There is no such thing as luck. The fine-tuning of the universe is evidence of design. There is empirical evidence for the God of the Bible. Because God is all-knowing, he knows everything that will happen before it happens. Therefore, there is no "luck"; everything that happens is a part of God's ultimate plan.
Is there such thing as "luck" in chess?
Sort:
Optimissed wrote:
You've never won a tournament. You haven't even played in one, more than likely, so don't lecture me and people here with your grabbed-from-Google stuff, which you don't even know how to link together into a half-decent argument.
Actually, you aren't even aware of the meaning of the Freudian concept of ego. Anyway, your self-absorbed and self-centred egotism is inappropriate at any time but expecially in the Festive Season. Give it a rest.
I won my first tournament at 7. I played first board for my team in high school. I represented the US Air Force in Athens. But no, I don't waste my life on chess tournaments. There are far more important things to achieve in life. Competitive chess (or sports, etc.) are played either for fun (i.e. unstructured with my prizes/trophies, or very occasionally for the experience of it, like going to concerts), or...for the insecure to convince themselves they have worth. There are also some obsessive types that play endlessly for pure love of the game, but that is very narrow existence.
You should understand this underlying concept, because it drives your entire history here on the forums. Sorting marbles and pawning old books doesn't jive with your self-image, so you ergo must have something to crow about in your life. You have chosen "well-playing board game amateur almost good enough to mean something" to hang your hat on...congrats. I have made other choices. I am happy with "good enough to beat most people I meet without adding any drudgery to my leisure time".
FinnTheStuffedShark wrote:
There is no such thing as luck. The fine-tuning of the universe is evidence of design. There is empirical evidence for the God of the Bible. Because God is all-knowing, he knows everything that will happen before it happens. Therefore, there is no "luck"; everything that happens is a part of God's ultimate plan.
Peddle your prophecies elsewhere.
3 days ago
0
#4706
There is such thing. If you play a losing move, you would be lucky to win the game.
3 days ago
0
#4707
CharlestonViennaGambit wrote:
There is such thing. If you play a losing move, you would be lucky to win the game.
Of course. Yes.
But there are different definitions of luck though.
One of them could involve variables one doesn't have direct control over.
Such as the quality of the opponent's play.
-----------------------------
Another idea is to try to think of situations outside of chess where luck isn't involved and could not be.
Luck refers to outcomes but not necessarily final outcomes.
If an outcome was deliberately and totally determined then could there ever be 'luck' involved?
I would say yes. Its hard to remove it from anything.
For example a computer adds two numbers together and gets the right answer.
Many might say: 'No luck there. Its totally determined.'
But - not really.
Here's why - the computer depended on not being interfered with.
So however unlikely it was that it could have been interfered with there's still an element of fortune in that it was not.
---------------------------------
For example there was no nuclear detonation vaporizing the computer before it did the job.
So it was 'lucky' that didn't happen.
Many might argue 'No! That's an External Factor!'
An Hbomb would be coming from External and becoming very Infernal and Internal ...
but some would claim that the computer adding correctly had no element of chance as far as that particular operation was concerned.
----------------------------
I think luck can always be found in anything though.
For example the existence of computers at all in this time requires that various processes in history followed various allowing timelines otherwise computers wouldn't exist now.
Is there anything at all that is 'purely by chance' and anything at all that is 'purely determined'?
I would say the former outweighs and 'wins'.
Because if and when there's no 'sentience' around determining or trying to determine outcomes then how could outcomes be determined?
The debates between determinism and fatalism - well there's probably some famous ones.
Some could argue that sentience still isn't required for a determined outcome because the precise arrangement of all factors in the immediate past 'determines' the outcome at the next fundamental unit of time.
So some could argue that 'everything is determined' - but there's still the reality that the nature of the procession of determinations mostly cannot be known.
Which many don't react well to.
Or react to with lack of objectivity.
3 days ago
0
#4708
DiogenesDue wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
Oh, grandiose self-congratulation, is it? How come my anecdotal evidence is so poor when it actually proves what I'm saying? In any case, you lost your argument without any need for the evidence I supplied. Moreover, most people here can supply instances where the outcome of games they played was influenced by luck.
As ever, Dio, when you are out reasoned and out argued, which isn't difficult, you always resort to making personal attacks. All you're doing is showing how pathetic your reasoning ability is. I already knew that but there are mpeople reading this who may not know it yet.
I'll let you know if you ever actually out-reason anybody. Hasn't happened yet with anyone past their teens.
Very efficient remark by Dio there.
Yes - the o-person would need Dio to inform him as 'O' simply continues to rationalize that he's right about something because he says so. Such a tendency results in The Guy being constantly wrong. Its like a deaf person who can't hear himself speak. His speech becomes slurred. So - since The Guy can't hear his own errors his rationalizations become more and more slurred and he becomes more and more error-prone. Why can't he realize his own mistakes? Because he denies they exist. The 'tailpipe guy' has the same problem.
DiogenesDue wrote:
Thanks. You're agreeing with me if you read back through the thread. Luck is subjective, and does not objectively exist in the logical construct of a game of chess the way many on this thread like to imagine. But then, many of those people also believe in the paranormal/supernatural, so...
Uncertainty, minus a personal perspective, is not "luck". Luck is not a force, nor does it enjoy any existence outside of the human mind.
"Luck is subjective, and does not objectively exist in the logical construct of a game of chess the way many on this thread like to imagine."
This is demonstrated to be false. Let me attempt a logical proof:
A player has to choose from a limited set of options presented to him. The options represent a chess move. We assign three chess players to make a move: (1) a perfect computer calculating the optimal move deterministically, (2) an imperfect human who miscalculates, and (3) a random move generator. It is possible for all three players to arrive at the same move, the theoretically optimal one. This shows that, in some cases, skill differences may not determine the outcome, and probabilistic factors can play a role. This scenario demonstrates that luck can influence individual moves and outcomes, because the nature of a choice from multiple presented options always introduces luck as a factor.
Now if you can logically take this example apart and show why this does not demonstrate objective luck, you have a reasonable argument. What is it called when a miscalculating human or a random move generator arrive at the perfect solution, in case you don't call it luck?
Kotshmot wrote:
"Luck is subjective, and does not objectively exist in the logical construct of a game of chess the way many on this thread like to imagine."
This is demonstrated to be false. Let me attempt a logical proof:
A player has to choose from a limited set of options presented to him. The options represent a chess move. We assign three chess players to make a move: (1) a perfect computer calculating the optimal move deterministically, (2) an imperfect human who miscalculates, and (3) a random move generator. It is possible for all three players to arrive at the same move, the theoretically optimal one. This shows that, in some cases, skill differences may not determine the outcome, and probabilistic factors can play a role. This scenario demonstrates that luck can influence individual moves and outcomes, because the nature of a choice from multiple presented choices always introduces luck as a factor.
Now if you can logically take this example apart and show why this does not demonstrate objective luck, you have a reasonable argument. What is it called when a miscalculating human or a random move generator arrive at the perfect solution, in case you don't call it luck?
It's not called anything, because it has never happened. Human beings don't arrive at perfect solutions that span entire games. They never will. Neither will a random move generator. They can choose between candidate moves, and one may be better than the next, but the human choices are not random, they are skill-based. A random move generator using current technology at speed will not play a perfect game of chess before the heat death of the universe, so...
This is why you had to capitulate last time, saying that a random move generator could play a perfect game of chess, but stipulating that it would be like winning 100 lotteries in a single lifetime. Since that is not a real or practical scenario, your attempt falls apart. In your mind, the 10 to the Nth power to one chance still means there's a chance, and so luck exists, but that same argument was made by Jim Carrey in Dumb and Dumber.
When Carlsen or any super-GM loses to a random move generator, or even a 1200 rated player, you be sure and let me know. Then I will entertain your argument...as soon as I deal with the all the flying pigs, I mean.
@DiogenesDue
You should note that the explanation stated the three different players played "a perfect move", not a perfect game. This is because logically if you would consider a perfect game by a random move generator an event of luck - the game consists of single moves that are determined by a mechanism of randomness, which also must be considered individual events of luck. A single random move is an outcome in itself. After that Magnus Carlsen could take over and win (or lose) the game but the game would still have been influenced by an event of luck.
If you consent to this, we could move onto reviewing differences between an optimal outcome by a random generator and a miscalculating human, and why both should be viewed as events of luck. There is progress to be made here.
2 days ago
0
#4712
It doesn’t matter. Sometimes your opponent does blunders or brilliants.
Kotshmot wrote:
@DiogenesDue
You should note that the explanation stated the three different players played "a perfect move", not a perfect game. This is because logically if you would consider a perfect game by a random move generator an event of luck - the game consists of single moves that are determined by a mechanism of randomness, which also must be considered individual events of luck. A single random move is an outcome in itself. After that Magnus Carlsen could take over and win (or lose) the game but the game would still have been influenced by an event of luck.
If you consent to this, we could move onto reviewing differences between an optimal outcome by a random generator and a miscalculating human, and why both should be viewed as events of luck. There is progress to be made here.
...I already told you, when a 2700 GM (or a 2700+ engine) loses to a 1500, I will seriously consider your premise worth discussing. If there's as much luck in chess as you imagine, then you have nothing to worry about, we'll be diving into it in no time.
Game is rigged dear friends CHess matrix projects false Reality and manipulates Timelines on 5D level, They use quantum Technology, they have it due to Reverse engineering Allien craft from 1947, IT crashed Due to Mailfunction in Hyperdrive Sensor failsave Circuit, I janko Know Truths Im a Whistleblower, Goggins Of whistleblowers Game is rigged on cosmic level But i never Relent
@diogenesdue
A random threshold that is somehow supposed to define luck according to you, with no explanation. I guess thats a reasonable way to refuse a logical discussion I attempted. Also I don't remember making a claim regarding the "amount of luck" like you suggest here.
Oh well, you accept a blitz game?
ivurufy wrote:
Stop it dude we don’t need more of your “game is rigged” stuff
Never Stop NEVER reletn IM JANKO GAJDOSKO FIde master+ Low elo grandmaster extraordinaire I will Never Stop I never stopped in 2024 either So Stop BULLY ME Im the VICTIM HEREEE
Kotshmot wrote:
@diogenesdue
A random threshold that is somehow supposed to define luck according to you, with no explanation. I guess thats a reasonable way to refuse a logical discussion I attempted. Also I don't remember making a claim regarding the "amount of luck" like you suggest here.
Oh well, you accept a blitz game?
I don't play on chess.com anymore since I became more active on the forums and started getting challenges from trolls on a regular basis. I haven't really played anything but votechess here for many years. It's a lose-lose proposition. If I won, they'd just try to hound me on the forums that much more. If I lost. they'd want rematches and accuse me of cheating, etc.
Now I play on a Lichess account that has no association with my chess.com account (I also have a an account there you would recognize, but a couple of people followed me over so I don't use that one anymore either). And that's the way it will stay...so I get the best of both worlds. Trolls can gnash their teeth here while I am peacefully enjoying chess elsewhere.
If votechess were not rife with cheating, I would still play votechess which (on a good team that discusses every move) have by far the most satisfying and educational games of chess you can play here. But they can't directly monitor the group games and they don't want to police the players on a team, so...they just let cheating run rampant there.
DiogenesDue wrote:
I don't play on chess.com anymore since I became active more on the forums and started getting challenges from trolls on a regular basis. I haven't really played anything but votechess here for many years. It's a lose-lose proposition. If I won, they'd just try to hound me on the forums that much more. If I lost. they'd want rematches and accuse me of cheating, etc.
Now I play on a Lichess account that has no association with my chess.com account. And that's the way it will stay...so I get the best of both worlds. Trolls can gnash their teeth here while I am peacefully enjoying chess elsewhere.
Fair enough, I also do most of my playing on Lichess. What I meant tho was your request for a game between a 1500 and a 2700 gm, that would justify the discussion for you. Would a blitz game qualify?
DiogenesDue wrote:
Kotshmot wrote:
"Luck is subjective, and does not objectively exist in the logical construct of a game of chess the way many on this thread like to imagine."
This is demonstrated to be false. Let me attempt a logical proof:
A player has to choose from a limited set of options presented to him. The options represent a chess move. We assign three chess players to make a move: (1) a perfect computer calculating the optimal move deterministically, (2) an imperfect human who miscalculates, and (3) a random move generator. It is possible for all three players to arrive at the same move, the theoretically optimal one. This shows that, in some cases, skill differences may not determine the outcome, and probabilistic factors can play a role. This scenario demonstrates that luck can influence individual moves and outcomes, because the nature of a choice from multiple presented choices always introduces luck as a factor.
Now if you can logically take this example apart and show why this does not demonstrate objective luck, you have a reasonable argument. What is it called when a miscalculating human or a random move generator arrive at the perfect solution, in case you don't call it luck?
It's not called anything, because it has never happened. Human beings don't arrive at perfect solutions that span entire games. They never will. Neither will a random move generator. They can choose between candidate moves, and one may be better than the next, but the human choices are not random, they are skill-based. A random move generator using current technology at speed will not play a perfect game of chess before the heat death of the universe, so...
This is why you had to capitulate last time, saying that a random move generator could play a perfect game of chess, but stipulating that it would be like winning 100 lotteries in a single lifetime. Since that is not a real or practical scenario, your attempt falls apart. In your mind, the 10 to the Nth power to one chance still means there's a chance, and so luck exists, but that same argument was made by Jim Carrey in Dumb and Dumber.
When Carlsen or any super-GM loses to a random move generator, or even a 1200 rated player, you be sure and let me know. Then I will entertain your argument...as soon as I deal with the all the flying pigs, I mean.
Logically though, any perfect move is merely a good move: one that doesn't change the objective game state assessment from a draw to a loss or from a win to a draw or a loss. Of course, a move that changes the assessment from a loss or a draw to a draw or a win is impossible.
If the game is a draw to start with, then any perfect move is one that doesn't change that to a loss. The point is that different players prefer different strategies and different types of game. Therefore many human games have consisted of perfect (that is, good) moves throughout. There is usually no objectively perfect move which is "better" than all others available and when moves are forced in a long term sense, it's usually possible to identify them by analysis.
So we often can't work out what a perfect move might be and it doesn't make sense to base any rational argument on a myth or a non-existent ideal wouldn't even be a useful ideal were it to be available.
In my opinion, this discussion is concerned with luck in chess. I believe that is discernable from the title and all chess is competitive to some degree since it's a kind of warfare between the controllers of two stylised armies. So all chess is competitive but tournament chess is highly competitive. Much more so than league or county chess, when we play for a team and it's the team effort that really counts. In tournament chess, each individual is either there to compete in order to bring himself up to a standard where he can compete effectively or is attempting to emerge as top dog out of a field of maybe 60 or 80 entrants, each of whom is a "competitive person", playing in a competitive spirit.
Now, if we're just messing around at chess and practising, then the idea of "luck in chess" isn't even important, since we aren't going all out to try to win our games. Consequently, the idea of "luck in chess" really only applies to the kind of highly competitive games in tournament chess and the like.
In case you don't know it, I've just shown your claim that we're not talking about "competitive chess" to be incorrect on more than one level. You won't understand you just lost another argument and that's the trouble. I bet you can invent half a dozen reasons why you haven't just lost yet another argument. None of them will be worth a light.
You couldn't show a dog the way to a fire hydrant. Unilateral declarations of your victories are par for the course.