ChessSBM wrote:
Capablanca says yes
According to some of the more enthusiastic fans here, he has quite a few interesting quotes. Maybe they will recognize this one from his greatest game. When promoting a pawn, he said "king me".
Is there such thing as "luck" in chess?
Sort:
May 10, 2022
0
#783
Optimissed wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
The lower the skill, the greater the luck element in the game; the greater the skill, the better the luck.
Now wait a minute.
What about "skill making its own luck"? I've heard that pretty often but there seems to be some contradiction.
That’s the second half of the sentence.
Weaker players rely on luck. Skilled players make their own.
Optimissed wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:
ChessSBM wrote:
Capablanca says yes
According to some of the more enthusiastic fans here, he has quite a few interesting quotes. Maybe they will recognize this one from his greatest game. When promoting a pawn, he said "king me".
Like Fischer, Wesley So, Hikaru and many others, he also said chess would not last because "perfect" matches lead to draws. like Fischer he created his own variant. He was one of those very creative players with natural ability that didn't take studying too seriously. LIke most GM's, he favored speed chess. He probably felt it more sporting.
Capablanca was an anti-sport campaigner. He was never more at home dessed like a lizard and being charming to a lady. His principles were quite strong, on that count. He said to ladies "I wish I could see more of you because it would take my mind off this silly game I have to play."
To be honest, I don't know anything about him. But from what you say he sounds like someone I might like to play chess with. There is a very high probability your quote from him is a lot more accurate than mine.
May 11, 2022
0
#785
CooloutAC wrote
You said unconnected in post #1245 which I repeatedly and direclty addressed over and over. you wait till pages later to now deny you ever said it... Loony Toon status buddy.
I said that the result was unconnected to the moves the players made, not that it was unconnected to chess.
The outcome of the game--who wins and who looses--is part of chess. It is IN chess, as you would say. If this important part of the game is decided by something other than the players' skills, then LUCK (what you call the opposite of skill) is responsible IN that particular game.
This very rare event is the only kind of luck I claim exists in chess.I do not claim that all chess games contain an element of luck, I do not claim that luck is written into the rules of the game, I merely point out that every once in a while luck can and does affect chess games.
May 11, 2022
0
#786
No, I never said luck was unconnected to chess, no matter how much you blather on about it. Had you adequate reading comprehension ability you would realize that "games are won/lost for reasons unconnected to the moves" means that sometimes, due to highly unusual circumstances, the skills of the players don't matter in the final result.
If you are claiming that winning and losing aren't part of chess, I can only laugh at you considering how often you claim that it is the sporting competition that is the most significant aspect of the game. If you admit that victory and defeat are indeed "IN" chess you have to concede that luck can sometimes decide a chess game.
Further had you any memory of what has been said here you would know this is all I ever claimed about luck in chess.
May 11, 2022
0
#787
CooloutAC wrote:
You really are dancing around the fact you are describing luck even by its universal accepted definition...lmao.
I'm saying that things outside of chess that affect winning and losing, like having to forfeit a match cause your car broke down, has NOTHING to do with chess bud. Just like a shooting at a country music concert, does not mean that such shootings are part of country music concerts. I will probably remember for the rest of my life how a crazy person on chess.com tried to use that as an example to prove there is ... hahaha.
You are literally contradicting yourself in the first paragraph of this post. You don't even have a memory of what the definition of luck that has been repeated throughout this thread is, or you are full of it.
I remember your perfectly well. I also remember that you made up half of it yourself. I also remember that many posters here have a different interpretation of the term than you do. I don't go by your made-up definitions and I don't agree with you opinion on what is and is not part of chess. The fact that you simply continue to repeat your own opinion is not a convincing argument. And you claim that what causes winning and losing is not part is a joke
May 11, 2022
0
#788
Imalittleaxleotto wrote:
Mpeatz, I was just curious to what makes you want to be a gold member and I've seen you been a member for over a year but you have played zero games just want to know because it's hard not to question your credibility.
I quit chess for about 25 years, started again when I retired. I found this site and used it for it's openings book and to help analyze the OTB games I play at a couple of clubs. I'm not that fond of speed chess so I never played here although I do sometimes play OTB During pandemic lockdown I had too much spare time ony hands and spent some of it on the forums here and have continued to look at them.
May 11, 2022
0
#789
Another comparison popped into my head today that helps support luck being inherent to chess: multiple choice tests.
-Like chess, there are a finite number of possibilities to consider, and a person must make a choice
-Like chess, a person's relative knowledge only becomes apparent through multiple trials (moves in chess or questions on the exam), over which luck becomes a smaller and smaller portion of the outcome.
-Like chess, it is often (but not always) the case that the person who is more skilled/knowledgeable will score better, and that a person can improve their performance by studying/practicing
-Like chess, after sufficiently many trials, it becomes increasingly unlikely that people with vastly different levels of skill will score similarly, but for those of similar skill, slight differences don't necessarily imply minute differences in skill/ability.
-Like chess, elements of skill and luck are involved in each individual selection, changing the naive assumption of complete randomness. For example, a chess player shows skill in narrowing down to a few candidate moves, but may not end up selecting the "right" one. On the other hand a test-taker might show skill in eliminating some nonsensical answers, doesn't know where to go from there, and just happens to select the correct answer out of dumb luck.
May 11, 2022
0
#790
This is all rooted in your belief that lower rated players only win by luck, that speed chess is not real chess, that chess is too hard for society to understand, that players get lucky when flagging, that its poor etiquette to not resign, that chess is not a sport, etc.... This is you trying to prove the 100s of years of indoctrination you have been programmed with about chess.
Link to the post where I ever said all these things. Anything less is a tactic admission that you are lying. As has consistently been the case, you simply make up things to argue against, rather than address people's actual points.
The problem is once it is the players consideration and choice of his own will and action, then it is not random chance or luck. Its just a level of his skill and knowledge.
Guessing "C" is not displaying skill; it is functionally the same thing as flipping a coin or rolling a dice. Similarly selecting the wrong answer after making an arithmetic error doesn't mean you are less knowledgeable than the person who randomly guessed the right one.
May 11, 2022
0
#791
CooloutAC wrote:
LeeEuler wrote:
This is all rooted in your belief that lower rated players only win by luck, that speed chess is not real chess, that chess is too hard for society to understand, that players get lucky when flagging, that its poor etiquette to not resign, that chess is not a sport, etc.... This is you trying to prove the 100s of years of indoctrination you have been programmed with about chess.
Link to the post where I ever said all these things. Anything less is a tactic admission that you are lying. As has consistently been the case, you simply make up things to argue against, rather than address people's actual points.
The problem is once it is the players consideration and choice of his own will and action, then it is not random chance or luck. Its just a level of his skill and knowledge.
Guessing "C" is not displaying skill; it is functionally the same thing as flipping a coin or rolling a dice. Similarly selecting the wrong answer after making an arithmetic error doesn't mean you are less knowledgeable than the person who randomly guessed the right one.
So are you saying none of those things are true about you? You don't have to say them, that is the point. Your desperate attempts to prove there is elements of luck in chess say it all. Tell me i'm wrong...lol
Even guessing is still based on ones intuition and knowledge buddy. Its still an educated guess and still by the player's own actions which is the opposite of random chance. Just like the skill I used in determining how you feel about chess by analyzing the premise of your arguement. It is absolutely not the same thing as flipping a coin and thats quite a condescending thing to say about any player. Skill, which you have admitted is the opposite of luck, and which is based on many things including practice and knowledge, can't influence success or failure in flipping a coin. This is where the flaw in your theory lies my friend. And yes similarly indeed, well done on contradicting yourself with that last sentence.
No, I am saying that you are making things up to argue against, rather than arguing against what I actually said. You can see my exact words and quote them verbatim in your posts (meaning put quotation marks around the precise words that you are addressing) to keep you on track. For what it's worth, yes you are wrong. For example, higher rated players can actually be the lucky ones when they beat lower rated players. Also, I view speed chess as superior to classical, chess as a game for everyone regardless of how serious they take it, and the clock as a vital part of the game so that it's never wrong to try and flag.
"Even guessing is still based on ones intuition and knowledge buddy. Its still an educated guess and still by the player's own actions"
You are arguing the selection of a suitcase in Deal Or No Deal is skill-based.
I leave with your own point that you "you can't parse luck from skill from a single move"
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/is-there-such-thing-as-quotluckquot-in-chess2?page=51#comment-69041096
May 11, 2022
0
#792
CooloutAC wrote:
LeeEuler wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
LeeEuler wrote:
This is all rooted in your belief that lower rated players only win by luck, that speed chess is not real chess, that chess is too hard for society to understand, that players get lucky when flagging, that its poor etiquette to not resign, that chess is not a sport, etc.... This is you trying to prove the 100s of years of indoctrination you have been programmed with about chess.
Link to the post where I ever said all these things. Anything less is a tactic admission that you are lying. As has consistently been the case, you simply make up things to argue against, rather than address people's actual points.
The problem is once it is the players consideration and choice of his own will and action, then it is not random chance or luck. Its just a level of his skill and knowledge.
Guessing "C" is not displaying skill; it is functionally the same thing as flipping a coin or rolling a dice. Similarly selecting the wrong answer after making an arithmetic error doesn't mean you are less knowledgeable than the person who randomly guessed the right one.
So are you saying none of those things are true about you? You don't have to say them, that is the point. Your desperate attempts to prove there is elements of luck in chess say it all. Tell me i'm wrong...lol
Even guessing is still based on ones intuition and knowledge buddy. Its still an educated guess and still by the player's own actions which is the opposite of random chance. Just like the skill I used in determining how you feel about chess by analyzing the premise of your arguement. It is absolutely not the same thing as flipping a coin and thats quite a condescending thing to say about any player. Skill, which you have admitted is the opposite of luck, and which is based on many things including practice and knowledge, can't influence success or failure in flipping a coin. This is where the flaw in your theory lies my friend. And yes similarly indeed, well done on contradicting yourself with that last sentence.
No, I am saying that you are making things up to argue against, rather than arguing against what I actually said. You can see my exact words and quote them verbatim in your posts (meaning put quotation marks around the precise words that you are addressing) to keep you on track. For what it's worth, yes you are wrong. For example, higher rated players can actually be the lucky ones when they beat lower rated players. Also, I view speed chess as superior to classical, chess as a game for everyone regardless of how serious they take it, and the clock as a vital part of the game so that it's never wrong to try and flag.
"Even guessing is still based on ones intuition and knowledge buddy. Its still an educated guess and still by the player's own actions"
You are arguing the selection of a suitcase in Deal Or No Deal is skill-based.
I leave with your own point that you "you can't parse luck from skill from a single move"
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/is-there-such-thing-as-quotluckquot-in-chess2?page=51#comment-69041096
So what you are saying is I'm not wrong. lol That is because I made an educated guess. It was not luck as someone like you would believe. It was a guess based on knowledge. Consider it a skill. So again, i'm saying selecting a suitcase in deal or no deal is NOT skill based, because its purely random chance that no amount of knowledge or practice can influence to increase the chances of a successful outcome.
You can't measure level of skill because that is determined by the goal of the game and measured against the opponent and rest of the playerbase. But you can still determine that a skill is needed, since no elements of luck exist in the game design to determine a single move, which means no random chance, not influenced by ones own actions and skill, can influence success or failure.
You reply with "So what you are saying is I'm not wrong. lol"
To a post in which I say "For what it's worth, yes you are wrong" followed by four explicit examples that detail exactly how you were wrong in your assumptions. You thought I only believed lower rated players won on luck; I said the opposite. You thought I would say speed chess is not real chess; I said I think of speed chess as superior to classical. You thought I believed chess was too hard for society to understand; I said chess is a game for everyone regardless of skill level. You thought I believed players got luck when flagging; I said the the time element is inseparable from the game.
That about sums up Coolout's modus operandi for you.
May 11, 2022
0
#793
CooloutAC wrote:
LeeEuler wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
LeeEuler wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
LeeEuler wrote:
This is all rooted in your belief that lower rated players only win by luck, that speed chess is not real chess, that chess is too hard for society to understand, that players get lucky when flagging, that its poor etiquette to not resign, that chess is not a sport, etc.... This is you trying to prove the 100s of years of indoctrination you have been programmed with about chess.
Link to the post where I ever said all these things. Anything less is a tactic admission that you are lying. As has consistently been the case, you simply make up things to argue against, rather than address people's actual points.
The problem is once it is the players consideration and choice of his own will and action, then it is not random chance or luck. Its just a level of his skill and knowledge.
Guessing "C" is not displaying skill; it is functionally the same thing as flipping a coin or rolling a dice. Similarly selecting the wrong answer after making an arithmetic error doesn't mean you are less knowledgeable than the person who randomly guessed the right one.
So are you saying none of those things are true about you? You don't have to say them, that is the point. Your desperate attempts to prove there is elements of luck in chess say it all. Tell me i'm wrong...lol
Even guessing is still based on ones intuition and knowledge buddy. Its still an educated guess and still by the player's own actions which is the opposite of random chance. Just like the skill I used in determining how you feel about chess by analyzing the premise of your arguement. It is absolutely not the same thing as flipping a coin and thats quite a condescending thing to say about any player. Skill, which you have admitted is the opposite of luck, and which is based on many things including practice and knowledge, can't influence success or failure in flipping a coin. This is where the flaw in your theory lies my friend. And yes similarly indeed, well done on contradicting yourself with that last sentence.
No, I am saying that you are making things up to argue against, rather than arguing against what I actually said. You can see my exact words and quote them verbatim in your posts (meaning put quotation marks around the precise words that you are addressing) to keep you on track. For what it's worth, yes you are wrong. For example, higher rated players can actually be the lucky ones when they beat lower rated players. Also, I view speed chess as superior to classical, chess as a game for everyone regardless of how serious they take it, and the clock as a vital part of the game so that it's never wrong to try and flag.
"Even guessing is still based on ones intuition and knowledge buddy. Its still an educated guess and still by the player's own actions"
You are arguing the selection of a suitcase in Deal Or No Deal is skill-based.
I leave with your own point that you "you can't parse luck from skill from a single move"
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/is-there-such-thing-as-quotluckquot-in-chess2?page=51#comment-69041096
So what you are saying is I'm not wrong. lol That is because I made an educated guess. It was not luck as someone like you would believe. It was a guess based on knowledge. Consider it a skill. So again, i'm saying selecting a suitcase in deal or no deal is NOT skill based, because its purely random chance that no amount of knowledge or practice can influence to increase the chances of a successful outcome.
You can't measure level of skill because that is determined by the goal of the game and measured against the opponent and rest of the playerbase. But you can still determine that a skill is needed, since no elements of luck exist in the game design to determine a single move, which means no random chance, not influenced by ones own actions and skill, can influence success or failure.
You reply with "So what you are saying is I'm not wrong. lol"
To a post in which I say "For what it's worth, yes you are wrong" followed by four explicit examples that detail exactly how you were wrong in your assumptions. You thought I only believed lower rated players won on luck; I said the opposite. You thought I would say speed chess is not real chess; I said I think of speed chess as superior to classical. You thought I believed chess was too hard for society to understand; I said chess is a game for everyone regardless of skill level. You thought I believed players got luck when flagging; I said the the time element is inseparable from the game.
That about sums up Coolout's modus operandi for you.
SO do you consider chess a sport? You left that one out.
And sorry if I don't believe you. I'm not gonna go and search through the thread to have an unrelated debate on this, But these are clearly opinions of everyone else but you who has made the same argument regarding luck in chess. Its the traditional belief of most on these forums and with each of them I have had this debate for the 6 months Ive been here. Optimissed, Ziryab, btickler, mpaetz, and I don't think they would deny it like you are. Its not all or nothing, I'm saying each of them, including you, hold some of those beliefs and proving luck in chess supports them. For example, ziryab believes that chess is a sport, but like most he believes classical is superior to speed chess and lower rated players win by luck. Which is what you also believe, saying higher rated players also win by luck doesn't negate that. I disagree on both point.
Because I guess you are conceding the thread topic at this point and the rest of my post?
Don't make up things and attribute them to other people's beliefs if you don't want them to do the same to you
You conceded the thread topic when you said "you can't parse luck from skill from a single move" https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/is-there-such-thing-as-quotluckquot-in-chess2?page=51#comment-69041096
May 11, 2022
0
#794
And just to reiterate another point you are trying to ignore. Chess.com has a skill rating system. glicko, elo, they don't measure skill by measuring luck. Thats not a real variable in the equation. And saying you can't determine level of skill by a single move, doesn't mean skill is not involved just because you can't measure its level. I believe btickler also made this very same point to you before he started trolling me lol.
You spend post after post calling statisticians and actuaries things like frauds and con artists "who like to crunch numbers even when unnecessary and pointless" (https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/is-there-such-thing-as-quotluckquot-in-chess2?page=46#comment-68991883) and then reference glicko and elo.
I alternate between you being like a 3YearLetterman level of trolling or genuinely believing the things you write, but I don't know if it's possible to have that level of cognitive dissonance, so am leaning toward the former.
May 12, 2022
0
#795
CooloutAC wrote:
lol. I didn't make anything up. But even the half I quoted word for word from google you are literally contradicting. You refuse to admit what you are describing is luck by definition, while calling it luck! Get mental help. And at the same time admitting yourself its rare and unconnected lol. Luck is success or failure based on random chance and not from one owns actions. The antithesis of that is skill which means the sucess or failure can't be influenced by practice or knowledge.
Hilarious! First you claim you never made anything up, then immediately admit that only half of your definition is a quote from Google. You made up the other half yourself.Of course what I'm describing is luck, that's what this forum is about--ig and how luck affects chess games.
You can't seem to grasp the concept that "rare" doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Sacrificing a queen and a rook to create a smothered mate doesn't happen in every chess game. It is rare. Does this mean it would not be part of chess? Again, on rare occasions luck DOES exist in chess.d
May 12, 2022
0
#796
So you now claim that innovations in opening theory are not part of the game? They are so rare they have never been played before. Tal's sacrifices were so rare and unusual that you would have us believe he wasn:t playing chess.By your standards holes-in-one aren't part of golf, perfect games aren't really baseball and Wilt Chamberlain scoring 100 points in one game had nothing to do with basketball. Just because something doesn't happen very often it's still real when it does. You can explain that giant asteroids almost never crash into the earth to the next dinosaur you meet.
May 12, 2022
0
#797
Just like you can't say that mass shootings NEVER occur at country music concerts, you can't say that luck NEVER decides chess games. When it does happen it is part of that game.
It seems to me there is no such thing as a game of chess where everything is confined "in it". If something can happen "out" of chess, it can happen to a game of chess. Besides, if something happens because of random chance, that's luck.
Which is why there is probably some, but very little, luck when people play chess. When two computers play chess there is probably even less luck. Although I suppose it could just be luck if one computer is programmed in a slightly different way than another.
CooloutAC wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:
It seems to me there is no such thing as a game of chess where everything is confined "in it". If something can happen "out" of chess, it can happen to a game of chess. Besides, if something happens because of random chance, that's luck.
Which is why there is probably some, but very little, luck when people play chess. When two computers play chess there is probably even less luck. Although I suppose it could just be luck if one computer is programmed in a slightly different way than another.
if it happens out of it its out of it. period. And if its rare it also another reason it can't be considered part of it. Do you believe like mpaetz, that mass shootings are part of country music concerts because it happened and can happen? Because you are using the same logic.
Also you really have to adhere to the very definition of the word you are using. First of all, Random Chance does not necessarily mean luck, especially if determined by ones own action, aka level of skill.
Well just because something is rare doesn't mean it can't be part of something. The is another topic about KNB v K endgames. Incredibly rare. They say it happens about twice in the average chess players lifetime. But it's still part of the game of chess. So I don't think something rare or common makes any difference when it comes to something being part of something else.
I've played the lottery. The normal outcome is I lose money. But there are cases where someone wins a jackpot. It's incredibly rare, the odds are about one in several million. So while the super majority of the time playing the lottery ends in disappointment, winning the jackpot is still considered part of the lottery. Even though it's incredibly rare.
As for what luck means, the dictionary says it means chance. So two humans playing chess is always going to include some kind of chance, or luck. In chess, I think luck plays a very small part. But with people, chance and luck can never be eliminated completely.
Besides, if chess didn't have ANY luck, nobody could consider it a sport, which I know you sometimes like to do. All sports have elements of luck. So that would create quite the contradiction.
May 12, 2022
0
#800
CooloutAC wrote:
mpaetz wrote:
Just like you can't say that mass shootings NEVER occur at country music concerts, you can't say that luck NEVER decides chess games. When it does happen it is part of that game.
My friend the topic of this thread is "Is there luck in chess". The answer is no. There is something suspicious about refusing to make that distinction and trying desperately to prove it wrong. There is obviously a difference between elements of luck intended and designed in the game. That are part of the gameplay. like dice or random cards, compared to rare incidental instances of luck in life that can affect a match but which are not part of the game. You can't say there is mass shootings in, or part of, country music concerts because one happened once. That is ludicrous, and frankly, and embarrassing argument to make. And actually, its quite concerning you would even use such a grotesque analogy.
YOUR answer to the original question is wrong. Simply saying that others must be suspicious or obstreperous or mentally ill because they don't agree with you is laughable. Who died and made you king? What makes you think YOU get to dictate the parameters of the debate and proclaim the "acceptable" meaning of words? You certainly haven't displayed any qualities here that would cause anyone to cede you such respect.
Your only argument is that things that don't happen very often don't really count. Absurd. Yes, the horrific happens in Las Vegas are not typical of country music shows but the memory of that attack will live on IN country music, just as a plane crash (again atypical) still causes sorrow in country music fans who regret the too-early passing of Patsy Cline. Nor are presidential assassinations usual in the theater, but I'm sure you are aware of what happened--more than 150 years ago--to Abraham Lincoln. These remarkable events have penetrated into the public's mind and have carved their tiny niche IN the world of country music, or theater.
You admit that "luck in life can affect a match", ergo there IS that small sliver of luck IN chess.
Capablanca says yes