This. There's tons of luck in chess if we define luck this way.

There is no randomness in the rules of chess (unlike poker and dice) which is what confuses the issue. But, like most of life, the situation is chaotic so the part that isn't predictable we can call luck.

--When I make a move based on faulty analysis and it turns out to be a great move anyway I call that lucky.

--When I read up on a trappy opening and in the next game my opponent plays into it I call that lucky.

the only luck you can have in chess is making the right move for the wrong reasons, otoh in tournament chess there is an obvious luck factor.

I would never strike out Albert Pujols, so i guess there is no luck in baseball.
Also lol I'm also one of the top 0.1% players in the world. Lets see the USCF site says im #3,150 in the US; and there are 350 million people in the US, so um, yeah, actually I'm in an even more exclusive club, in yaw face!

Yes, but you're no GM

Kathleenwins, who is the strongest player (and what was his/her rating at the time) you've beaten in an OTB game of standard time controls?

So you are in the top one tenth of one percent of--what? Rated players? FIDE-rated players?

Like most posters here, I'm easily in the top 0.1% of people who have played at least a few games of chess, but I'm not close to the top 0.1% of rated players. (More like, uh, 95th percentile, I think? Around there. Weak expert strength.)

26xx, didn't play that many 2700s

There is more luck in chess than most players, even top notch ones, realize. But it's small.
There is more luck in poker than most players, even those playing 1,000,000 tables simultaneously and optimally, realize. It's bigger.

There's always luck.

Very impressive, thank you for the reply.

Are you titled?

Yeah exactly...

Yeah I'm a GM. Not active anymore, though.

I have a hunch for who you are Kathleenwins, but I won't guess in the thread.

I wouldn't want to "out" you.

What? I don't get the quotes or the wink.

Why are people so afraid of thier identity anyway? It doesn't make sense unless you're trolling.

Your opponent could fall over dead so I guess that would constitute bad luck for him and good luck for you.

That falls under the umbrella of "there is luck in the universe and chess exists within the universe."

Wink = no reason in particular.

Quotes of "out" = Just putting it in quotes for emphasis.

Sorry for confusion ganstaman.

The only way I can see there being luck is in timed games, because of where you subconsciously place the focal point of your concious and do not have sufficient time to look at all focal points, or beginnings (and endings)of a thought process...

If there is always sufficient time to make a move which one has decided is best of all moves then the luck factor is nil as both players have had sufficient opportune to formulate their plans in which the strongest will always win.

This can be shown, in that if I had infinte time, I would beat the world champion who had only 5 minutes provided there was some sort of means where he was not allowed to calculate or think about the game whilst it was my turn- like somehow my moves are pre determined... (I would need a lot of time and planning to play every possible game)


e: And also in that in a non infinite time span, I would 'accidentally' play that pre determined prefect game x% of the time...

Deep (and accurate) calculation is a difficult process.

If you're a novice you'll often make a mistake even if you're given one day per move.

Besides, it's not just about calculation.

For instance you'll encounter positions in which the best programs in the world go for a drawn endgame a pawn up instead of keeping the initiative in a position that isn't clarified yet. The good player will see the key upcoming positions (e.g a possible fortress) and assess them.

Or you'll have some positional operation in which judgement is more important than calculation. But yeah.

Not sure about the 5 min. vs. world champion thing

There is no amount of time in which a world champion would not crush a novice. You can't calculate everything, you will eventually just run out of stuff to think about, and his superior knowledge will swat you aside effortlessly.

In an infinite timespan, I could play every game possible and produce a tree for every response, even though it will be billions.... in 5 minutes I doubt any human could compete with such a ludicrous stipulation/advantage, I would have several lifetimes to master the game over his one + 5 mins clock...

Besides aren't super computors better than the world champions nowadays?

I was assuming you intend on playing this match under competitive conditions. You won't have an infinite number of analysis boards to play with, you will still be limited by your own mind.

It was an example to show how I could accidently play this perfect game, which would most definitely be determined with an infinite amount of time for analysis. Tools would only aid the speed, I don't personally think my mind is limited enough, I have enough 'RAM' and hard drive space in my head... although a pen and paper would be needed to catalyse that... heheh

maybe its akin to a faster computer making decisions quicker opposed to higher quality decisions, everything is this or that in chess no? It's not exactly analogue like (some) poker is... anyway of course my argument/example is absurd, I was merely attempting to convey the underlying principle

You said yourself in my noob thread that with experience one sees the patterns, and more patterns, ect with imagination and lots of time I don't think you can dispute my claim as I have the ability to learn and the brain is much more complicated than a board with 64 squares

I wouldn't be so sure. (Bolding below is mine.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_brain

" These cells pass signals to each other via as many as 1000 trillion (10^15, 1 quadrillion) synaptic connections"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon_number

" Taking these into account, Victor Allis calculated an upper bound of 5×10^52 for the number of positions, and estimated the true number to be about 10^50.[3] Recent results[4] improve that estimate, by proving an upper bound of only 2^155, which is less than 10^46.7"

Yeah computers are better in most positions. Human calculation is more efficient in that we don't consider a lot of moves and thus cut down the tree considerably. However, the huge numbers and accuracy outweight this.

I would think that such a tree would probably be billions just for the first five or six moves.

If we produce such a tree for the first two moves from each side. It's a ton but possible.

However, who says that you'll choose a GOOD ROUTE, even though you're aware of all the possible replies? You want to use the same model for the full game and choose the lines that give you the best result?

Chess with optimal play is a draw. Perhaps it wouldn't be if stalemate offered a bit more than half the point.

This is certainly a scenario we can't even imagine. Every first move from white leads to a draw, so which one do you choose?

Of course noone can play perfect with 5 minutes on the clock, and humans are huge underdogs against computers in blitz.

But you'd still be surprised by the quality of play

Grunch...If Kasparov played 1000 heads up freezeouts with Ivey how many times would he win 400? 450? 500 if he runs good? If they play 1000 chess games how many will Ivey win? ZERO!! Because one game has luck involved and one doesn't.