The guy's seemingly been poisoned by manning the computer all the time. He's a GM but has lost all perspective of what moves are actually human moves.

Anyone else who plays blitz find that their rating swongs around a lot? I hit my lowest ever rating on March 27 this year, getting hammered all the way down to 1562. Now I'm back up to 1855, fairly close to my peak rating of 1896 (in July 2017). IDK if that's just the nature of blitz or if it's down to my tendency to play while intoxicated.

the former IMO

1,2 ^^^

huge swongs in blitz

I just hit 2000 on chess.com blitz. Felt like I was in the 1900s for eternity. Should I feel proud or stupid it took me this long to get there when nihal sarin probably got there at age 7? In my defense I usually play 10/0 which is way more deflated than 3/0. Ultimately had to play 3/0 to get there, and basically flagged everyone and their uncle.

While I was getting crushed, I found that my opponents would frequently have positions that looked terrible, but then they would have some ridiculous defensive resource to everything I tried. When I'm winning it's the opposite. The intuitive nature of blitz, not relying on exact calculation, is what I like about it, but it also means it's possible to "run good" and "run bad". When I say blitz here btw, I'm talking 3 0.

Variance in chess is real.

lol @ people who think there is no "luck" factor in chess.

Depends on your definition of luck. I would agree but since there is no element of randomness, I get the opposite point.

Nope. There is variance and it's not debatable.

I mean poker is in theory a non-random game as well, because there are right and wrong answers depending on what the exact deal is. There are right and wrong answers in chess depending on what the game tree looks like, but the entire game tree is not knowable even in theory with current technology (might change with quantum computing). The difference is that in poker, the randomness is caused by the imposed by the rules of the game, while in chess it's imposed by the laws of physics. But it's random all the same. I guess it would be most technically correct to say that chess is in-theory nonrandom, but that in practice it cannot be played without an element of randomness.

variance is not the same as luck

It's not? What's the difference? What's the source of the variance if it isn't luck?

LOL

Variance is just the intensity of deviation from expectation. It can be caused by anything from effort to mood or in other games/activities, things like weather.

Chance is a thing that can cause variance and definitely not equivalent to variance.

If I blunder a piece, was I unlucky? I would say no.

If my opponent blunders a piece, was I lucky? I would say yes.

But as I already stated, this discussion is pointless without a clear Definition of The term luck

lol definitionaments

His blundering a piece is a direct consequence of his playing strength. A stronger opponent wouldn't blunder that piece, and thus would yield a better result against you on average at that particular moment in time against you with your current playing strength.

The only argument for "luck" in chess is the one ChrisV mentioned, that has to do with chess not being mathematically solved. It could happen that you make a move that even stockfish thinks is perfectly sound, but that turns out to be losing by force 35 moves down the line, AND your opponent stumbling upon that very line. I'd say the chances of that happening are rather slim.

well, if I play someone rated 2000, he might straight up blunder a piece once every 20 games. I think it is lucky if I happen to be his opponent in that game.

I agree the variance is due to the fact that both players dont see 20 moves ahead. often times one player happens to have a winning continuation without any of the two seeing it at the beginning of the line.

There's still plenty of chance in chess. Often player 1 sees 5 moves ahead theplayer 2 only sees 3 moves ahead. 6 moves later player 1 is lost

Tournament pairings introduce an element of chance to it. especially when considering other opponents results etc

Weather or not someone is in form or has had circumstances outside the chess board affect their play. I would say all these and more introduce some element of chance to the game

Yes, outside things can introduce chance to the game, but the game itself doesn't introduce any. That's the key imo.

TrumpWrong.gif

Obviously if one introduces stuff like "you could have a heart attack and be unable to continue" then everything is luck/chance.

That's not what's meant when one measures luck/chance in games though - it's a theoretical debate based on perfect play. That we can't play a game perfectly does not mean it's a game of chance.

Amen!

Why is this even a discussion?