13 Apr '09 02:52>
Originally posted by Black Star UchessThank you ! finally someone honest...
wonder if anyone has an ' accidental sacrifice' game
where you or your opponent blunders into a winning position
has happened to me a few times.
Originally posted by dzirilliThis is a decent argument for chance in chess, but I disagree. Nowadays we know that the laws of physics are random(read:uncertain) at some level. So maybe dice aren't random because of macroscopic laws of physics being able to predict the outcome given enough data on the initial conditions, but certainly some things are random like quantum measurements or thermal noise from black holes(and they aren't apparently random because of imperfect knowledge--so-called hidden-variable theories).
If chess isn't random, then neither are dice. After all, the dice roll and land according to rather straightforward laws of physics. If you don't know the number that results, then in your perception only there is chance involved. Chess is the same way. Unless you know all the possible results of all possible moves, there is chance involved.
Originally posted by MacpoOur imperfect knowledge doesn't make anything more or less random. Randomness is what is described to something that follows no deterministic process. Playing perfect chess can easily be described by a deterministic process(::algorithm).
I remark that people refusing the existence of chance in chess seem to be forced to make purely abstract hypotheses such as "if you were the perfect chess player, you could have..."
But this does not exist; it is not even a plausible hypothese, it only denotes a misunderstanding of how chess really works, and of how people think about it in daily, concrete, ...[text shortened]... e objectively determined, but subjectively random), as I and dzirilli appropriately explained.
Originally posted by MacpoI think I see what you're trying to say, but the presentation is very sloppy.
There is nothing like dice in Chess. There is nothing like randomly distributed cards neither. Except when deciding who is White and who is black, there is apparently no chance is chess. Chess – and this is often honoured - is one of these games that apparently do not imply any kind of chance.
Apparently, yes! Because on contrary to what most people think, t ...[text shortened]... state of mind.
So please! Be kind when you win: recognize that you definitely had chance!
But, we all also agree that when we play chess, we never think like in mathematics and logic...
So discoveries are due to nothing.
Originally posted by heinzkatI simply disagree with the statement that it was 'luck' that Marshall had ...Qg3. Shots like that don't just happen out of thin air. They arise from strategical advantages: better placed pieces, local superiority on the Kingside, etc. This stuff doesn't just arise by accident; it comes from a player steering the game in a specific direction. The fact that he cannot see 10 moves in advance exactly how he will finish off the opponent does not mean he can't take the credit for a shot that arises from the superior position he has created.
@SG Still it was Marshall's "luck" this Qg3 move was correct and could be executed. What if he had seen it with all his cunning, but the position had an unfortunate refutation for the idea?
Originally posted by SwissGambitamazing game, thanks!
I simply disagree with the statement that it was 'luck' that Marshall had ...Qg3. Shots like that don't just happen out of thin air. They arise from strategical advantages: better placed pieces, local superiority on the Kingside, etc. This stuff doesn't just arise by accident; it comes from a player steering the game in a specific direction. The fact tha ...[text shortened]... he can't take the credit for a shot that arises from the superior position he has created.
Originally posted by RomanticusI would not call this luck. I would say that, even though neither you nor your opponent saw everything, you still were more aware of your opportunities than he, and thus won by superior skill.
I agree with SG on the positional play,that's no luck.However,suppose I initiate a 5 move combo,at the 3rd move my opponent replies with a move that stops the mate and I hadn't considered this move but,as it turns out,I can still go a pawn up and after many more mistakes from both sides I manage to win the game because of that extra pawn.Then I consider m ...[text shortened]... lucky.Though if it's my opponent who is on the good side of this I'll say he played better.