What are the odds of a pancake landing right-side up on the plate?
Is there such thing as "luck" in chess?
Sort:
Jun 10, 2022
0
#1843
CooloutAC wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
What are the odds of a pancake landing right-side up on the plate?
depends on which side is up and the level of skill of the tosser. ...
How do you know which side is the top?
CooloutAC wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
What are the odds of a pancake landing right-side up on the plate?
depends on which side is up and the level of skill of the tosser. That is an example of where the chances can be increased by human ability, and even if the pancake tosser did it without realizing it, it was still his ability and action that caused it to happen.
But this is very different then a competitive multiplayer game like chess and this is something I keep trying to drive into your heads. Many of you seem to look at chess as if it is a solo game and only one players actions matter. Accuracy is only a number in relation to your opponent and will be higher or lower depending on their moves as well. And just because we can't measure level skill in a single action, or single move of a chess game, it does not mean skill is not still the deciding factor. And for those same reasons we cannot call it luck, because single moves in chess do not lead to success or failure or alone. A game is made up of two players and many moves, which the above poster citing the Anand game does not comprehend.
It would only be luck for the players not involved, or if something was determining the moves besides the player's own actions.
If you throw a butter sandwich in the air with one goal in mind, get it as high as possible, is it determined by luck which side it lands on?
CooloutAC wrote:
Kotshmot wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
What are the odds of a pancake landing right-side up on the plate?
depends on which side is up and the level of skill of the tosser. That is an example of where the chances can be increased by human ability, and even if the pancake tosser did it without realizing it, it was still his ability and action that caused it to happen.
But this is very different then a competitive multiplayer game like chess and this is something I keep trying to drive into your heads. Many of you seem to look at chess as if it is a solo game and only one players actions matter. Accuracy is only a number in relation to your opponent and will be higher or lower depending on their moves as well. And just because we can't measure level skill in a single action, or single move of a chess game, it does not mean skill is not still the deciding factor. And for those same reasons we cannot call it luck, because single moves in chess do not lead to success or failure or alone. A game is made up of two players and many moves, which the above poster citing the Anand game does not comprehend.
It would only be luck for the players not involved, or if something was determining the moves besides the player's own actions.
If you throw a butter sandwich in the air with one goal in mind, get it as high as possible, is it determined by luck which side it lands on?
Define the goal first of all. Why would you leave out such an important determination and create such a strawman? Care to talk about chess? lmao.... Did you even realize ziryab was making an attempt to create a strawman argument purposely for humor, since there is no right side up to a pancake? I disregarded that and used it as an opportunity to further educate on luck. But you on the other hand, you actually think this nonsense you are speaking is a serious argument.....jeez.... Just like you leave out definitions of the word to suit your narrative, you are leaving out too many variables in your example for it to even be considered. Desperate much?
"Define goal"
What? Goal means the object for your effort. Its an english word. Goal here is to throw sandwich as high as possible.
"you are speaking is a serious argument"
There is no argument in my post, just a question. How can a question be a strawman, I'm pretty sure its impossible. I like to milk ridiculous answers from you so go ahead and answer the simple question.
"Care to talk about chess"
Today I made an argument with a concrete example to prove role of luck is chess. I gave a promise to gift a diamond membership for anyone who can logically refute it. I'm a man of my word.
Players (both hobby, and professional) talk about luck quite often, in chess.
"I totally hung my queen, but I got lucky: he didn't see it."
"Luckily, my opponent played the exact opening that I'd studied the night before. He walked right into my prep."
"I played in my first ever tournament last weekend. A knockout tournament. Single elimination. Before it started, I watched this kid beat an IM in blitz. Really mopping the floor with him. So of course, with my luck, who do you think I got paired with for my first game? You guessed it. At least I got to go home early, and beat the traffic."
questcompleter wrote:
the anand game of rd 8 just proves that(norway chess)
Was that the one were it was missed simple mate in one?
Imagine a possible trap: B could offer A a pawn. If A took, B could fork A, whereupon A could pin the forking piece- whereupon B could pin and win the pinning piece! But- A can unpin castling long with a check. (So let's say, A can objectively take the pawn, and the situation rather holds a trap for B).
If A sees the pawn, A will take. If A sees the fork, A will not take. If A sees the pin, A will take. If A sees the counter-pin, A will not take. If A sees the check, A will take.
If a somewhat skilled player A sees that the check is objectively the last word and takes the pawn, there is no luck. If a player A+1 sees the pawn and takes it, to be surprised by the fork, but duly sees the pin and plays it, to be surprised by the counter-pin- but finds the check, then.. wasn't player A+1 lucky to not have seen the fork, and have these resources?
And player B, if B had tried to set a trap, unaware of the final check, and A+1 had taken the bait and found the pin but not found the check and resigned instead, wasn't B lucky to get away with it?
The skills of both players decided what moves were played, but they got more or less lucky as to what their skills were worth in the context of the game deeper-than-their-skills.
ungewichtet wrote:
Imagine a possible trap: B could offer A a pawn. If A took, B could fork A, whereupon A could pin the forking piece- whereupon B could pin and win the pinning piece! But- A can unpin castling long with a check. (So let's say, A can objectively take the pawn, and the situation rather holds a trap for B).
If A sees the pawn, A will take. If A sees the fork, A will not take. If A sees the pin, A will take. If A sees the counter-pin, A will not take. If A sees the check, A will take.
If a somewhat skilled player A sees that the check is objectively the last word and takes the pawn, there is no luck. If a player A+1 sees the pawn and takes it, to be surprised by the fork, but duly sees the pin and plays it, to be surprised by the counter-pin- but finds the check, then.. wasn't player A+1 lucky to not have seen the fork, and have these resources?
And player B, if B had tried to set a trap, unaware of the final check, and A+1 had taken the bait and found the pin but not found the check and resigned instead, wasn't B lucky to get away with it?
The skills of both players decided what moves were played, but they got more or less lucky as to what their skills were worth in the context of the game deeper-than-their-skills.
This example goes to the category of miscalculating (lack of skill) but still getting a beneficial outcome. Lack of skill leading to a positive outcome means that ability is not what helped you here, therefore it's luck. If you miscalculate, you have lost control over what happens next in the position.
Interesting take on this topic, by Giri:
Transcript, for those who can't watch:
Interviewer: "I'm here with what must be a very happy Anish Giri. It took you a while. Round 3, you got that loss, but now you're back. How does that feel?"
Giri: "Yeah, I'm very happy. You know, I'm a very experienced player, and the more experienced I get, the more I realize chess is just about luck. There's really no ... really nothing else."
Interviewer: "Well, I would say there was some resilience yesterday against Wesley. You fought for like six hours, to defend that position."
Giri: "No, I mean, I already told you my conclusion. You cannot change it with one sentence. I've been playing chess for many years. I've been studying a lot. And I came to the conclusion that chess is all about luck, so -"
Interviewer: "Just luck?"
Giri: "Whatever you say now is not going to change that."
Interviewer: "Okay. Let's go through this game and, uh, where were you lucky in this game?"
Giri: "Various - various points."
Jun 10, 2022
0
#1851
IronSteam1 wrote:
Interesting take on this topic, by Giri:
Transcript, for those who can't watch:
Interviewer: "I'm here with what must be a very happy Anish Giri. It took you a while. Round 3, you got that loss, but now you're back. How does that feel?"
Giri: "Yeah, I'm very happy. You know, I'm a very experienced player, and the more experienced I get, the more I realize chess is just about luck. There's really no ... really nothing else."
Interviewer: "Well, I would say there was some resilience yesterday against Wesley. You fought for like six hours, to defend that position."
Giri: "No, I mean, I already told you my conclusion. You cannot change it with one sentence. I've been playing chess for many years. I've been studying a lot. And I came to the conclusion that chess is all about luck, so -"
Interviewer: "Just luck?"
Giri: "Whatever you say now is not going to change that."
Interviewer: "Okay. Let's go through this game and, uh, where were you lucky in this game?"
Giri: "Various - various points."
Very interesting. Anish is somewhat backed up by evidence as well--once you condition on the right population, one sees that "Regardless of how skill intensive a game is, if we restrict our scope to only the best players, we will usually find that the outcomes are determined mostly by luck. Mauboussin (2012) refers to this phenomenon as the 'paradox of skill.' Here the most we can say is that these elite teams are so similar in their high levels of skill that the outcomes of all of these games are determined mostly by happenstance." Taken from the Ludometrics paper I've mentioned earlier.
Jun 10, 2022
0
#1852
CooloutAC wrote:
LeeEuler wrote:
IronSteam1 wrote:
Interesting take on this topic, by Giri:
Transcript, for those who can't watch:
Interviewer: "I'm here with what must be a very happy Anish Giri. It took you a while. Round 3, you got that loss, but now you're back. How does that feel?"
Giri: "Yeah, I'm very happy. You know, I'm a very experienced player, and the more experienced I get, the more I realize chess is just about luck. There's really no ... really nothing else."
Interviewer: "Well, I would say there was some resilience yesterday against Wesley. You fought for like six hours, to defend that position."
Giri: "No, I mean, I already told you my conclusion. You cannot change it with one sentence. I've been playing chess for many years. I've been studying a lot. And I came to the conclusion that chess is all about luck, so -"
Interviewer: "Just luck?"
Giri: "Whatever you say now is not going to change that."
Interviewer: "Okay. Let's go through this game and, uh, where were you lucky in this game?"
Giri: "Various - various points."
Very interesting. Anish is somewhat backed up by evidence as well--once you condition on the right population, one sees that "Regardless of how skill intensive a game is, if we restrict our scope to only the best players, we will usually find that the outcomes are determined mostly by luck. Mauboussin (2012) refers to this phenomenon as the 'paradox of skill.' Here the most we can say is that these elite teams are so similar in their high levels of skill that the outcomes of all of these games are determined mostly by happenstance." Taken from the Ludometrics paper I've mentioned earlier.
explain that in your own words instead of just citing names and claims. Point out an example of "happenstance" that is out of their control.
It is self-explanatory and simple to understand to most anyone. When you plug your ears and refuse to think or even examine what is explained to you, that does not mean the actual information being presented is difficult, it just means you have a lower ability than most to comprehend it.
But to humor you, if you condition on a select population (look at only chess players rated 2500+, consider only the those with +3SD intelligence, observe only those with active lifestyles , etc.), the results of a trial (win/lose/draw, SAT score, drug efficacy) are largely isomorphic to luck/randomness/chance/entropy. That is to say the variation in outcome between individuals in this selected population ("I won the chess game!", "I scored a 1600 and they scored a 1590!", "I recovered by taking the drug and he didn't!") do not give great or even usable insights into the differences of skill level between the individuals.
Jun 10, 2022
0
#1853
You consistently seem offended by an insinuation that isn't being made by anyone you're arguing with. Nobody is using luck as a crutch to explain away bad performances against lesser rated players.
The author wrote "...if we restrict our scope to only the best players, we will usually find that the outcomes are determined mostly by luck..." So he is saying that once you condition the population to the highest level, any outcome (win/lose/draw) can largely be attributed to luck. i.e. the most readily available explanation for a 2500+ player who wins against a similarly rated opponent is that they experienced good luck.
CooloutAC wrote:
I lost alot of respect for this guy when he was telling Judy Polgar that Nepo was losing on purpose, literally yelling out loud to Judit and she was like what do you mean what are we looking at!?! then a week later walked all that back to save face and be politically correct. He's as fake as they come. The interviewer should of said "do you know the definition of the word luck and its reason for existing? " lmao...
But for all we know he is just showing humble sportsmanship and trolling this thread.
I would say that abstract concepts, like luck, are often a matter of perspective.
From Giri's perspective, luck abounds in chess. He believes this to be true, based on his experiences.
His perspective might not align with that of others, but such is life. We all don't always see things, or experience things, the same way.
To some people, luck is a nonsense concept. Pseudoscience, at best.
Others notice luck's influence on a daily basis.
Jun 10, 2022
0
#1855
There is absolutely no luck involved in the actual game of chess. If there was luck in chess, then computers would never be able to win consistently.
BrotherMoy wrote:
There is absolutely no luck involved in the actual game of chess. If there was luck in chess, then computers would never be able to win consistently.
This was asked before by someone else, but if there is no luck in chess, why do two computers, both having an identical rating of 3400 not always draw?
CooloutAC wrote:
Kotshmot wrote:
ungewichtet wrote:
Imagine a possible trap: B could offer A a pawn. If A took, B could fork A, whereupon A could pin the forking piece- whereupon B could pin and win the pinning piece! But- A can unpin castling long with a check. (So let's say, A can objectively take the pawn, and the situation rather holds a trap for B).
If A sees the pawn, A will take. If A sees the fork, A will not take. If A sees the pin, A will take. If A sees the counter-pin, A will not take. If A sees the check, A will take.
If a somewhat skilled player A sees that the check is objectively the last word and takes the pawn, there is no luck. If a player A+1 sees the pawn and takes it, to be surprised by the fork, but duly sees the pin and plays it, to be surprised by the counter-pin- but finds the check, then.. wasn't player A+1 lucky to not have seen the fork, and have these resources?
And player B, if B had tried to set a trap, unaware of the final check, and A+1 had taken the bait and found the pin but not found the check and resigned instead, wasn't B lucky to get away with it?
The skills of both players decided what moves were played, but they got more or less lucky as to what their skills were worth in the context of the game deeper-than-their-skills.
This example goes to the category of miscalculating (lack of skill) but still getting a beneficial outcome. Lack of skill leading to a positive outcome means that ability is not what helped you here, therefore it's luck. If you miscalculate, you have lost control over what happens next in the position.
Thats because you think their estimated skill level is static and constant as if players are robots and computer programs with mental and physical states that are not always changing. Humans have streaks and slumps, even the pros can vary drastically. You are also failing to account for the opponents level of play during the game acting as if this is not a competitive sport and their moves are not a factor.
Even if you call it luck from outside of the game which I would not agree with, the topic of this thread is luck IN the game.
"Even if you call it luck from outside of the game which I would not agree with, the topic of this thread is luck IN the game"
The move happened in the game and it show cased a lack of skill by the player. Yet the outcome was beneficial. This is all in the game, I don't know what you mean.
"Failing to account for opponents level of play"
Well if you want to analyse the example further about the opponents play in comparison, this is pretty well described already in the post we refer to. The opponent calculated one move further seeing the fork, but missed moves that came after that. Therefore opponent showed slightly more skill, but got no benefit as there were more surprises for both players.
CooloutAC wrote:
Luck is in everything in life for sure, when you are benefiting from some random chances that are not from your own action it can be considered luck. But the topic of this thread is luck in chess, not luck outside of chess even if it can have an affect on it.
If "luck is in everything life for sure", and chess is "in life", doesn't that suggest that luck is in chess, as well?
I suppose there are different ways to look at the topic. If we only consider the board, the pieces, and the rules of the game, we can logically declare that luck is not meant to be a factor in the game.
But chess isn't just a set of rules. It is played in "life", as mentioned, and therefore it enters a new domain, where life itself exerts its influence on the game and the players, which can affect the outcome.
Good luck, bad luck, no luck, lots of luck ...
Of course, this assumes that one believes in the existence of "luck" in the first place, which some do, while others don't.
Jun 11, 2022
0
#1859
lfPatriotGames wrote:
BrotherMoy wrote:
There is absolutely no luck involved in the actual game of chess. If there was luck in chess, then computers would never be able to win consistently.
This was asked before by someone else, but if there is no luck in chess, why do two computers, both having an identical rating of 3400 not always draw?
The reason the highest level computers don’t always draw is because of the Horizon Effect (computers cannot analyze a position all the way to the end so there is always a level of uncertainty that eventually gives one side an edge). However, that doesn’t change the fact that within every position, you have full control over what is played, thus, determining the outcome of a position without any element of chance. If there is no random chance in chess, then how can there be luck?
BrotherMoy wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:
BrotherMoy wrote:
There is absolutely no luck involved in the actual game of chess. If there was luck in chess, then computers would never be able to win consistently.
This was asked before by someone else, but if there is no luck in chess, why do two computers, both having an identical rating of 3400 not always draw?
The reason the highest level computers don’t always draw is because of the Horizon Effect (computers cannot analyze a position all the way to the end so there is always a level of uncertainty that eventually gives one side an edge). However, that doesn’t change the fact that within every position, you have full control over what is played, thus, determining the outcome of a position without any element of chance. If there is no random chance in chess, then how can there be luck?
"If there is no random chance in chess, then how can there be luck?"
A beginner can calculate the position wrong, and still make the best stockfish move without any idea why the move works. This is indeed random chance.
"It's surely best to concentrate on the cases of obvious luck than to give the opposition any chance of making a good argument. A lot of people around here don't know how to make a cast iron argument and consequently"
There is no logical way to refute my argument from the couple previous posts if the concept is understood
Not so sure about that. In any case, where there's doubt, there's an opening.
Ill gift you or anyone who logically refutes the argument a diamond membership for x amount of time😄 there is no doubt.