the heck of it.

"And you absolutely are equating bad players with luck"- no. Good players can be lucky and good players can be unlucky. Bad players can be lucky and bad players can be unlucky. 

mpaetz
btickler wrote:
mpaetz wrote:

     I once saw Willie Mays duck out of the way of a wild fastball coming at his head. The ball missed him but hit the bat and bloopped down the third-base line for a double. According to the definition of "luck" some posters here insist upon using, that must have been skill. Willie stood on second base laughing uproariously,. Teammates and oppponents joined on,and postgame comments all talked about how the best player in the game didn't really need such a stroke of LUCK.

     Any activity in which something as inconsistent and unpredictable as a human being is involved cannot fail to have some element of chance involved.

You are limiting your scope to Willy Mays and the actions he took.  The wild pitch caused the double, and that was due to a lack of skill on the part of the pitcher.  Wild pitches tare not random luck.

Listing complexity and unpredictability as proof of random chance doesn't work.  Weather isn't "lucky" or random chance.  We simply lack the means to accurately predict it.

Even so, that is immaterial.  We're not talking about the physical world here.  The context of a chess game is quite narrow, and has no physical components, actually.  The discrete "things" that are part and parcel of a chess game are limited.  Physical board and pieces vs. online play or even blindfold simuls, human players vs. engines, visual representation or verbal moves...all incidental.

     I would be amazed at your capacity to understand more about baseball than top professional players, especially as you never saw the play in question, if I thought there was the slightest chance that you knew what you were talking about. Your astounding ability to discern what the pitcher was trying to do 65 years ago is truly remarkable. How do you know it wasn't just a brushback and the pitch went exactly where it was meant to go? Mays made no attempt to strike at the ball and admitted the contact WAS pure chance and the ball dropping safely WAS pure luck. (And of course under the rules of baseball it was not a wild pitch.) Sorry, but your pompous claim to greater knowledge of baseball than Willie Mays has leaves you with zero credibility.

 

DiogenesDue
Ziryab wrote:
btickler wrote:
 

Not being able to accurately measure something doesn't negate it's existence, as any religious person will happily point out to you when you try to tell them there's no God.  

 

Really? You think this is convincing?

You were doing well.

I didn't say I was in favor of that particular position, but go ahead and try to prove to someone that there's no God.  If you prefer my weather analogy from last night, that's fine, too wink.png.

There are numerous instances where scientific advances were not discretely and directly measurable until well after they were accepted (but before someone even bothers...this does not mean chess is a draw with best play wink.png...).

If you want to try and draw a conclusion based on the Universe being a projection and measurement/observation bringing things into being (or perception in this case), then I guess one could go that route.  But if that's the case, none of this means diddly anyway and nothing is necessarily real.

mpaetz

     Wow!! Even more psychic abilities. Now you can say for certain what someone really meant. It seems the "truth" turns out to be what you want it to be and fhe individuals involved have no business trying to tell the honest truth as they see it. And there was NO skill involved in the ball hitting the bat. He wasn't even looking at the ball while flinging himself to the ground. 

     Whether you believe it or not, there is an event of chance in human activities, even those that are designed to minimize it. "The best laid plans of mice and men..."

 

 

 

LeeEuler

"win, loss, or draw over time is what matters because this is a competitive sport something you seem to have no concept of." That is largely correct and conforms to everything I've said. Except for the competitive sport, as I you keep bringing up, and for which I've dutifully pointed out that I played baseball at quite a high level. Never affiliated ball, but it was the reason I was able to attend my undergrad. 

"You say there is no such thing as a "correct" move then go in to say there is a probability in picking it."- That's correct, there is a probability underlying every selection. A player must make a move.

"This again is rooted in you thinking lower skilled player win by luck, that chess is not like other sports and that speedchess is not real chess."- Nowhere have I ever said these things. You are arguing against a construct that you've created. While it has nothing to do with the question, it's my opinion that speedchess is superior to classical, for example. Chess players, low rated or high rated, beat other players largely because of their superior skill. That doesn't take away from the luck inherent in the game itself. As I have consistently said, chess, like other games, is clearly skill-based with elements of luck. I lay out precisely my points in post #799 for you to quote from

technical_knockout

Romans 1:20

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead;  so that they are without excuse:

 

yeah, you tell me there's no God & i'll ask you where the universe came from;

it takes far more 'faith' to believe that nothing miraculously exploded into a harmonious universe of mathematical laws than it does to believe in an eternal, omniscient, omnipotent & benevolent Creator.

chessterchief

luck would be an outside influence the players cannot control, like a dice. there is zero luck in chess, you are responsible for your position. if there was luck in chess, machines could not completely master it, and beginners would occasionally win against grandmasters. tell your opponent not to be a sore loser, but don't be a sore winner, which is much worse.    

DiogenesDue
mpaetz wrote:

     I would be amazed at your capacity to understand more about baseball than top professional players, especially as you never saw the play in question, if I thought there was the slightest chance that you knew what you were talking about. Your astounding ability to discern what the pitcher was trying to do 65 years ago is truly remarkable. How do you know it wasn't just a brushback and the pitch went exactly where it was meant to go? Mays made no attempt to strike at the ball and admitted the contact WAS pure chance and the ball dropping safely WAS pure luck. (And of course under the rules of baseball it was not a wild pitch.) Sorry, but your pompous claim to greater knowledge of baseball than Willie Mays has leaves you with zero credibility.

Ummm...*you* categorized the pitch as "wild", which has a very narrow usage in baseball, as anyone that knows baseball as well as you do would understand wink.png.  So, I was accepting *your* expertise on the subject.  If you determined that the pitcher was trying back Willy Mays off the plate, you'd have said so.

The point stands, your narrative dismisses other's roles in the event and the possible effects of *their* skills, and that's the problem I am talking about...it doesn't even matter what actually happened in your analogy.

Nobody made a claim about my knowledge of baseball vs. WIlly Mays.  That's a straw man.  I also feel compelled to point out that your argument may fall under the Sharpshooter fallacy as well wink.png...better consult an expert.

If you said that Mario Andretti had won a Grand Prix race when the leader's car conked out on the last lap because Mario was just "lucky", I'd be telling you the exact same thing, sight unseen...that the skill of the pit crew of the other driver's car was actually a factor.  Note that doing so would not mean I was claiming to know more about Formula One racecars than a professional pit crew.  

I don't actually care about Willy Mays or Mario Andretti in this conversation, though...you chose the analogy, but I don't think it makes your case.

mpaetz
btickler wrote

Hello...*you* categorized the pitch as "wild", which has a very narrow usage in baseball, and anyone that know baseball as well as you do would know .  I am accepting *your* expertise on the subject.  The point stands, your narrative dismisses other's roles in the event and the possible effects of *their* skills, and that's the problem I am talking about...it doesn't even matter what actually happened in your analogy.

Nobody made a claim about my knowledge of baseball vs. WIlly Mays.  That's a straw man.

     Yes, you claimed that Mays was either incorrect in his judgement that sheer luck was the cause of his hit or that he must have been untruthful when he said so. It must have been poor skill by the pitcher or extraordinary prowess from Mays. You continue to assert that the expert players on the scene didn't know what really happened, but you do.

      And of course now that you can no longer keep up your phony baloney "it was some sort of skill,, good or bad, that determined the outcome" you claim the whole business is irrelevant. 

     Sometimes fate takes a hand in human affairs in spite of all our efforts to nullify it.

DiogenesDue
mpaetz wrote:

     Yes, you claimed that Mays was either incorrect in his judgement that sheer luck was the cause of his hit or that he must have been untruthful when he said so. It must have been poor skill by the pitcher or extraordinary prowess from Mays. You continue to assert that the expert players on the scene didn't know what really happened, but you do.

      And of course now that you can no longer keep up your phony baloney "it was some sort of skill,, good or bad, that determined the outcome" you claim the whole business is irrelevant. 

     Sometimes fate takes a hand in human affairs in spite of all our efforts to nullify it.

Ummm, you will need to re-read whose replies you are talking about, as I said no such thing about Willy Mays.  Your whole first paragraph is imagined/assumed.  

StumpyBlitzer

Let's get back on topic 😁👍

LLL_The_Dark_Knight_LLL

There is no luck. Either you can find the best move or you can not. As simple as that.

LeeEuler

sounds like you are talking about luck and not skill.  Because there is a big difference when skill is not open to interpretation except in chess communities,  since its obvious when the goal of the game is obvious when stated and we can measure the results and consistency of such within the playerbase.   As for the imaginary force you think everything but skill is,   I'll leave that to the con artists who make a living quantifying such.  

I've already shown this is not true. Measuring randomness is an accepted practice everywhere, sports included. It is not derogatory, and nobody with any grasp of probability would argue otherwise. 

Here is one of many examples from my favorite sport: https://blogs.fangraphs.com/is-baseball-the-least-random-sport/

And another: https://thepowerrank.com/2015/06/19/are-you-fooled-by-the-randomness-of-baseball/

And another: https://dknation.draftkings.com/mlb/2020/6/26/21309056/identifying-randomness-in-mlb

Whole departments dedicated to this stuff. 

As a thought experiment, how do you think chess.com's cheat detection works? How do they work to differentiate between a fundamental shift in ability, and the random variation in a player's ability? 

LeeEuler
CooloutAC wrote:
LeeEuler wrote:

sounds like you are talking about luck and not skill.  Because there is a big difference when skill is not open to interpretation except in chess communities,  since its obvious when the goal of the game is obvious when stated and we can measure the results and consistency of such within the playerbase.   As for the imaginary force you think everything but skill is,   I'll leave that to the con artists who make a living quantifying such.  

I've already shown this is not true. Measuring randomness is an accepted practice everywhere, sports included. It is not derogatory, and nobody with any grasp of probability would argue otherwise. 

Here is one of many examples from my favorite sport: https://blogs.fangraphs.com/is-baseball-the-least-random-sport/

And another: https://thepowerrank.com/2015/06/19/are-you-fooled-by-the-randomness-of-baseball/

And another: https://dknation.draftkings.com/mlb/2020/6/26/21309056/identifying-randomness-in-mlb

Whole departments dedicated to this stuff. 

As a thought experiment, how do you think chess.com's cheat detection works? How do they work to differentiate between a fundamental shift in ability, and the random variation in a player's ability? 

not all randomness is luck.  Only randomness that is not the result of human action and which can't be influenced by practice and knowledge.  By your own admission this is the definition of luck we agree upon and as dicussed there is elements of luck in many games such as poker or board games with dice.  But not in chess.     Trying to convince anyone of anything else,  is you conning people out of money  apparently since this is what you claim is your chosen profession, and has nothing to do with the topic of the thread.

This boils down to what must be perceived as an inferiority complex,   the need to convince yourself that speedchess is not real chess,  that chess is not like other sports,  or that lower skilled players only beat higher skilled players by luck and not skill.    This is you not understanding that the randomness you speak of,  has nothing to do with quantifying skill,  which in regards to chess and other sports,  is based on competitive play within the human playerbase.

You are repeatedly making up things to argue against. To help you stay on track, quote directly from post #799 when making any claims about my position on the topic.

"the need to convince yourself that speedchess is not real chess"- I've never said this. It's my personal opinion that speedchess is superior to classical chess. See post #817 "While it has nothing to do with the question, it's my opinion that speedchess is superior to classical,"

"lower skilled players only beat higher skilled players by luck and not skill"- I've never said this. See post #778 "  Of course, a lower rated player can be more skillful in a single game and win as a result of that skill. "

" Trying to convince anyone of anything else,  is you conning people out of money  apparently since this is what you claim is your chosen profession, and has nothing to do with the topic of the thread." - I brought up my profession in post #796 only because btickler said I was qualifying things by suddenly saying luck/skill could be measured, when in reality that has been my baseline from the first post. Similar to when I mentioned my baseball career to counter your incorrect assumption that I had no experience in competitive sports. 

"This is you not understanding that the randomness you speak of,  has nothing to do with quantifying skill,  which in regards to chess and other sports,  is based on competitive play within the human playerbase."- The world around you, in business, sports, medicine, you name it, disagrees. Look at the articles I linked for sports examples. Why do you think they are investing in these areas? Just for fun and to throw money away?

Ziryab
StumpyBlitzer wrote:

Let's get back on topic 😁👍

 Willie Mays?

eques_99

Yes in the sense that a move made in move 5 can have completely unforseen consequences in move 30. Other than that, no. If your opponent makes a mistake that's not luck. That means you have greater ability to avoid mistakes than he does.

technical_knockout

'in hyperbullet'

moving too fast & missing stuff is a lack of skill:

ludicrous speed accentuates the illusion of luck.

LeeEuler
CooloutAC wrote:
LeeEuler wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
LeeEuler wrote:

sounds like you are talking about luck and not skill.  Because there is a big difference when skill is not open to interpretation except in chess communities,  since its obvious when the goal of the game is obvious when stated and we can measure the results and consistency of such within the playerbase.   As for the imaginary force you think everything but skill is,   I'll leave that to the con artists who make a living quantifying such.  

I've already shown this is not true. Measuring randomness is an accepted practice everywhere, sports included. It is not derogatory, and nobody with any grasp of probability would argue otherwise. 

Here is one of many examples from my favorite sport: https://blogs.fangraphs.com/is-baseball-the-least-random-sport/

And another: https://thepowerrank.com/2015/06/19/are-you-fooled-by-the-randomness-of-baseball/

And another: https://dknation.draftkings.com/mlb/2020/6/26/21309056/identifying-randomness-in-mlb

Whole departments dedicated to this stuff. 

As a thought experiment, how do you think chess.com's cheat detection works? How do they work to differentiate between a fundamental shift in ability, and the random variation in a player's ability? 

not all randomness is luck.  Only randomness that is not the result of human action and which can't be influenced by practice and knowledge.  By your own admission this is the definition of luck we agree upon and as dicussed there is elements of luck in many games such as poker or board games with dice.  But not in chess.     Trying to convince anyone of anything else,  is you conning people out of money  apparently since this is what you claim is your chosen profession, and has nothing to do with the topic of the thread.

This boils down to what must be perceived as an inferiority complex,   the need to convince yourself that speedchess is not real chess,  that chess is not like other sports,  or that lower skilled players only beat higher skilled players by luck and not skill.    This is you not understanding that the randomness you speak of,  has nothing to do with quantifying skill,  which in regards to chess and other sports,  is based on competitive play within the human playerbase.

You are repeatedly making up things to argue against. To help you stay on track, quote directly from post #799 when making any claims about my position on the topic.

"the need to convince yourself that speedchess is not real chess"- I've never said this. It's my personal opinion that speedchess is superior to classical chess. See post #817 "While it has nothing to do with the question, it's my opinion that speedchess is superior to classical,"

"lower skilled players only beat higher skilled players by luck and not skill"- I've never said this. See post #778 "  Of course, a lower rated player can be more skillful in a single game and win as a result of that skill. "

" Trying to convince anyone of anything else,  is you conning people out of money  apparently since this is what you claim is your chosen profession, and has nothing to do with the topic of the thread." - I brought up my profession in post #796 only because btickler said I was qualifying things by suddenly saying luck/skill could be measured, when in reality that has been my baseline from the first post. Similar to when I mentioned my baseball career to counter your incorrect assumption that I had no experience in competitive sports. 

"This is you not understanding that the randomness you speak of,  has nothing to do with quantifying skill,  which in regards to chess and other sports,  is based on competitive play within the human playerbase."- The world around you, in business, sports, medicine, you name it, disagrees. Look at the articles I linked for sports examples. Why do you think they are investing in these areas? Just for fun and to throw money away?

 

How ironic is you telling me I'm making up arguments.  When i'm literally reading the definition of luck that you said you agreed with and pointing out how you are contradicting it.     

And I'm just giving you all the reasons I can think of for your motive.  you might not have claimed speedchess is not real chess, or lower skilled players only win by luck or that chess is not similar to other sports,  or too hard for most of society to understand etc...    But Optimissed and Ziryab show have indeed said many of  these things throughout this thread as well as these forums as well is it being the general consensus in most traditional chess communities and clubs.   I'm assuming you are no different because I can't understand why you are another walking contradiction and the fact is your argument can be used by them for those assertions they have.

You being a pro baseball,  even if true,  is irrelevant and hard to believe when you try to claim things like home runs are based on luck and not skillbased since they are hard to repeat.   When you claim things like consistency is irrelevant to determining skill,  when imo its the main factor and what separates pros from amateurs.   Did you ever see the movie moneyball?   You don't sound credible my friend.   And this is still all irrelevant to the definition of luck or having elements of luck in the game mechanics itself.

We are talking about sports my friend.  Please keep it to skill in sports and not randomness in life,  which as I said is not the definition of luck which you even admitted yourself.  And again,  not the definition of an element of luck in the game mechanic itself like poker or board games with dice.   Again,  let me restate the only part of my post you were afraid to address. 

Not all randomness is luck.  Only randomness that is not the result of human action and which can't be influenced by practice and knowledge.  

You continue to make up claims. To prevent in the future, quote my exact words from posts, with the number.  Unlike some, I do not make gratuitous edits.

1) "You being a pro baseball" 

I have never said this. In fact the opposite, see post #817 "I played baseball at quite a high level. Never affiliated ball, but it was the reason I was able to attend my undergrad. "

2) "when you try to claim things like home runs are based on luck and not skillbased "

This is the exact opposite of what I've said, see post #799. "baseball like chess is definitely skills based. No, every homerun isn't luck."

3) "When you claim things like consistency is irrelevant to determining skill, when imo its the main factor and what separates pros from amateurs. "

I have never said this, and consistency is clearly not what separates pros from amateurs. That would be either their mean or peak performance. See post #774 "To attribute his poor performances exclusively to his lack of skill on that day and his great performances exclusively to sudden strokes of brilliance is poor reasoning. It is fitting a narrative with the benefit of hind-sight rather than acknowledging the natural variation of his play.  Worse players can have tighter distributions about their play, and still have their best days intersect with his worst days. It doesn't change the fact that they are worse players." 

To your final point, nothing I've ever said has implied I thought otherwise. Observed randomness it not exclusively driven by luck. People have better days, and people have worse days. Outcome=skill+luck, see http://www.proftesting.com/blog/2016/10/13/measurement-error-relationship-reliability/

It is a beautiful irony that you reference Moneyball though, that is pretty great. The architects of the sabermetric revolution... yup, no thought about randomness among that group! 

LeeEuler

You have not quoted me.

1) From your post #838: Show me the quote, and give the post number, where I claimed I was a pro player

2) From your post #838: Show me the quote, and give the post number, where I claimed homeruns are based on luck or that baseball is not skillsbased. 

3) From your post #838: Show me the quote, and give the post number, where I claimed consistency is irrelevant in determining skill 

4) From your post #834: Show me the quote, and give the post number, where I claimed speedchess is not real chess

5) From your post #834: Show me the quote, and give the post number, where I claimed lower skilled players only beat higher skilled players by luck 

6) From your post #789: Show me the quote, and give the post number, where I claimed accuracy [exclusively] determines skill 

7) From your post #763: Show me the quote, and give the post number, where I ever implied Ivanchuk got his rating and record due to luck

There are other errors to, like from your post #809: where you say "because this is a competitive sport something you clearly have no understanding of.   Take your head out of your books lmao."

Or from post #789 where you say "The problem is you don't even know the definition of luck, have yet to even research it." while simultaneously replying to my post saying that "I will use any reasonable definition, but I've been using luck ='success or failure apparently brought by chance rather than through one's own actions'".