Luck in Chess

"Take the example of the crossroad: as long as you dont have any information  of which way is the good way,"

Yes, but chess is not a case in which you don't have information about the correct way! You do have the information! But when you put perfect information with an imperfect human, perfect inferences do not result. But that's really the imperfect human's fault. Again the human may feel lucky, unlucky, they can feel however the hell they want because they're free beings, it doesn't matter.

You do have this information??? And you are not a world champion yet??

this goes for Ancares, too

first he talks and i reply for the case of an engine chosing between the top-2 moves which have an equal eveluation, and then he twists it like we were talking about an engine chosing between the best move and a blunder (which doesn't make sense, if you think about it, in a chess-way - it's not really chess if you don't try to make the best move)

All the information is on the chess-board... right in front of you.

If you don't have the mental capacity to read and evaluate it, don't blame your luck.

The world chess champion doesn't have the title cause he's more lucky than others.

Information on the board is not ALL the information. Endgame tablebase is an example of all the information but it exist only for positions with up to 7 pieces. Nobody has mental capacity to read and evaluate 100% of chess positions with absolute precision. Hence any player makes mistakes. Mistakes are probabilistic and that's why we can talk about luck.

Carlsen has this info too and he nevertheless can't play perfectly.

The claim was that we have information about the correct way. That's nonsense. Nobody has information about the correct way except for positions that are fully solved (like in tablebases).  We all make mistakes which are probilistic and random by their nature.

Yes, we do have information about the correct way. And it doesn't help all the time. If someone gave me a 600 line proof about something, I would have the information in front of me to confirm what he is saying. But due to who I am, I'm probably not going to get through all of those lines, and I won't end up confirming what he is saying. That is not an information problem.

uri65 "...we all make mistakes which are probabilistic and random by their nature..." While I certainly cannot argue against that, I suggest to you that this is not the case every time. Especially in chess. When I move one of my pieces, whether it is a game ending mistake or just a boo-boo, it is only after I have used my judgment (poorly), weighed my options (hastily), perhaps even prayed (not hard enough) that my opponent wouldn't play a certain move. Feel free to look at one of my failed attempts. A better player will be able to show me where I went wrong, not show me where I became unlucky or where things became too chaotic to allow for any analysis at all. Have fun 😃

Where is it? Where is this information? Can you provide a link? A book name? Anything?

I think you are confusing 2 things. There is information about the correct way for positions with up to 7 pieces. That doesn't help us much because nobody can memorize it or use it in any other way. That's one case - information is available in general, but not available during the game (at least it is not legal to use it). But for anything more complex the full information about the correct way simply doesn't exist! What you find in all the books combined is not full information. Those are guidelines, principles, ideas, examples of correct play from other games. There is no absolute method of how to apply this knowledge to specific position in front of you is not.

"There is no absolute method of how to apply this knowledge"

Ok, and you're confusing "information" with "how to apply this information."

You are confusing information about correct way in some positions with information about correct way in any position. There is no absolute method to obtain the latter from the former. The latter will become available only when the chess is solved.

The really important thing is not that the information is there, is whether you know how to use it or not.

If the crossroad is in China and there is a signpost indicating the way in chinese but you don´t understand chinese, your choice is random. Of course someone that understand chinese will tell you that choosing the right way is not a matter of luck because the right way is well indicated.

I´ll try with an example in chess. If you get to a position and you spot two sequences of 3 movements that check mate your opponent, you will consider them equal and will choose one of them at random (or for an arbitrary reason if you want).

But what happens if one of the sequences is a blunder? The first one is check mate in 3 and the second makes you lose your queen and the game.

Will you be true to yourself after analysing the game? In reality, no matter what sequence you chose in the game, your skill is the same. If you won the game, you will have to acknowledge that you were a bit lucky, because in reality you made a calculation mistake.

I think you misunderstood everything.

The computer playing all random movements was just an extreme example.

The point is that if you (or your opponent) make any single random decision in the game, even if it is a single decision between two movements on the 32nd movement of a game or are all the movements, luck enters into play.

The more random decisions, the more luck ther is in the game.

Choosing randomly between a blunder and a real good movement can be an option if you evaluate those two movements as equal. It,s not that you do it on purpose.

u r the one who makes yourself lucky.If you practice chess a lot then u'll be lucky.

Think pink!

Meh, i've already provided myself such examples at least 2 times before, but you still haven't answered if you regard playing randomly and without real purpose to be real chess. Go back and read my posts if you don't believe what i've written... It's getting really boring

Eseles wrote:

What some people call "luck in chess" is simply uncertainty, but that doesn't equal luck. Even I might use the word luck when speaking casually, but if you want to be serious about it, there is no luck in chess. If i toss a coin to decide between 2 moves, i introduce an element of randomness to how i play the game, but i still can't say that there's luck in chess - the luck/randomness part resides in how people are playing the game, and that's something different imo - i make a distinction between the two (i'm not chess, i'm a chess-player). Just because someone can get "lucky" in a game of chess, it doesn't mean that luck is part of the game - and on the contrary, in other games where luck is an integral part, players who play those games can still use their skills to minimise the luck-part, but that doesn't change the fact that in those games luck is part of the game.

Hope that makes sense...

Seconded. This is my answer to Ancares.

Eseles is correct. No more explaining needed.

Nonsense.

A number of people seem to be redefining "luck", so I think they ought to state what they mean by it. Most reflective people accept that whilst chess isn't overtly a game of chance, there are still quite a number of ways that the results are indeed affected by some element of chance.

Those who deny this are simply falling prey to black and white thinking and refusing to understand what people mean when they point out that elements of luck can play a role in chess, more or less as in any endeavour.

<<Just because someone can get "lucky" in a game of chess, it doesn't mean that luck is part of the game>>

This, in particular, is complete claptrap. And by the way, just because I just had my dinner ... this doesn't mean that I just had my dinner. It means that I'm a parrot. In English, that is!