Is there such thing as "luck" in chess? - Chess Forums - Page 37

DiogenesDue

May 4, 2022

0

#721

Nate1719 wrote:

wtf

I know, right? Some people are surprised to learn how much bandwidth streaming takes.

DiogenesDue

May 4, 2022

0

#722

CooloutAC wrote:

The guy is basically arguing both sides of an argument as it suits him and who he decides to troll at any moment on any given day. While accusing others of having self created illusions haha. Ironically, in a thread where people are arguing whether luck in life is considered luck in chess. Even though there is no elements of luck in chess by design which distinguishes it from other board games.

^^^ hasn't figured out life yet or how to do that logic stuff, but still wants to be noticed and acknowledged like any human being does. Please help.

jay_1944

May 4, 2022

0

#723

Yes, I believe luck plays a role in chess

mpaetz

May 4, 2022

0

#724

Few words outside of technical disciplines have rigid definitions. Meanings are the result of common usage, which can vary from place to place, group to group, era to era. And "a lot gets in translation" from other languages.

Take a simple word like "lift". Many would say it means raising some object. Short people may use it to describe something they put into their shoes. Some may say a Coke or a Red Bull gives them a lift. Some places it is that little room that takes you from floor to floor in a tall building.

Saying that there is only one acceptable definition for most any word is a joke. As Einstein once said "everything is relative". Claiming that the first thing that pops up on Google is equivalent to what descended from Mt. Sinai is poppycock.

DiogenesDue

May 4, 2022

0

#725

CooloutAC wrote:

jay_1944 wrote:

Yes, I believe luck plays a role in chess

what is your definition of luck? can you give an example? My definition is Success or Failure bought by chance rather then ones actions, and in which such success can't be influenced by skill, like practice or knowledge.

There are many elements of luck in board games like randomly dealt cards or dice. But in chess the only element of luck is the randomly chosen colors, and only if you argue one color has a better chance of success over the other, which makes chess different than most board games.

In my case I win like 55% of the time with white and only 45% of the time with black, so you could argue I get lucky when getting white. But its debatable because that is not the case for everyone is only based on my skill playing those colors.

So why i originally agreed with bticklers statement that this was the only element of luck, now that I have thought deeply its more of an element of chance but not necessarily luck.

Lol. So you're so intent to part ways, you are going to start a new definitional divide between luck and chance?

By all means. Works for me. Not only does it show you walking off into the reeds, now I don't have to tell Lee Euler I was never backing up your arguments and that we were never really in agreement .

P.S. You don't have to argue whether white wins more often than black in chess. It does.

jay_1944

May 4, 2022

0

#726

@CooloutAC I definitely agree with the first part of your definition, but not so much the, "and in which such success can't be influenced by skill". I believe their are many things were skill and luck both play roles.

I like the statement that it's more "chance" than "luck". That's a good argument. I still believe their is some luck however.

My skill in chess is intermediate at best. At this level, endless elements of the game are overlooked. Sometimes moves work out for reasons ya never expected or even noticed. Often you play a move and realize, crap I overlooked his bishop taking me! Oh wait... he can't because so and so...

I believe these are elements of luck. Some games/moves go your way for reasons you had no idea about! Just lucky.

DiogenesDue

May 4, 2022

0

#727

CooloutAC wrote:

Are yous aying you don't know the difference. Again, this is why words matter and why I told Arthur to look it up. If i tell you in my own words what the difference is, You will discount it if you can't find it quoted word for word as I explain it. Much like Lee Euler did who you originally and ferociously debated against. But here it goes...

Chance is something randomly happening. What makes it bad or good "luck" is if it affects your success or failure in something. To me this is just more simple common sense that would be foolish to argue against. But go ahead, troll on my friend.

This distinction is meaningless in the context of chess' initial color selection. Chess is a game, so success or failure is implied. Color selection is the first step in playing the game, and affects the outcome. So the "chance" would have to also be "luck" using both of your definitions in this case.

You can argue nuances of the words all you want to, but in your argument *here*, there is no distinction unless you are a little slow...or just being disingenuous...or both.

jay_1944

May 4, 2022

0

#728

CooloutAC wrote:

jay_1944 wrote:

@CooloutAC I definitely agree with the first part of your definition, but not so much the, "and in which such success can't be influenced by skill". I believe their are many things were skill and luck both play roles.

I like the statement that it's more "chance" than "luck". That's a good argument. I still believe their is some luck however.

My skill in chess is intermediate at best. At this level, endless elements of the game are overlooked. Sometimes moves work out for reasons ya never expected or even noticed. Often you play a move and realize, crap I overlooked his bishop taking me! Oh wait... he can't because so and so...

I believe these are elements of luck. Some games/moves go your way for reasons you had no idea about! Just lucky.

Again you say all this but can you give me examples of anything to prove it? I gave you the example of randomly chosen colors.

When people are guessing moves, that is still from their own action. It is not random chance. It is still based on whatever educated knowledge and intuition they have. It is not luck. And this can be applied to any game its not specific in chess.

Okay here is an example of what I view as lucky. Then I'll read your response and move on I'm not huge on debating, unless I'm passionate about the topic!

There was a forum post, boasting about 2 brilliant moves a lower rated player got. The game shown is from said post... The poster plays black and 28 ...Qf3 was brilliant. The next move however, white has a nice attack on black's king, with check after check after check! I asked black, when playing your brilliant move, did you notice white had a strong attack on your king?? Did you see you could eventually escape to safety, making your move brilliant indeed?? And of course, no they did not.

I believe black was lucky that all these checks didn't lead to a mate, and would have been unlucky if they did. Look at black's 28th "brilliant" move and see what I mean.

jay_1944

May 4, 2022

0

#729

I'll agree to disagree. But either way, take care man! Cheers

mpaetz

May 4, 2022

0

#730

CooloutAC wrote:

agreed, and this is what optimissed has been trying to get across throughout this thread. You can't have an honest debate on whether words apply, if you can't come to a common agreement on what the definitions of those words are. And to say you agree with the definitions, but then argue and apply the opposite of them, is even more dishonest.

I have never said I agreed to your interpretation of "luck",you simply declared your interpretation is correct and label other people's opinions a BS when they don't fit your criteria. You fire off so many instant replies on so many subjects that you lose track of who else said what and become confused and angry. Cool out.

DiogenesDue

May 4, 2022

0

#731

CooloutAC wrote:

wrong. sucess or failure is implied in chess. But color selection arguably makes no difference. Are you arguing that someone who gets white for every single game has a better chance then someone who always gets black every time? Or vice versa? If your answer is no, then it is not an element of luck, just an element of random chance.

And to dismiss the nuances of words or why defintiions of words are important, shows you are being disingenuous in this debate. Which is now evident as you have started to take the opposite side you have previously. Simply to troll.

No, my position has not changed...and you are the only one that does not seem to see that.

Your position, on the other hand, has, by your own admission.

ChirpyChirpie

May 4, 2022

0

#732

Only happens to me when I misclick on this app

ArthurEZiegler

May 4, 2022

0

#733

btickler - I have no idea what my spirit animal might be, but I do like lizards! I have a book on Native American Astrology which says I am in the deer tribe. The hawk poem was very profound! It reminds me of the book "Seven Arrows" by Hyemeyohst Storm. I am attaching a watercolor I painted like 50 years ago based on the myth of Prometheus, who was punished by an eagle sent by the Gods for stealing fire for mankind.

CooloutAC - I don't see any consensus here about the definition of "luck". In my answers to btickler's exercises I used my own definition and I think gave logical examples based on that. But I have fully admitted that in regards to games your definition is more appropriate. I think if I said "The fulfillment of the statistical probability that the outcome of the game may be a win" instead of "luck" you might agree that it is part of the game. I don't know what you mean by saying I think "chess is too complicated for society." I never said low level players only win by luck, what I said was by my definition as skill increases the level of luck involved decreases. The difference between speed chess and regular chess is only the degree of time for analyses, finite in both cases. As far as I know chess is both about accuracy and being a competitive game, I'm not sure if I'd call it a "sport." I very well may have an elitist attitude, an ego and an inferiority complex, but I don't see how this makes my opinions either valid or false. It is true that I don't understand how luck as it applies to life is different than when it is in chess game. I don't see how your definition of "luck" applies to life at all since living is an expression of a person's skill.

DiogenesDue

May 4, 2022

0

#734

CooloutAC wrote:

I have always said there is no luck in chess. But I said it was debatable that randomly chosen colors is an element of luck when I agreed with, as you said, is the only element of luck in chess. We were in agreement throughout this whole thread, until you saw me and Optimissed reach an agreement which boiled you up inside.

But yes, now I have changed my opinion on that, its not even debatable. I simply don't think what color you have gives you a better chance or not towards success. And neither can you since you have avoided addressing my simple and rhetorical question. It can't be argued again just like my definition can't be. Because what color is better depends on the person, and depends on their skill and it could be completely opposite negating any belief it is one way or the other. Making it just a chance element, but not good or bad luck.

You're pretty funny, Both you and Optimissed, actually. You seek approval, and imagine yourself teaming up with other posters or whatever when there's any sign of a shared viewpoint, then get bent out of shape when you discover people don't think of you the same way. Then you get all butthurt and resentful.

My position on luck in the game of chess was documented *long* before you showed up here. I do not agree with your particular position, though, and never have:

- You believe that luck is the opposite of skill and that they are two ends of the same spectrum. That is false.

- You believe that chess players only believe in luck in chess because they are elitist snobs trying to protect their egos. That is the rantings of a lunatic.

I do believe chess is a skill based game, designed to have the minimum amount of luck. After that, we differ quite a bit.

Ziryab

May 4, 2022

0

#735

Optimissed wrote:

Ziryab wrote:

Writing about superstitions after mentioning a belief in gods, the word “but” seems wrong. The two sets of beliefs described are wholly consistent.

BUT that's your opinion, based on your set of beliefs. In any case, "but" may have been a random conjunction or it may have been used as a literary device signifying an implication of disconnection or discoordination. Do we know which?

I am cognisant of when a Jesuit priest described a particular Coeur d’Alene Indian action as superstitious. They were looking for support from a calico shirt for protection against smallpox. Of course it did not work, but neither did the priest’s remedies. However, unlike the priest’s remedies, theirs was rooted in the correct assessment that smallpox came to their community with the fur traders who were wearing calico shirts. Their dress was not the carrier, they were.

DiogenesDue

May 4, 2022

0

#736

CooloutAC wrote:

Ironically, that is what YOU seem to believe. And that is why you suddenly switched to the other side of the argument. To troll me over this false belief. This is you confirming that is what triggered you lol. Optmissed just has a better understanding of linguistics and wordage then you do my friend. People who study history should also know that definitions change over time, between regions, environments, and between people. To me its just common sense that shouldn't even need explaining or how it applies to an honest debate.

Optimissed also understand that nuances are important and everything needs context. I personally feel from years of debating issues online that you must be able to state definitions and your meanings in your own words. What is funny to me, is that my definition is not changing the meaning to the first half most of you already agreed with as the other poster found out with his example. Its simply putting it into context to help you better understand its meaning.

Arthur's oxford defintion was not specific enough and applied to any aspect of luck in life, but as he admits my definition is more appropriate in regards to gaming which is the topic here.

It's none too surprising that you would find Optimissed to be credible. Good luck with that.

Meanwhile, you still cannot show where or how I have contradicted myself or "changed sides". Good luck with that, as well .

P.S. You mean my definition. Mr. Ziegler was replying to me when he first said that, and apparently assumes you are in lockstep with my definition. I'm guessing he would not appreciate being an accessory to one of your minor contentions, however.

DiogenesDue

May 4, 2022

0

#737

CooloutAC wrote:

I'm quoting what Arthur said in his reply to me. And everyone else can also read through the thread, including him, to see how you flipped flopped my friend. I don't have to prove anything, those in the shadows can be the judge.

Me and optimissed have our arguments, but I don't hate anybody and would not sell my integrity for the sake of siding against them.

Lol. I don't need to "sell my integrity" to handle you, him, both at once, or a dozen clones of each of you jumping on me like oompa-loompas...

There was no change in my arguments/position whatsoever. You're just logic-impaired.

ArthurEZiegler

May 4, 2022

0

#738

btickler - My apologies but I thought your position regarding luck in chess was nearly the same as CooloutAC's. Some of your comments gave that impression to me, particularly those that question the random factor involved in the game designed to be as skilled based as possible: "I do believe chess is a skill based game, designed to have the minimum amount of luck." I understand you come from the position of gaming design. I did look back several pages, but I must admit I'm not sure now what your belief is or definition of luck, except you seem to think there is a small amount of luck in a chess game.

CooloutAC - I'm glad you admit that not all those beliefs necessarily apply to me! It was annoying to be accused of things I did not say, I thank you for correcting that impression. In the future if you want to discuss one of my opinions perhaps you could include a quote. Note that you don't, as seems to be the custom here, need to repost my entire statement, you can edit it down to the relevant section. The definition I posted came from Websters, not the Oxford Dictionary. It was not directed to anyone in particular, just something I thought might be of interest. I still like the definition of "luck" best that I, myself, made up! Must be because of my overinflated ego! I'll quote it again because I can: "Luck is a favorable outcome of a situation that is not fully determined by the skills and abilities of the individual involved."

DiogenesDue

May 4, 2022

0

#739

ArthurEZiegler wrote:

btickler - My apologies but I thought your position regarding luck in chess was nearly the same as CooloutAC's. Some of your comments gave that impression to me, particularly those that question the random factor involved in the game designed to be as skilled based as possible: "I do believe chess is a skill based game, designed to have the minimum amount of luck." I understand you come from the position of gaming design. I did look back several pages, but I must admit I'm not sure now what your belief is or definition of luck, except you seem to think there is a small amount of luck in a chess game.

CooloutAC - I'm glad you admit that not all those beliefs necessarily apply to me! It was annoying to be accused of things I did not say, I thank you for correcting that impression. In the future if you want to discuss one of my opinions perhaps you could include a quote. Note that you don't, as seems to be the custom here, need to repost my entire statement, you can edit it down to the relevant section. The definition I posted came from Websters, not the Oxford Dictionary. It was not directed to anyone in particular, just something I thought might be of interest. I still like the definition of "luck" best that I, myself, made up! Must be because of my overinflated ego! I'll quote it again because I can: "Luck is a favorable outcome of a situation that is not fully determined by the skills and abilities of the individual involved."

I never really attempted to define luck in a simple statement, already understanding that there's a breadth on the general definition of luck. Instead I talked about luck in game design, which is much narrower, and luck developers introduce in software development, which is even narrower.

Here's my same position/opinion, from 4 years ago:

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/how-much-of-chess-is-luck?page=3#comment-39258922

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/how-much-of-chess-is-luck?page=3#comment-39259442

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/how-much-of-chess-is-luck?page=4#comment-39260350

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/how-much-of-chess-is-luck?page=7#comment-39276166

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/how-much-of-chess-is-luck?page=13#comment-39293588

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/how-much-of-chess-is-luck?page=13#comment-39293734

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/how-much-of-chess-is-luck?page=13#comment-39293878

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/how-much-of-chess-is-luck?page=7#comment-39276166

I actually listed the Wikipedia definition of luck *in games* in the last post linked...

"Luck in games involving chance is defined as the change in a player's equity after a random event such as a die roll or card draw."

Here's a post where I said that defining words is done by consensus over time...

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/how-much-of-chess-is-luck?page=11#comment-39289752

Hmmm...my positions seem pretty damn consistent (that is not aimed at you ...).

wizardKM

May 5, 2022

0

#740

@Ziryab...#1181 and #1211...HEY, the word "but" is EXACTLY where it belongs! I was comparing--in passing--the superstitions of both the ancient Romans and sailors--of pretty much all eras except maybe the Common Era--which is NOT consistent as a set of beliefs since not all sailors believed in gods/goddesses!! So YES, the word "but" is right where it needs to be. You quibble about the most asinine details, without even looking at the proverbial "Big Picture"...!!...which IN THIS FORUM TOPIC, had to do with the question of "Luck" in Chess...!!...which I focused on after what I HAD considered to be a mere humorous sidenote about "Lady Luck" and the Romans...I personally DO NOT CARE about religion, either past or present, so take your agnostic/atheist prognostications to some Religious Forum!!