Your network blocks the Lichess assets!

lichess.org
Donate

Is Chess a Game of Luck?

@DinkenSanfridsson said in #60:

I believe that its luck when the oppenent gives away chances.
No. It's luck when something external occurres, not dependent from any player's choice. You qre not "lucky" because your opponent plays a bad move, it's their bad play. And they are not unlucky if you exploit their bad, it's your good play.

Luck is in any other game like poker, when you can only play with random cards, not in chess.

So, wishing your opponent "good luck" in a game of chess is a double nonsense: even if luck meant what you say, you are wishing yourself to play badly, actually. Double nonsense because that's not sport and it's not chess.

@DinkenSanfridsson said in #60: > I believe that its luck when the oppenent gives away chances. No. It's luck when something *external* occurres, not dependent from any player's choice. You qre not "lucky" because your opponent plays a bad move, it's their bad play. And they are not unlucky if you exploit their bad, it's your good play. Luck is in any other game like poker, when you can only play with random cards, not in chess. So, wishing your opponent "good luck" in a game of chess is a double nonsense: even if luck meant what you say, you are wishing yourself to play badly, actually. Double nonsense because that's not sport and it's not chess.

I've seen a quote one day (here, on lichess):

"Errors have nothing to do with luck; they are caused by time pressure, discomfort or unfamiliarity with a position, distractions, feelings of intimidation, nervous tension, over-ambition, excessive caution, and dozens of other psychological factors." - Pal Benko

I've seen a quote one day (here, on lichess): "Errors have nothing to do with luck; they are caused by time pressure, discomfort or unfamiliarity with a position, distractions, feelings of intimidation, nervous tension, over-ambition, excessive caution, and dozens of other psychological factors." - Pal Benko

A chess rating should be about chess skill. I think the luck is caused by the clock. I consider my chess games won by flagging, lucky wins. Lucky because I was not paired by reaction time and I might of won just because of reaction time. Filter out the flagged games and discover how often in percentage a player actually can win chess games by the position.

Maybe all chess time controls need bonus time after 23 moves. This would reduce a lot of luck by flagging slower reaction times. Chess is not about reaction time. Pondering time is part of chess. So flagging is a chess bug. Ultrabullet could still be fun and playable with bonus time.

A chess rating should be about chess skill. I think the luck is caused by the clock. I consider my chess games won by flagging, lucky wins. Lucky because I was not paired by reaction time and I might of won just because of reaction time. Filter out the flagged games and discover how often in percentage a player actually can win chess games by the position. Maybe all chess time controls need bonus time after 23 moves. This would reduce a lot of luck by flagging slower reaction times. Chess is not about reaction time. Pondering time is part of chess. So flagging is a chess bug. Ultrabullet could still be fun and playable with bonus time.

@Robaloooo said in #50:

The farmer said, "Maybe."

Is this about evaluation of outcome, and not seeing all the possible futures than can pile up over on the same story?

The farmer being the truest in not knowing if is good or bad luck. (not about whether it is luck or not, by the way).

sure one can find luck accelerators in the layer above core chess rules such as time control and various degrees of time pressure on ability to do calculations. but even given all the time in the world, one would have limited calculation powers, and still not being in complete knowledge of the complete legal tree (not a rational player that would be per usual chess game theory i have seen).

finding increasing factors of amount of luck, and then taking it out, does not take out the remaining amount before those increase or modulation factors.

@Robaloooo said in #50: > The farmer said, "Maybe." Is this about evaluation of outcome, and not seeing all the possible futures than can pile up over on the same story? The farmer being the truest in not knowing if is good or bad luck. (not about whether it is luck or not, by the way). sure one can find luck accelerators in the layer above core chess rules such as time control and various degrees of time pressure on ability to do calculations. but even given all the time in the world, one would have limited calculation powers, and still not being in complete knowledge of the complete legal tree (not a rational player that would be per usual chess game theory i have seen). finding increasing factors of amount of luck, and then taking it out, does not take out the remaining amount before those increase or modulation factors.

I feel like I have to repeat this point: luck is an experience. There is no scientific definition of "luck." The word only exists because we experience things we can't predict and and if they are to our advantage we call that "good luck" if they go against us, we call it "bad luck."

There's no need to go into the deep weeds of randomness, probability, or any other philosophical or scientific concepts. It's very simple. Luck is just an experience. Or maybe more accurately, the way we interpret an experience.

I feel like I have to repeat this point: luck is an experience. There is no scientific definition of "luck." The word only exists because we experience things we can't predict and and if they are to our advantage we call that "good luck" if they go against us, we call it "bad luck." There's no need to go into the deep weeds of randomness, probability, or any other philosophical or scientific concepts. It's very simple. Luck is just an experience. Or maybe more accurately, the way we interpret an experience.

It might be more instructive to view the problem from the point of view of a gambler. When two players sit down to play a game of chess, suppose you had to wager on win white, win black or draw. The outcome seems uncertain, and can be treated as random, whether it is ultimately due to skill, luck, the weather, divine intervention, whatever.

Elo can help you set your odds. Generally the log odds of victory (ignoring draws) is the difference in Elo (rescaled). However, there is also measurement noise in Elo: it may not accurately reflect inherent skill. The noise in Elo would add more uncertainty to your success as a gambler on chess matches.

It might be more instructive to view the problem from the point of view of a gambler. When two players sit down to play a game of chess, suppose you had to wager on win white, win black or draw. The outcome seems uncertain, and can be treated as random, whether it is ultimately due to skill, luck, the weather, divine intervention, whatever. Elo can help you set your odds. Generally the log odds of victory (ignoring draws) is the difference in Elo (rescaled). However, there is also measurement noise in Elo: it may not accurately reflect inherent skill. The noise in Elo would add more uncertainty to your success as a gambler on chess matches.

@Robaloooo said in #65:

I feel like I have to repeat this point: luck is an experience. There is no scientific definition of "luck." The word only exists because we experience things we can't predict and and if they are to our advantage we call that "good luck" if they go against us, we call it "bad luck."

There's no need to go into the deep weeds of randomness, probability, or any other philosophical or scientific concepts. It's very simple. Luck is just an experience. Or maybe more accurately, the way we interpret an experience.

Well, dissecting into what luck could be, might just be what is needed to come to same same conclusion as you, without it being such a subjective looking opinion, even if i agree with you. I have a mathematical reminiscence of what luck might be from there. And even there, it is an entrant. so what you say by "an experience" is about that choice of calling luck what involves uncertainty. I don't know, it seems to be supportive of that, having only an axiomatic meaning for randomness.

And having examples where the "experienced" luck, can be found to be from active ignorance of the factors that would not make it be experienced as luck. The die throw, I mean.

But you are right in some sense, as even dissecting it, I (and others) find no other thing to say that it is experience and ignorance in the end.

Edit:
the discussion or difficulty about chess and luck or chess and certainty, comes from the denial that human chess has a calculation limit. Of course, there is non-calculation knowledge to be had with repeated and exploratory experience (intuition here we come)..

But then that knowledge is not certainty either, although ever increasing intuition, sometime "luckily" put in words to share among us from some authors having visited such intuitive knowledge and taken the time to verbalize for us. But that and even our champions mastery intutions beyond that, is still uncertainty. Not to forget that we have human heuristics about forecasting what can't be calculated from within calculation limits position information (such as material count 1,3,3,5,9). That is also have its share of uncertainty. We can will it to be exact and keep our chess has no luck whatsoever, but those relative power counts are themselves statistics into the unknown terminal outcome odds given all the decision we might get faced with though any game depth.

@Robaloooo said in #65: > I feel like I have to repeat this point: luck is an experience. There is no scientific definition of "luck." The word only exists because we experience things we can't predict and and if they are to our advantage we call that "good luck" if they go against us, we call it "bad luck." > > There's no need to go into the deep weeds of randomness, probability, or any other philosophical or scientific concepts. It's very simple. Luck is just an experience. Or maybe more accurately, the way we interpret an experience. Well, dissecting into what luck could be, might just be what is needed to come to same same conclusion as you, without it being such a subjective looking opinion, even if i agree with you. I have a mathematical reminiscence of what luck might be from there. And even there, it is an entrant. so what you say by "an experience" is about that choice of calling luck what involves uncertainty. I don't know, it seems to be supportive of that, having only an axiomatic meaning for randomness. And having examples where the "experienced" luck, can be found to be from active ignorance of the factors that would not make it be experienced as luck. The die throw, I mean. But you are right in some sense, as even dissecting it, I (and others) find no other thing to say that it is experience and ignorance in the end. Edit: the discussion or difficulty about chess and luck or chess and certainty, comes from the denial that human chess has a calculation limit. Of course, there is non-calculation knowledge to be had with repeated and exploratory experience (intuition here we come).. But then that knowledge is not certainty either, although ever increasing intuition, sometime "luckily" put in words to share among us from some authors having visited such intuitive knowledge and taken the time to verbalize for us. But that and even our champions mastery intutions beyond that, is still uncertainty. Not to forget that we have human heuristics about forecasting what can't be calculated from within calculation limits position information (such as material count 1,3,3,5,9). That is also have its share of uncertainty. We can will it to be exact and keep our chess has no luck whatsoever, but those relative power counts are themselves statistics into the unknown terminal outcome odds given all the decision we might get faced with though any game depth.

@let_me_di3 said in #62:

Errors have nothing to do with luck; they are caused by time pressure, discomfort or unfamiliarity with a position, distractions, feelings of intimidation, nervous tension, over-ambition, excessive caution, and dozens of other psychological factors." - Pal Benko

Amen. And yes, time is part of the game's rules, so no luck for bad timing also. Can we close this worn out topic?

@let_me_di3 said in #62: > Errors have nothing to do with luck; they are caused by time pressure, discomfort or unfamiliarity with a position, distractions, feelings of intimidation, nervous tension, over-ambition, excessive caution, and dozens of other psychological factors." - Pal Benko Amen. And yes, time is part of the game's rules, so no luck for bad timing also. Can we close this worn out topic?

Interesting topic, but wouldn't be better if we call it human elements in game of chess, element of luck makes more sense in Backgammon rather than chess.

Interesting topic, but wouldn't be better if we call it human elements in game of chess, element of luck makes more sense in Backgammon rather than chess.

"Errors have nothing to do with luck; they are caused by time pressure, discomfort or unfamiliarity with a position, distractions, feelings of intimidation, nervous tension, over-ambition, excessive caution, and dozens of other psychological factors." - Pal Benko

Suppose you are walking down the street and you find a $100 bill on the sidewalk. Nobody would dispute that's a lucky find.

Except Benko, apparently. He would say that the $100 bill was only there because somebody dropped it while they were under time pressure and got distracted.

But we all know you got lucky.

> "Errors have nothing to do with luck; they are caused by time pressure, discomfort or unfamiliarity with a position, distractions, feelings of intimidation, nervous tension, over-ambition, excessive caution, and dozens of other psychological factors." - Pal Benko Suppose you are walking down the street and you find a $100 bill on the sidewalk. Nobody would dispute that's a lucky find. Except Benko, apparently. He would say that the $100 bill was only there because somebody dropped it while they were under time pressure and got distracted. But we all know you got lucky.