Luck in Chess

It´s boring because you dont make any effort to understand.

Read my comment #221

All computers make random movements. This is a fact, not something open to debate. No discussion here. And I think we all agree they can play chess very well.

Forget about the compueter that plays all random movements. It was just a simple example, but apparently it makes it harder for you to understand.

End of discussion.

yes, they play so very well by making random movements... XD roflmao!! this is hillarious!!

I agree. This is exactly right. And by the same token, if your opponent chooses the wrong move for the wrong reasons. This is why a player with 200 points rating advantage (Elo system, idk about Glicko) only expects to win 3 out of 4 games.

Well it's not even really re-defining luck, it's understanding what people mean by luck in general. What I do know is that people are using the same word "luck" to describe different situations. Now, we can use the same word there if we want, but it's natural that people will object to that, or want the term "luck" to be qualified, not to be pompous, but so that they know which of two things a person is referring to when they say "luck." That seems pretty reasonable and honest to me.

So I gave the example of how being lucky at slots has nothing to do with your thoughts (even if you thought you had an x percent chance of winning when really you had a y percent chance of winning), whereas chess "luck" appears to, in fact, depend on your thoughts, which seems to allow humans to "create" chance/luck, whatever that means. It seems difficult to make both of these things luck under one definition.

And of course some will say that while the two examples there are different, they are also similar in important respects. Ok. That's probably a clearer answer than saying "Let's attach this confusing word 'luck' to both of these because I want to seem smart by showing how much more I understand this convention than others do."

Perhaps a more interesting and useful question would be about responsibility: to what extent can we "take credit" for the moves we make? And if you wanted to go really extreme you could even ask questions like "is it our fault for doing something if we couldn't control the science of the neurons in our brain that made us do them?" Although even as a determinist that seems sketchy :) Yet, maybe I could be a decent devil's advocate for that kind of position -- that kind of logic doesn't seem so different from the logic people have been using here.

Your opponent moves don't have much to do with you thoughts - you have very little control of them and it resembles slot machine in this matter.

You obviously have no clue about how computers work, do you?

This is an image of a chess program. Do you see how d5 and Nf6 have the same score? Do you know how the chess program decides what movement to make? Randomly. Yes, randomly. Surprised?

Interesting comment, but I think your thoughts being involved doens´t necessarily mean a different definition of luck.

Take flipping a coin, for instance. We all agree that the output is random, so is a question of luck whether you get tails or heads, with 50% probability.

But you can have a perfect 50% probability random event by trying to guess before flipping the coin. So you win the game if you guess correctly and lose if you fail. Here, your thoughts are involved.

The key here is whether you have any power or not about the result of your decision. If you dont have that information, the event will be perfectly random no matter what your thinking proccess is.

I'm not at all surprised by some people's inability to understand the discussion, i'm rather amused by their non-sensical comments XD

But on the other hand, seeing their intellectual dishonesty makes me kinda sad :(

same !

Just to adress one misconseption...

"An endgame tablebase is a computerized database that contains precalculated exhaustive analysis of a chess endgame position" (copied from Wikipedia)

You see, the information is there, it's the position on the chessboard, someone had to do a very well calculation in order to come up with the best moves for the position (and this calculation and analysis didn't involve any kind of luck).

If you can't do this calculation by yourself in order to make the best moves, it's because you lack the mental skills that are needed for this task.

If you've read all the tablebases that exist and can't recall them when needed, it's because you lack the mental skills that are needed for this task.

If you prefer to blame your luck, then by all means buy a lucky charm instead of a chess-book.

The information is there for up to 7 piece endgames. For anything more complex the full and complete informatoin doesn't exist. Why do you keep saying it is there? Of course I lack the mental skills, and so does Carlsen and Stockfish and Houdini. I don't blame my luck, I say luck plays it's role.

Like when someone proves that computers make random movements from time to time and the one that was denying this point prefer to address other people intellectual dishonesty rather than admit he was wrong, lol

Luck in chess is easy to understand. When I win it is because I am brilliant. When I lose it is because I was unlucky.

Yeah, once more it looks like some people won't understand unless i explain thoroughly, down to the very last detail, every little thing that i'm talking about. And even then, i cannot be sure that they will openly agree, instead of keeping a hypocritical stance. So why bother anymore... I'll let you live with your understanding, and wish you the best of luck in your chess games :D 

Somebody tell me please what is the approximate numerous strenght(ranking) of the chess.com analizator, that is available after the game. One bastard obviously used it against me.

You're playing live chess and your internet connection is gone... that' bad luck

You've claimed that that for any position an information about the correct way of playing is available - that's obviously wrong. When I've asked where is this infomation you couldn't say. Do you understand the difference between information and algorithm? Theoretical existence of a way/algorithm to find information doesn't make information readily available. Too many misconseptions on your side - no wonder people don't understand you.

What ever. You still dont understand what random is.

This is a position you can get in chess. It´s a well known final, where white wins moving Ke6 and draw in any other case. In this case, my computer is not able to find the correct move and evaluate several movements as equal. So it chooses RANDOMLY one of then. If you get to this position against this particular computer, it will be the random generator of the computer the one that decides whether the game is a draw or a win, because once he moves Ke6 he is able to find the solution.

This is what I meant when I said that a computer could choose randomly between a good movement and a blunder and you laught. Do you understand now?

A very good example Ancares, but Eseles is going to say that your comp lacks mental skills.