Luck in Chess

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.

roflmao 

I guess that means: "I have been proven wrong. I´m going to laugh and pretend nothing has happened"

And you talk about intellectual dishonesty, lol, you know a lot about that!

speak for yourself 

untracking thread, you won't see me here again

if you're so interested in what i have to say, why don't you read all my previous posts again? perhaps you'll understand them sometime!

I don't see determinism as all that "logical", Elubas.

Basically, determinism is an idealism. That is, a simple universal model is constructed with linear causality. Then it is assumed that the universe acts in the same way as this mental model that has been constructed. That is an error of logic, to assume that.

^^ Obviously (I hope it's obvious) the above is my opinion. Although I see my opinion as "obviously correct", this doesn't mean that I have any contempt for those who disagree with it. It could be that we mean slightly different things in some of the concepts we use. But "determinism" is one of my pet subjects. When I was a member of Chess World, before one of the churlish admins threw me out, my handle was "Indeterminist". I like discussing determinism and what I see as the errors which increasingly seem to lead to people accepting it as true. Oh, my qualification is philosophy and my main interest in philosophy is theory of knowledge, so I have some kind of expertise, although of course that doesn't mean that I'm trying to argue from authority. But neither does it mean that oafs like Eseles, who never seems to say much that makes sense, should assume that, because my argument may be a simple one, that means that I don't know nothink about the subject!

who cares?

You, I suppose, or you wouldn't have made that comment.

Haha, interesting that you would derail the conversation just to tell everyone how unlogical their view is.

Did you not see that I was stipulating determinism to be true and seeing what follows from that? To stipulate something and reason from it doesn't require it to actually be true. We discussed determinism in the other thread, but here going into a huge discussion would probably just confuse the issue. There is plenty of disagreement already about what determinism would imply about chess and luck, even if it was true.

If indeterminism was true well then pretty much everything is luck, so then the question of luck in chess would be kind of trivial. Consequently I didn't find it too interesting to talk much about that.

What I'm doing is more like, comparing the "luck" in slots or something to "luck" in chess.

@Ancares: Even if you made a true 50-50 choice in your head about chess moves, it's still your subjective experience of the information in front of you. It gets stranger when it's not even really a 50-50 chance -- it's something you think is a 50-50 chance but a GM might say an 80-20 chance and so on. And again this is not the same as in a coin flipping game, because you are not provided extra info that would help your decision. In chess you are provided with all the info, but your insufficient understanding of that info creates uncertainty for you.

So, I don't know, in a strange sense, you thinking the right answer might be two moves (I'm assuming there were more than two legal moves but you narrowed it down), and you thinking you should decide on your decision with a coin flip is still taking things into your hands, because you decided that way made sense, and you decided that it "made sense" (it didn't, but one can believe what he wants) to attach meaning to heads and tails in such a way that you would play ...Kf7 upon seeing heads, and play ...Kf8 upon seeing tails. That's your own way of making use of the full information in front of you. Of course, this way will often fail due to the poor skill that made you decide on your move in such a way -- well, yeah, poor skill often leads to poor moves.

Now, sure, I'm not denying that one person can have really stupid thinking and still end up playing a good move. In that case I would say they did legitimately play that move, but that 1. it would be more impressive if he knew why it was good and 2. it doesn't confirm that his way of thinking that made him play that move will always work in other situations. But it's all an assesment of how he systemetizes the info in front of him -- just because we can make predictions about how well that will work, or how well it alligns with reality, doesn't make what he's doing inherently random. If his way of systemetizing the info in front of him makes him play an unexpectedly good move, ok, that's just who he is; that's just being human; not being random.