So the consensus seems to be there is at least some luck in chess. A number of quotes and videos of grandmasters and masters also leans in that direction. But I wonder if there are any grandmasters that think there is zero luck in chess. There must be quotes or videos out there somewhere of very highly skilled chess players believing there is no luck in chess.
Is there such thing as "luck" in chess?
Sort:
lfPatriotGames wrote:
So the consensus seems to be there is at least some luck in chess. A number of quotes and videos of grandmasters and masters also leans in that direction. But I wonder if there are any grandmasters that think there is zero luck in chess. There must be quotes or videos out there somewhere of very highly skilled chess players believing there is no luck in chess.
Anyone with long experience in chess understands that not every outcome is 100% determined by skill, even if they didnt understand in detail how luck/randomness applies in the game. I would be very surprised if even one GM quote was found where they stated that luck plays zero role, even talking about the game played at the highest level where luck has the smallest role possible.
Jun 12, 2022
0
#1904
lfPatriotGames wrote:
So the consensus seems to be there is at least some luck in chess. A number of quotes and videos of grandmasters and masters also leans in that direction. But I wonder if there are any grandmasters that think there is zero luck in chess. There must be quotes or videos out there somewhere of very highly skilled chess players believing there is no luck in chess.
In that Ed Winter link there are people on both sides
Reti said "Chess is a fighting game which is purely intellectual and excludes chance."
Whereas Steinitz, Anderssen, and Tarrasch seem to be on the side of luck in chess.
Georg Marco wrote: "the probability that in a given critical position a chess master will select the best move (or, at least, a good move) may be put, even under the pressure of a time-limit, at 0.9. On the other hand, the probability that the correct moves, both for White and for Black, will be made 5, 10, 20, ... 50 times in succession will be the 10th, 20th, 40th, ... 100th successive power of 0.9. With the help of a table of logarithms, it is easy to show that the values of these powers diminish very rapidly, and the probability of always finding the correct move diminishes in a very alarming way."
This is the same argument that I and others have put forth, for example my post #616:
"in any given position a player must make a move. There is a finite number of legal moves any position, say 50 for simplicity. Then for any one move, there is a 1/50 chance for anybody, regardless of their skill, to make the "correct" move in the position. Again for simplicity, if we assume independence between move selections (which we know is not true; chess masters who make 10 consecutive "correct" moves are probably more likely to select a "correct" 11th move), then the probability of selecting two straight "correct" moves is (1/50)^2, the probability of selecting three straight "correct" moves is (1/50)^3, etc."
lfPatriotGames wrote:
That's a definition I have not heard before. "Rosenthal describes random luck as events that are outside our control or knowledge-you can't predict it but you can notice it in hindsight".
If luck is described as events outside our knowledge then there is definitely luck in chess. Because I have played at least 4 games where I did not know how it was going to end.
This is an accurate definition. When you make a move in chess, the position always has properties you are not aware of. These properties effectively work as a random factor, as the properties you are forced to disregard can have a beneficial or a negative effect in your position, depending on which move you pick. Essentially there is always an element of guessing to a chess move as you don't have all the information.
The statistical argument brings me back to my previous post, where I said a beginner can make the best move possible without understanding the position or calculating it correctly.
A person who doesn't know the rules or object of chess has a chance to play the best move possible, and this is one way to prove role of luck in chess.
Jun 12, 2022
0
#1906
CooloutAC wrote:
mpaetz wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
LeeEuler wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
LeeEuler wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
You are not a random generator though, everything you do is based on your human ability, your knowledge and your practice, Whether you realize it or not.
You are arguing that the outcome of a dice roll or wheel spin are a result of the person's skill.
That is why I say in my post #3333 that your real definition of luck is the second half of the definition that you (and you alone, apparently) use: "What you really mean is that your definition of luck is '[not] being able to increase ones success from practice or knowledge'. If you remove that, then your worldview collapses."
I arguing the opposite my confused friend. I can't believe you just said that lmao. The real definition of luck already has the words ones own actions, abilities, or efforts. I'm simply explaining to you what that means. Your definition of skill is simply "doing something well" and I also explained what that means for you.
What you are doing here and now, once again, is showing you can't even distinguish between dice rolls and playing chess. Do you not see the problem with that or how it makes you look to others who can? IT should be so obvious, that it seems very disingenuous that are you refusing to.
You have said:
1) "...everything you do is based on your human ability." (post #3345)
2) "what you call a guess, is still based on human ability" (post #1950)
3) "...its very obvious that if ones own actions are causing the results, regardless of how you interpret it, then it is not luck by definition" (post #3276)
So you must believe:
1) Flipping a coin that lands heads is just a reflection of ones ability to flip a head.
2) Guessing the right suitcase in Deal Or No Deal is based on a contestant's ability.
3) A person who spins a roulette wheel (since the result of the wheel spin is only determined by the person's actions) and hits green is not lucky.
Then you either:
1) Really do believe those things
or
2) You do not mean what you wrote, and instead are actually relying on the second half of your definition ("[not] being able to increase ones success from practice or knowledge") to determine if something is luck or not. Like I wrote in my post you are replying to.
1) There is no ability to increase ones chances of success in flipping a coin especially when done in a way to ensure this as intended.
2) There is no ability to increase ones chances of success in picking a suitcase in deal or no deal
3) There is no ability to increase ones chances of success in spinning a roulette wheel as another poster just commented in the thread stating the same.
I really believe these things, which are important distinctions you stubbornly refuse to admit. The problem is you are pretending to not know what I meant, which is obvious. just like Patriot pretends to be dumb to get sympathy from people like optimissed, I'm simply not buying it. For you to admit there is no luck in chess, will not satisfy your ego and superiority complex that lower skilled players only win by luck, that speed chess is not real chess, that it is poor etiquette to flag players or not resign in losing positions, that chess is too hard for society to understand, that chess is not a sport, etc... All or some of these are your obvious motives to me.
Again, you have agreed that skill is the opposite of luck, So replace human ability with the words skill, which you also agreed is part of ones skill-set. It doesn't change anything I said bud. Do you not realize how obviously facetious you are being. And how dishonest that makes you look? Keep trying to play gotcha, you only got yourself got.
Apparently you didn't realize that you are proving LeeEuler's point that your whole argument is based on the "not being able to increase your chances through practice" part of your definition of luck. This is something you invented yourself. Why should you get to make up your own definition and rage against anyone who uses a definition they prefer? Can I say luck means "any positive or negative result of an action that was not intended or forseen" and force you to abide by it? You really have nothing to back up most of what you have repeated for the 100th time.
Which is what you call skill, which Lee Euler admitted is the opposite of luck. Hence I'm proving how he constantly contradicts himself. My friend, you ignorantly accused me of inventing the words action and ability being in the definition and i had to literally link the definitions of luck from dictionary.com and cambridge for you. There is no definition that does not apply as I explained in detail to patriot. When I say the definition that is applicable, i mean the one more specific to the context of gaming. Go ahead, link any definition of luck and I will show you how to apply it to gaming for you. The way I will do that, is define every word in any definition you put forward, with other dictionary definitions of those words. easy pz. Go for it.
"Which is what you call skill, which Lee Euler admitted is the opposite of luck"
Uhh no. As is always the case with Coolout, unless he is quoting someone verbatim, you can assume he is just making things up to argue against. In this case, you can see my post #709 where I explicitly said the exact opposite of what Coolout claims. I wrote: "...luck and skill are not 'opposite words with opposite definitions' ".
For a small compilation of instances where he has made demonstrable false claims of what other's have said, see posts #829 #841 #1317 #709 and #3022
SmyslovFan wrote:
The fact that there are tiny variations in how identical computers determine a move shows that there is luck in chess. Those tiny variations should never be enough for one engine to defeat the other and yet it happens several times in a 100 game match even with the very best engines.
Btw, there are now CPU and Graphics Processing Units computers. They still have randomizing factors, but they are different from each other. The old knowledge about variations in computer analysis needs to be updated.
There have been CPUs and GPUs and engines have had access to use either or both for decades. No update needed.
Your notion of "identical computers" is quaint, but typical of people that look at computers as magic black boxes. If one computer has been running it's CPU/GPU at high heat for months on end, and an "identical" computer with the same hardware and OS has not, they will perform differently. If one is running a a small background process and the other is not, they will perform differently. Even with "identical" computers out of the box in a white lab environment, there will be manufacturing differences. Do you overclock your PC? Why can some "identical" processors be overclocked and others not?
If your notion is that "luck" just seeps into the game somehow and makes the engines mess up or get lucky...ummm...no. The performance variations are in the same type of arena as human performance variations. Skill is a range, not a discrete value. Much like electrons in a double slit experiment, you can't effectively pinpoint the skill applied on each individual move 
.
Optimissed wrote:
Comments about other people's sex life are mainly a comment about your own and I doubt anyone here wants to know about yours. That's two weeks running you made a comment about your sex life, creep.
What are you talking about? Sometimes I think you are truly in need of medical intervention.
What btickler said about computers I believe is correct even if Im not that I have much info on the topic of (chess) computers.
However, luck and chance w/e you wanna call it applies to engines in a same way as it does to humans, given that the engine can calculate any given position between accuracy of 0 ( random number generator) to 99%. That left over 1-100% of information that the engine lacks ALWAYS may or may not cause the engine to make an inaccurate move. Therefore there is always the chance that the random number generator (applying 0 skill) will make a better move than the strongest engine available (applying 99% of the possible skill available). A weak engine that applies an x amount of skill also has a y amount of chance to make a better move than the strongest engine possible.
This is because whenever there is missing information and youre forced to make a decision, the missing information creates a random variable. So as long as a human or engine cannot calculate the position to a 100%, random variables and luck exists.
Jun 12, 2022
0
#1910
A lot of insults flying about in this, please keep it on topic and no personal attacks on members. Anything more can result in members being muted etc. Let's discuss the topic please.
Alekhine had a timelines break out of luck. To him it represented his evangelism with the symbol of the Dao. Luck is very complicated because it is a pattern by which your body wins. Does this make sense to anyone?
Jun 12, 2022
0
#1912
CooloutAC wrote:
SmyslovFan wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:
That's a definition I have not heard before. "Rosenthal describes random luck as events that are outside our control or knowledge-you can't predict it but you can notice it in hindsight".
If luck is described as events outside our knowledge then there is definitely luck in chess. Because I have played at least 4 games where I did not know how it was going to end.
Remember, there’s also the control issue. The better we get at chess, the more control we have over what happens.
Engines often play 100 game matches. We can predict that there will be some decisive games even between identical computers, but we can’t predict which games will be decisive.
You always have control over what happens, that is the point. Because there is no elements of luck in chess and everything is based on human ability of the players and no other force of action.
What you are still doing, even after I repeatedly explained, is confusing chances with luck. Just because someone exceeds or underperforms their estimated chances based on their estimated skill level, does not mean luck is involved. By that logic you could assume luck is in every single action and the words skill and luck have no meaning.
We are not computer programs or robots, our skill is always changing. Its always higher or lower then our skill rating. The results from random chances are only lucky if they were indeed out of our control, and the force of action was not human ability from oneself.
As has been pointed out in my post #3357, Coolout's real definition of luck is "not being able to increase ones success from practice or knowledge". Since of course the result of a roll of a dice, flip of a coin, spin of a wheel, etc. are all only the result of a person's actions too.
Optimissed wrote:
There is a lot of people, on these forums and threads, who talk to others they don't know, sometimes in the hope of getting to know them, sometimes just for passing fun or enjoyment and occasionally, to make trouble. There is also a lot of people, as we can observe by the nature of their comments, for whom "medical intervention", as you call it, may have been tried already.
I believe that you would know a lot about that. Possibly much more than most and not from the perspective you would have others believe.
Your aspersions don't actually mean anything. What's the point of trying to imply that I have some hidden medical drama? Does it make you feel better about yourself? Or is it just the only thing you can resort to at this point?
The only way you can get lucky or unlucky is in a chess game on chess.com if you lag out. However, irl there is absolutely no luck and it is all dependent on how each player plays the game.
CooloutAC wrote:
Yes we do, and we should accept the dictionary definitions of the very word we are debating. Absolutely.
...
It doesn't influence our chess games, because there are no elements of luck, by definition, that exist in them.
The reason you cannot know what amount of luck exists, is because there is no force of luck in chess. Compared to other games where you can point out the force existing.
There is no "amount" when there is "nothing".
Luck cannot be measured because it is phenomenon, which means a result whos cause is unknown.
"Luck" does not need to be written into the rules of chess in order to influence a game. It's an external force, by definition, that acts upon things. The rules of any game it acts upon are irrelevant - as it is external to the rules. Which suggest that it is not bound by those rules.
Luck is, according to Merriam-Webster, "a force that brings good fortune or adversity". In a chess game, this means that the "force" of luck can bring good fortune, or adversity, to one or both players.
How can it do this? We can only speculate. Perhaps luck can influence the circumstances around a game.
Or perhaps luck can directly influence the player's choices and abilities, themselves.
As far as I'm aware, nobody on Earth knows the answer to these questions. Many believe they know, of course, but since luck is caused by a mysterious, unquantifiable "force", it's virtually impossible to know, with any sort of measurable certainty, the reach and impact of its influence.
But the dictionary assures us that luck does exist, and that it "brings good fortune or adversity".
Therefore, we can logically conclude that a chess game can be influenced by luck, if luck exerts its influence on the players.
Jun 12, 2022
0
#1916
CooloutAC wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
mpaetz wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
Don't be a dishonest coward. Post a definition of luck and lets debate it. Patriot already tried and failed, you afraid to be next? I have posted the definitions from cambridge and dictionary.com already to prove I have made nothing up when you claimed I inserted the words actions and abilities. lmao. Now you are claiming the definition of skill i add along with it is changing something when the definition of luck I have posted is word for word from those dictionaries. You are the one making things up...lol All one has to do is look at your fake profile and then look at mine to know who is who.
More cowardly evasions and outright lies. Shameful and dishonest. I never disputed your use of dictionary definitions of luck. I pointed out that there are many other dictionary definitions that many others in this forum have posted that you say are invalid because they don't say exactly what you believe. Those dictionary definitions are every bit as valid as the ones you cite. You can't seem to understand that most words in the English language have multiple meanings and/or shades of interpretation. Your arrogant proclamation that you are more qualified than any one else to decide which are appropriate here due to your superior "sporting sense" is a joke, and your claim to know exactly what the OP meant while other opinions are invalid is worthless.
What I have pointed out in my last few posts is that you have repeatedly used the "can be increased by your own abilities" as part of your definition when this bit of malarkey is your own invention and appears nowhere in any definition of luck anyone has posted. Cite the source of this unsupported claim--tell us where you found this in any dictionary definition of luck. You have freely admitted that this is something you added yourself. You had to do this as otherwise your contention that there can be NO luck in any skill-based sport falls on its face. It is an untenable standard that only you believe in. Prove otherwise.
I'm still waiting for you to post a dictionary definition of luck so we can debate it. What are you afraid of? I think you know that Patriot has already done just that, so did another poster just yesterday, and I have shown how they were omitting parts of it, while failing to define the words within them, which lead to their contradiction of them. Patriot did so purposely and dishonestly, while the other poster did subconsciously, both trying to suit their own false narratives.
You want to step up to the plate now bud? Try to gather the courage to do so. I know you are too afraid to even play chess games on this site, but why post and make claims if you are afraid to debate them?
Like I keep saying this is extremely easy for me, because I'm simply going by the technical definition of the word itself and and if you acknowledge those definitions as your definition, then you are already losing the debate and proving yourself wrong.
It would be pretty easy for you, when you invent your own definitions and pretend they mean something, wouldn't it?
All you have to do is keep saying the same thing and hope someone who doesn't know you comes along, because they might think you're being honest.
But thats the opposite of my point. Again, you live in the world of reverse reality. I'm saying post a dictionary definition, which is what I go on, which is why its so easy for me to debate the topic. I'm the only one, NOT making up my own definition. lol
This is demonstrably false, see my post #906 where I replied to you: "Oh! Wow! Okay, I had no idea that you were freely admitting that you took the definition I used from google, and added a whole sentence at the end of the definition based on what you felt like the definition should be. Yes, taking a dictionary definition and then adding a whole clause or sentence at the end of it is unreasonable"
And my post #3436 where I point out that your definition of luck is necessarily "not being able to increase ones success from practice or knowledge". Since of course the result of a roll of a dice, flip of a coin, spin of a wheel, etc. are all only the result of a person's actions too.
In contrast to you, you will notice that I have been very consistent:
-my post #780: "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'"
-my post #899: "You are not understanding the definition of luck, which I have as something akin to 'success or failure apparently brought by chance rather than through one's own actions'."
-my post #948: "...I don't think the second half of your definition is reasonable. I mention it in my reply to Optimissed, but I haven't found anybody other than yourself who includes or insinuates anything like the whole second half of your definition ('or not being able to increase ones chance of success with practice or knowledge') in theirs. By including it, you are almost defining the word as the conclusion of your argument...For reference, my actual definition of luck is something akin to: 'success or failure apparently brought by chance rather than through one's own actions'."
-my post #993: "If you have an alternate definition, that is fine. But there is no evidence that your definition is shared, supported, or implied by anybody else. You can say the definition of dog is 'a four wheeled motor vehicle powered by an internal combustion engine' but that doesn't mean others use dog the same way...I have not seen anyone else define luck as anything like 'not being able to increase ones chance of success with practice or knowledge'."
-my post #1033: "So you are willing to define luck as exactly the following: 'success or failure apparently brought by chance rather than through one's own actions.'?"
-my post #3333: "As for the definition I choose: 'success or failure apparently brought by chance rather than through one's own actions' yeah I consider that perfectly reasonable. As I've explained before, you misinterpret what 'one's own actions' means, which is why you need to add your second statement--'or being able to increase ones success from practice or knowledge'-- to make your worldview work. It should be noted that nobody else uses this second statement, as far as I can tell."
Kotshmot wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:
That's a definition I have not heard before. "Rosenthal describes random luck as events that are outside our control or knowledge-you can't predict it but you can notice it in hindsight".
If luck is described as events outside our knowledge then there is definitely luck in chess. Because I have played at least 4 games where I did not know how it was going to end.
This is an accurate definition. When you make a move in chess, the position always has properties you are not aware of. These properties effectively work as a random factor, as the properties you are forced to disregard can have a beneficial or a negative effect in your position, depending on which move you pick. Essentially there is always an element of guessing to a chess move as you don't have all the information.
The statistical argument brings me back to my previous post, where I said a beginner can make the best move possible without understanding the position or calculating it correctly.
A person who doesn't know the rules or object of chess has a chance to play the best move possible, and this is one way to prove role of luck in chess.
I don't know, reading your comment and Lee's comment now I'm thinking maybe there is more luck in chess than I originally thought.
Maybe the question shouldn't be if there is luck in chess, maybe the question should be how much. I'd go with something like 95 to 99 percent skill. But I can see where a complete beginner might have less skill involved.
Optimissed wrote:
There is a lot of people, on these forums and threads, who talk to others they don't know, sometimes in the hope of getting to know them, sometimes just for passing fun or enjoyment and occasionally, to make trouble. There is also a lot of people, as we can observe by the nature of their comments, for whom "medical intervention", as you call it, may have been tried already.
I believe that you would know a lot about that. Possibly much more than most and not from the perspective you would have others believe.
I agree with your first sentence. There is a chess.com member that I met recently on the golf course. He is an older gentleman, and he is very polite, funny, and engaging. I have not played golf OR chess with him yet, but I know I will someday. When he asked I said I would play a game of chess irl but not online. There are so many good people, I don't think it makes sense to spend too much time on the bad ones.
@CooloutAC
I pointed out a case where you blatantly and deceitfully misquoted me yesterday. Are you ever going to acknowledge what you did, or are you going to pretend it never happened? Or maybe you already addressed it and I missed it.
Whatever, I'm wondering....because it's what you constantly accuse others of doing and I'm wondering if you have the character to admit that you did it. Would you like a reminder of what I said and then what you claimed I said?
Your claiming that Optimissed lives in a world of "reverse reality" reminded me of the "reverse reality" that you were in when you distorted what I said.
…
On the engines argument...this has been explained before. Only people that don't understand how the software/hardware work and how the engines' calculations are constantly "interrupted" by OS processes, etc. think that engines should play the exact same game every time. Engines can and do have variations in play, and effectively suffer from "loss of focus", just not in the same way humans do.
For the purposes of this topic, there's no significant difference between engines and human players. And if one's argument is that luck only applies to humans, then that's a loss for the "is there luck in the game of chess?" side...
The fact that there are tiny variations in how identical computers determine a move shows that there is luck in chess. Those tiny variations should never be enough for one engine to defeat the other and yet it happens several times in a 100 game match even with the very best engines.
Btw, there are now CPU and Graphics Processing Units computers. They still have randomizing factors, but they are different from each other. The old knowledge about variations in computer analysis needs to be updated.