As said by Louis Pasteur, "Chance favors the prepared mind." So there is luck everywhere, but only those with prepared minds have greater odds of taking advantage of luck. On a chess board, maybe your opponent makes a huge error; however, if you are not prepared enough, you will not take advantage of that and thus miss the chance. I would say something similar in poker: although it is true that luck plays a major role in poker than in chess, a true world-class poker player will be less subjected to luck than a rookie. In chess, you never play, hoping for errors from your opponent, but if he/she makes an error, you will only take advantage of that when previously prepared. This is the reason why a chess game between two newbies shows dozens of blunders, whereas games of GM typically do not show more than one: at the highest level, the first one to blunder loses the game because this is luck to the opponent, and also the opponent is always prepared not to miss even a single chance.
Chess is not a game of chance by any stretch of the imagination. There are no dice to roll, or cards to pick. Luck has nothing to do with it. Every move is your own decision. Win or lose, we alone are responsible. Each player has the power to control what happens on the board. That’s why chess is so challenging. In an ideal world, both sides could make the best possible move on every turn. This is known as best play. Of course, in real life, players make mistakes. Accuracy is a goal we can never achieve completely. The logical course of a game from any position is the way that it would continue and end with the best play. The balance of the position is the current standing in a game. Either the situation is equal, or one side has an advantage of a certain size.
To play chess, we are forced to make a move, in a similar way as making our own lottery numbers. The lottery numbers will be the coordinates of the pieces on the chessboard. So luck is not in the move. It's in guessing the move. Guessing the player will play 1. e4
To make chess a luck game, we have to make a lottery position. Let's say a pawn structure. The players do not know which pawn structure you created. They play the game and if the game transposes into the pawn structure they got lucky and win that lottery. If only half of the pawns ended up in the same position as the drawn of that lottery, then they win half the lottery pot.
Luck does not exist in chess, because nobody created a lottery ticket that displayed a chess position to match. Bingo is a game of chance. Binchess would be a lucky game too. Every time a chess piece was played, one of six pieces would be drawn and if matched with the piece played, the player would win one point. At the end of the game the player that won the game would also win the points from the lottery matching. Point could then be converted into other prizes. Lucky them.
To make chess a luck game, we have to make a lottery position. Let's say a pawn structure. The players do not know which pawn structure you created. They play the game and if the game transposes into the pawn structure they got lucky and win that lottery. If only half of the pawns ended up in the same position as the drawn of that lottery, then they win half the lottery pot.
Luck does not exist in chess, because nobody created a lottery ticket that displayed a chess position to match. Bingo is a game of chance. Binchess would be a lucky game too. Every time a chess piece was played, one of six pieces would be drawn and if matched with the piece played, the player would win one point. At the end of the game the player that won the game would also win the points from the lottery matching. Point could then be converted into other prizes. Lucky them.
You somehow corelate luck with ELO based outcome of a game but it is known that ELO cannot possibly reflect true strength identically.
For me luck in chess is more related to: "man, I would have been completely lost had this obscure defensive resource not existed".
For me luck in chess is more related to: "man, I would have been completely lost had this obscure defensive resource not existed".
I suggest people claiming that chess is a game of pure strategy meaning it would have no uncertainty to read the first three chapters of Murray book on history of chess, for its depicting the probable evolution of all chess games from its ancestor games that would have been recorded to some extent and made infer-able by us in the region of India (its culture, I guess)..
there was no communications across distance to the extent there was in europe post gutemberg, and so the more nature ecosystems of many local rules orbit around same game bundle, would have more clues as to what shaped the rules elements mutations that might have stabilized and uniformized over time and speed of culture propagation (and some mutations as well, but less parallelism, even less so if empires adopting it culturally, with their tendency to supremacist view of the rest of the world, they would tend to have thin top of pyramid to wide bottom of pyramid culture influence, unless of the enlightened individual kind at the top, say maybe like Alexander, and other illustrious predecessors, and fewer and fewer after that... as war machines became such bulldozers.
looking at history at huge time scales... chess is worth it.. so my main point here, is in that book first chapters. the nature of width of game rule-sets existing in parallel over time, is made clear, and that hybrid dice involving games of chess existed but disappeared eventually, suggest to me that the mobility rules have supplanted the need for dice to make a known fair game.
but that also kind of implies that it was needed while being fair, and increasing a test of intellect, to be also an lifetime challenge.. that there would not be any smart dude or dudette or something else coming out with a secret solving recipe....
uncertainty is hard-wired in the board rule set.. i bet it is.
there was no communications across distance to the extent there was in europe post gutemberg, and so the more nature ecosystems of many local rules orbit around same game bundle, would have more clues as to what shaped the rules elements mutations that might have stabilized and uniformized over time and speed of culture propagation (and some mutations as well, but less parallelism, even less so if empires adopting it culturally, with their tendency to supremacist view of the rest of the world, they would tend to have thin top of pyramid to wide bottom of pyramid culture influence, unless of the enlightened individual kind at the top, say maybe like Alexander, and other illustrious predecessors, and fewer and fewer after that... as war machines became such bulldozers.
looking at history at huge time scales... chess is worth it.. so my main point here, is in that book first chapters. the nature of width of game rule-sets existing in parallel over time, is made clear, and that hybrid dice involving games of chess existed but disappeared eventually, suggest to me that the mobility rules have supplanted the need for dice to make a known fair game.
but that also kind of implies that it was needed while being fair, and increasing a test of intellect, to be also an lifetime challenge.. that there would not be any smart dude or dudette or something else coming out with a secret solving recipe....
uncertainty is hard-wired in the board rule set.. i bet it is.
the long term consequences of early moves is what is uncertain... in other horizon avoiding words.
We can fool ourselves with words like "refutation", but the certitudes are rare.
We can fool ourselves with words like "refutation", but the certitudes are rare.
Chess in the passed might have been a game of luck when using a dice, but now it's not luck that makes you win. We play the opening from known lines, the middle game we create weaknesses, so that the end game can be logically won.
You're lucky when your opponent fails to create weaknesses with your pawns or pieces.
Luck drops, as moves are more accurate
lichess.org/insights/Toscani/luck/accuracy
If most of my moves are 50-60% accurate, then my opponent can hope for 30% luck. But that does not mean the opponent will be lucky to spot that chance. This is where that 30% drops even more depending on winning chances.
lichess.org/insights/Toscani/luck/winPercent
So according to lichess insights there is some luck in the game, but it's not even 50/50. Maybe I got it all wrong, but to call a player lucky, they would have to be over 50% lucky. There is nothing lucky in a school exam when you get below the passing mark. It goes the same for chess.
Chess is a two player game, so one player can get lucky, but effort had to be put into the game to gain in rating. No effort is needed in a game of luck. So again chess is not a game of luck, because there is effort put into the game.
You're lucky when your opponent fails to create weaknesses with your pawns or pieces.
Luck drops, as moves are more accurate
lichess.org/insights/Toscani/luck/accuracy
If most of my moves are 50-60% accurate, then my opponent can hope for 30% luck. But that does not mean the opponent will be lucky to spot that chance. This is where that 30% drops even more depending on winning chances.
lichess.org/insights/Toscani/luck/winPercent
So according to lichess insights there is some luck in the game, but it's not even 50/50. Maybe I got it all wrong, but to call a player lucky, they would have to be over 50% lucky. There is nothing lucky in a school exam when you get below the passing mark. It goes the same for chess.
Chess is a two player game, so one player can get lucky, but effort had to be put into the game to gain in rating. No effort is needed in a game of luck. So again chess is not a game of luck, because there is effort put into the game.
Luck should be more defined because using the idea that luck is in a game is an arbitrary sequence of events in a game that throws off the otherwise trajectory in a game, strictly as a game its self chess is clearly not a game of chance. There is nothing arbitrary same pieces same time (maybe internet issues but usually insignificant for blitz or slower) same number of squares same finite (but enormous) possible ways the game could go. Every mistake unpunished shouldn't be seen as luck but simply the opponent wasn't able to focus or wasn't strong enough to see. In that sense the only room for luck is in very fast time squabbles where the move input method itself changes the result of the game (mouse slip or lag moment). In fact, just a little bit more accuracy or time management can in many cases steer clear of such situations.
However the other idea of luck where distractions, preparation, lack of preparation or momentary slips in focus where you blunder a queen, or simply choosing a bad strategy to begin with or stopping calculation one step short, or even simply the opponent just finds the critical moves and just played better this is more the human element of the game which has nothing to do with the game itself but the participants which frequently results in wild swings in rating. And that's a good thing. Its what makes chess interesting. If the stronger player always won then there would be no interest in playing the game certainly not spectating it. You already knew the result! There are some games where your ideas seem to just work nicely and other times your opponents find the refutation to everything. But unlike the first kind of luck you can improve! You can find sharper ideas not lose focus where you would usually hang a piece and if the skill difference is great enough never lose. This is different than the poker example where better strategy will only give you a marginal advantage which will probably not manifest until a good sample of games have been played. You may have an advantage but it will never at any point guarantee a result. With that said it is probably not a perfect game of chance either or skill would truly be irrelevant.
However the other idea of luck where distractions, preparation, lack of preparation or momentary slips in focus where you blunder a queen, or simply choosing a bad strategy to begin with or stopping calculation one step short, or even simply the opponent just finds the critical moves and just played better this is more the human element of the game which has nothing to do with the game itself but the participants which frequently results in wild swings in rating. And that's a good thing. Its what makes chess interesting. If the stronger player always won then there would be no interest in playing the game certainly not spectating it. You already knew the result! There are some games where your ideas seem to just work nicely and other times your opponents find the refutation to everything. But unlike the first kind of luck you can improve! You can find sharper ideas not lose focus where you would usually hang a piece and if the skill difference is great enough never lose. This is different than the poker example where better strategy will only give you a marginal advantage which will probably not manifest until a good sample of games have been played. You may have an advantage but it will never at any point guarantee a result. With that said it is probably not a perfect game of chance either or skill would truly be irrelevant.
@chesspawnrookking said in #18:
> Luck should be more defined because using the idea that luck is in a game is an arbitrary sequence of events in a game that throws off the otherwise trajectory in a game, strictly as a game its self chess is clearly not a game of chance. There is nothing arbitrary same pieces same time (maybe internet issues but usually insignificant for blitz or slower) same number of squares same finite (but enormous) possible ways the game could go. Every mistake unpunished shouldn't be seen as luck but simply the opponent wasn't able to focus or wasn't strong enough to see. In that sense the only room for luck is in very fast time squabbles where the move input method itself changes the result of the game (mouse slip or lag moment). In fact, just a little bit more accuracy or time management can in many cases steer clear of such situations.
> However the other idea of luck where distractions, preparation, lack of preparation or momentary slips in focus where you blunder a queen, or simply choosing a bad strategy to begin with or stopping calculation one step short, or even simply the opponent just finds the critical moves and just played better this is more the human element of the game which has nothing to do with the game itself but the participants which frequently results in wild swings in rating. And that's a good thing. Its what makes chess interesting. If the stronger player always won then there would be no interest in playing the game certainly not spectating it. You already knew the result! There are some games where your ideas seem to just work nicely and other times your opponents find the refutation to everything. But unlike the first kind of luck you can improve! You can find sharper ideas not lose focus where you would usually hang a piece and if the skill difference is great enough never lose. This is different than the poker example where better strategy will only give you a marginal advantage which will probably not manifest until a good sample of games have been played. You may have an advantage but it will never at any point guarantee a result. With that said it is probably not a perfect game of chance either or skill would truly be irrelevant.
i agree
> Luck should be more defined because using the idea that luck is in a game is an arbitrary sequence of events in a game that throws off the otherwise trajectory in a game, strictly as a game its self chess is clearly not a game of chance. There is nothing arbitrary same pieces same time (maybe internet issues but usually insignificant for blitz or slower) same number of squares same finite (but enormous) possible ways the game could go. Every mistake unpunished shouldn't be seen as luck but simply the opponent wasn't able to focus or wasn't strong enough to see. In that sense the only room for luck is in very fast time squabbles where the move input method itself changes the result of the game (mouse slip or lag moment). In fact, just a little bit more accuracy or time management can in many cases steer clear of such situations.
> However the other idea of luck where distractions, preparation, lack of preparation or momentary slips in focus where you blunder a queen, or simply choosing a bad strategy to begin with or stopping calculation one step short, or even simply the opponent just finds the critical moves and just played better this is more the human element of the game which has nothing to do with the game itself but the participants which frequently results in wild swings in rating. And that's a good thing. Its what makes chess interesting. If the stronger player always won then there would be no interest in playing the game certainly not spectating it. You already knew the result! There are some games where your ideas seem to just work nicely and other times your opponents find the refutation to everything. But unlike the first kind of luck you can improve! You can find sharper ideas not lose focus where you would usually hang a piece and if the skill difference is great enough never lose. This is different than the poker example where better strategy will only give you a marginal advantage which will probably not manifest until a good sample of games have been played. You may have an advantage but it will never at any point guarantee a result. With that said it is probably not a perfect game of chance either or skill would truly be irrelevant.
i agree
@Kirutesh_Sekar said in #12:
> Chess is not a game of chance by any stretch of the imagination. There are no dice to roll, or cards to pick. Luck has nothing to do with it.
But then, one might argue that dice rolls are not "luck" either. They are entirely determined by physical laws. A sufficiently advanced being could roll the dice to its desired outcomes in such a way that humans think the outcome is random. Cards that are shuffled can be tracked via e.g. video.
The value of a fractal at a particular coordinate is not random. There is obvious mathematical structure -- in fact, fractals that are far more complex and "chaotic" than chess are governed by simpler rules than chess. And yet, for a coordinate to have the value we hope for is essentially "luck".
When sailing, the winds and weather conditions are largely governed by deterministic physical laws, and yet competitive racers can only exert enough control so that they are going in the rough direction with roughly the desired speed. There will always be a variance in the actual direction and speed. The actual result is determined by such an incomprehensibly complex process that it can only be modeled roughly by a probability distribution.
Similarly, since non-perfect players are playing chess, complexity and chaos arise and can be perceived as luck. Obviously, the players may exert some form of steering control over their "ship", but the exact outcomes are still... luck.
> Chess is not a game of chance by any stretch of the imagination. There are no dice to roll, or cards to pick. Luck has nothing to do with it.
But then, one might argue that dice rolls are not "luck" either. They are entirely determined by physical laws. A sufficiently advanced being could roll the dice to its desired outcomes in such a way that humans think the outcome is random. Cards that are shuffled can be tracked via e.g. video.
The value of a fractal at a particular coordinate is not random. There is obvious mathematical structure -- in fact, fractals that are far more complex and "chaotic" than chess are governed by simpler rules than chess. And yet, for a coordinate to have the value we hope for is essentially "luck".
When sailing, the winds and weather conditions are largely governed by deterministic physical laws, and yet competitive racers can only exert enough control so that they are going in the rough direction with roughly the desired speed. There will always be a variance in the actual direction and speed. The actual result is determined by such an incomprehensibly complex process that it can only be modeled roughly by a probability distribution.
Similarly, since non-perfect players are playing chess, complexity and chaos arise and can be perceived as luck. Obviously, the players may exert some form of steering control over their "ship", but the exact outcomes are still... luck.