# Prove the following statement #1:

MetBierOp
Posers and Puzzles 16 Dec '08 21:37
1. 16 Dec '08 21:37
Luck has no influence what so ever in deciding the outcome of a game of chess.
2. 16 Dec '08 22:04
Originally posted by MetBierOp
Luck has no influence what so ever in deciding the outcome of a game of chess.
I've played 6 games against , and I won them all.
3. Palynka
Upward Spiral
16 Dec '08 22:06
Originally posted by FabianFnas
I've played 6 games against , and I won them all.
Is that egg on his face?
4. 17 Dec '08 07:251 edit
Originally posted by Palynka
Is that egg on his face?
No no, not at all. We all have our losses, everyone of us.
But if even Luck has no luck with me, then what is luck?
Tried to be funny, sorry... failed... ðŸ˜ž
5. 18 Dec '08 16:00
Luck in an absolute sense requires a random component. In chess, no move has a random component.

One could theoretically explore every branch and possibility for each move and determine whether the position is won, lost, or drawn, much like Tic-Tac-Toe, only vastly more complicated.

Case in point is Shredder's endgame database, which could always be expanded until one reached the starting position.
6. Palynka
Upward Spiral
18 Dec '08 18:41
Originally posted by geepamoogle
Luck in an absolute sense requires a random component. In chess, no move has a random component.

One could theoretically explore every branch and possibility for each move and determine whether the position is won, lost, or drawn, much like Tic-Tac-Toe, only vastly more complicated.

Case in point is Shredder's endgame database, which could always be expanded until one reached the starting position.
Since no engine or man is yet able to explore every branch and every possibility for each move, luck is present in every game. QED
7. 19 Dec '08 04:42
Does luck have any influence in a blitz game of chess where time is a factor?
8. 19 Dec '08 05:27
Originally posted by Palynka
Since no engine or man is yet able to explore every branch and every possibility for each move, luck is present in every game. QED
I would argue that that sort of luck isn't inherent in the game, but rather it is found in the players.

That isn't to argue it doesn't exist, just that it isn't implicit in the game itself, but exists outside of the game.

If you do factor in the players, you do find it tends to come with a bit of luck though, and so I do grant you that much. How much luck depends on the consistency (or lack thereof) of the opponent.

Still, theoretically chess is still purely a game of strategic and tactical skill without any coin flips or the like, hence it isn't illogical to treat it as such, even though no entity yet is capable of determining efficiently the value of any particular position it is given.

You think chess is bad, you ought to try Go sometime..
9. 19 Dec '08 18:52
Originally posted by geepamoogle
Luck in an absolute sense requires a random component. In chess, no move has a random component.

One could theoretically explore every branch and possibility for each move and determine whether the position is won, lost, or drawn, much like Tic-Tac-Toe, only vastly more complicated.

Case in point is Shredder's endgame database, which could always be expanded until one reached the starting position.
even if all positions of the game can be theoretically explored, and each player can make non-random decisions about whether their position is won, lost, or drawn, i submit that the random component of which color pieces you get largely determines the outcome of the game. from a strictly mathematical/analytical standpoint, the entire game will be depend on white's first move - but which side of the board you are playing on is randomly assigned in most cases.
10. 21 Dec '08 04:28
Originally posted by MetBierOp
Luck has no influence what so ever in deciding the outcome of a game of chess.
You are assuming that the statement is true. Is it not luck if a person does not make a mistake? Or, on the other hand, the other person is lucky if their opponent makes a mistake.

As long as humans are involved, there is an opportunity for error. That opportunity's consequence, can be considered 'luck' if it benefits someone else.

Therefore, there is an element of luck in chess.
11. 22 Dec '08 07:231 edit
Originally posted by brobluto
You are assuming that the statement is true. Is it not luck if a person does not make a mistake? Or, on the other hand, the other person is lucky if their opponent makes a mistake.

As long as humans are involved, there is an opportunity for error. That opportunity's consequence, can be considered 'luck' if it benefits someone else.

Therefore, there is an element of luck in chess.
i believe our definitions of "luck" are different. in most games, luck is defined as something wholly different from a "mistake." for instance in poker, you can make correct decisions at every stage of play (i.e. you put all of the correct evidence together, properly interpreted the other person's cards, and made the proper choice to bet/call/fold/raise) and yet there is the element of chance that is independent of each player's actions. this chance is what is most often defined as "luck" - it's the "heads or tails" of a coin flip, it's the "one through six" of a dice roll, and it's the aspect of most games that differentiates "mistakes" from "luck."

that being said, i don't think your assertion is at all incorrect - just dependent upon a different definition of luck than i was using. and, this question cannot be definitively "answered" unless the term "luck" is adequately defined (one way or the other).
12. 23 Dec '08 14:20
It is funny to see how many people try to disprove the statement ðŸ˜€
13. 23 Dec '08 14:27
Originally posted by Aetherael
i believe our definitions of "luck" are different. in most games, luck is defined as something wholly different from a "mistake." for instance in poker, you can make correct decisions at every stage of play (i.e. you put all of the correct evidence together, properly interpreted the other person's cards, and made the proper choice to bet/call/fold/raise ...[text shortened]... ed" unless the term "luck" is adequately defined (one way or the other).
Interesting view. Let's stick by the "poker"-luck definition you just explained. Lets say the following happens:
You have spotted a mate in 6. The only way your opponent can prevent this. Is by moving his bisshop to c8. Moving his bisshop to c8 also forks your knight and rook. This is however rather senseless, since it can be easily defended by moving your rook, and this rook is bad placed anyway.

Your opponent does not see the mate in 6. However he moves his bisshop to c8 because he simply likes to fork and hopes that you will blunder.

Your opponent just played the best move on the board. For all the wrong reasons. Is (s)he lucky by the poker-definition?
14. 23 Dec '08 18:53
I would classify the "luck" aspect related to the person's strategic/tactical decision-making not to be luck, but rather to be an aspect of accuracy and precision of that person.

Luck would be any aspect of the game or such outside of all players ability to control, even collectively, and a player who is less than precise (or accurate) in their play has the option of learning how to see the position better, even if the task is a difficult, life-long one. Yes, it is luck in a sense, but in another sense, it's the player's ability to play consistently or not, even if they make the right move for the wrong reason..

The only aspect where genuine luck comes in at all is the selection of who plays which side, but that is minimal given that the game starts from a theoretically drawn position (although white is very slightly favored).

Many tournaments tend to minimize this even further by evening out who plays which color, so that each player gets white about as often as they get black. Frequently in casual games, players will alternate sides as well.
15. 24 Dec '08 18:47
Originally posted by geepamoogle
..."Luck would be any aspect of the game or such outside of all players ability to control, even collectively ...The only aspect where genuine luck comes in at all is the selection of who plays which side, but that is minimal given that the game starts from a theoretically drawn position (although white is very slightly favored).".
this is exactly what i was trying to get out with the "poker definition," and you described it very well. kudos.

now, in discussing theoretical deep-search "chess engines" that can analyze every conceivable future position (including every allowance for hidden black-favorable variations), isn't it entirely possible that the slight favoritism towards white would inevitably lead to white's victory? and thus the "luck" of which side of the board you play would entirely determine the outcome of the game?

clearly, this is not found in practice because that sort of analysis would require huge database work, creative computing, and super-processing that outdoes any chess engine currently compiled (or else a very long time clock). yet, i wonder whether it could even be discussed as theoretically possible to have a predetermined win for white. or if black ultimately has enough recourse to overcome the first-move advantage even if both sides play "perfectly."