16 Dec '08 21:37>
Luck has no influence what so ever in deciding the outcome of a game of chess.
Originally posted by MetBierOpI've played 6 games against User 22093, and I won them all.
Luck has no influence what so ever in deciding the outcome of a game of chess.
Originally posted by FabianFnasIs that egg on his face?
I've played 6 games against User 22093, and I won them all.
Originally posted by geepamoogleSince no engine or man is yet able to explore every branch and every possibility for each move, luck is present in every game. QED
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.
Originally posted by PalynkaI would argue that that sort of luck isn't inherent in the game, but rather it is found in the players.
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
Originally posted by geepamoogleeven 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.
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.
Originally posted by MetBierOpYou 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.
Luck has no influence what so ever in deciding the outcome of a game of chess.
Originally posted by broblutoi 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."
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.
Originally posted by AetheraelInteresting view. Let's stick by the "poker"-luck definition you just explained. Lets say the following happens:
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).
Originally posted by geepamooglethis is exactly what i was trying to get out with the "poker definition," and you described it very well. kudos.
..."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).".