1. Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    116436
    24 Dec '08 20:28
    Originally posted by MetBierOp
    Luck has no influence what so ever in deciding the outcome of a game of chess.
    Perhaps I can help to disprove it.

    hypothesis: luck has something to do with winning a game of chess. (assuming of course that we are discussng statistcal good fortne, not talking lucky horseshoes!)

    1) If luck had nothing to do with winning then better players will win every game
    2)A fully computerised game of unlinked randomised moves would always end in stalemate
    3) I've won two games by checkmate tonight so that must be a luck encounter of the first kind!
  2. Joined
    15 Feb '07
    Moves
    667
    25 Dec '08 15:18
    Originally posted by divegeester
    Perhaps I can help to disprove it.

    hypothesis: luck has something to do with winning a game of chess. (assuming of course that we are discussing statistical good fortune, not talking lucky horseshoes!)

    1) If luck had nothing to do with winning then better players will win every game
    2)A fully computerised game of unlinked randomised moves woul ...[text shortened]...
    3) I've won two games by checkmate tonight so that must be a luck encounter of the first kind!
    As has been pointed out, luck has a variety of meanings, some more stringent than others.

    It isn't being used in a consistent manner in this thread. I would suggest that one could argue this either way, depending on what one considers "luck", because psychological factors (such as being tired or lacking focus or feeling rushed) could be considered luck, or deemed not be be luck.

    And psychological factors DO enter into the results. This includes the "presence" of the players, as the concept of 'Fischer Fear' has shown. But is this luck, or is this something else entirely?

    I would suggest the ability to remain collected during play, and focus on the position at hand and read it with precision and accuracy are skills a good chessplayer needs, rather than merely an element of luck, although they are certainly less tangible than other skills a chessplayer may use.

    I would also note that precision and accuracy are also aspects of computer chess engines as well, since the AI used may have weaknesses in play, or may miss best moves. Now it doesn't have to deal with time pressure or psychological issues (unless programmed to), but chess engines aren't perfect any more than human players are.

    What is meant by "unlinked, randomised moves"? Just curious, because based on what you mean, the second statement may not necessarily follow.

    In regards to the theoretically drawn comment I made, I understand that nobody has yet to prove the opening is drawn (or possibly a forced win for white), but if play at grandmaster level is any indication, I understand most people believe it to be drawn, although white's overall winning percentage does give credence to the fact that white does have an advantage.
  3. Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    116436
    26 Dec '08 09:181 edit
    Originally posted by geepamoogle
    What is meant by "unlinked, randomised moves"?
    I'm thinking of luck as being an external influence which affects one player more than another. The other factors you listed are I think, physiological or psychological, not luck.

    A computer playing another identical computer but without any congnition of it's previous moves in either colour could possibly remove all skill factors from the experiement during every move.

    I.e
    all moves have to be legal
    the 1st pair of moves move is made completely randomly
    2nd the same
    3rd the same etc

    As long as each move is legal and completely random then each game should end in stalement. However there is always the chance that a checkmate will arise buy random chance (or luck). This can be controlled by simply playing more games and this chance win should be equal for both computers - otherwise we could hypothesise that another factor was affecting one of the computers, perhaps this could be luck?
  4. Joined
    15 Feb '07
    Moves
    667
    27 Dec '08 01:37
    In the event the computer listed all legal moves, then randomly selected one of them (equal chance for any move), any side could win.

    On one hand, it may be unlikely for a computer to pick a mating move where available, but on the other, it wouldn't defend against mate threats either. You probably would see a lot of draws, but you might be surprised at the number of 'wins' as well.

    At any rate, any game played between two thinking players (human or computer), would also be possible between two 'random move computers'.

    This to me is entirely beside the point, however, because anyone playing chess will not be making random moves, but will be trying to win. And even if they tend to miss good moves and make blunders, their moves will at least have some direction.
  5. Joined
    15 Feb '07
    Moves
    667
    27 Dec '08 01:381 edit
    *bleh accidental post, please delete*
  6. Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    116436
    27 Dec '08 23:28
    Originally posted by geepamoogle
    In the event the computer listed all legal moves, then randomly selected one of them (equal chance for any move), any side could win.

    On one hand, it may be unlikely for a computer to pick a mating move where available, but on the other, it wouldn't defend against mate threats either. You probably would see a lot of draws, but you might be surprised ...[text shortened]... y tend to miss good moves and make blunders, their moves will at least have some direction.
    But then would you be confusing bad luck with incompetance (or inability)?
  7. Joined
    02 Mar '06
    Moves
    17881
    29 Dec '08 21:482 edits
    Originally posted by divegeester

    ..."A computer playing another identical computer but without any congnition of it's previous moves in either colour could possibly remove all skill factors from the experiement during every move."...
    isn't this somewhat of an "off-the-track" line of inquiry? i thought the discussion was centered around an assumption that each player was playing the game with the intention of winning... of course you can construct a game where each player makes legal moves and luck determines win/lose/draw, but this is not the question we seek to answer.

    i believe the question is whether or not "luck" (defined as a random influence beyond each player's actionable control) has an influence in the outcome of a game of chess in which each player is "flawless" in play, however you choose to define that. in a "perfect" chess game, is the outcome predetermined, does "luck" exert real force on the game, or is chess truly "theoretically drawn" regardless of the initial choice of white's opening, and thus is the outcome entirely determined by the players and their choices?

    as geepamoogle asserted, it seems (from the wealth of data from games played at grandmaster levels) that it's likely a drawn position. however, no game has ever been played "flawlessly" and there's always a turning point at which hindsight dictates a preferable variation. this begs the question (and i think a rather rhetorical and not necessarily answerable one) of whether or not there exists an incredibly deep system of opening maneuvers for white that, when played accurately, would lead to consistent advantage. or does black really ALWAYS have equalizing recourse?

    if a system that accomplishes this task for white exists, i submit that luck DOES have a major influence in chess, since chess determines which side of the board you play. however, if equality can ALWAYS be established by black, and the opening position is ultimately a drawn one, then i think luck has no influence over the outcome of the game.
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree