Yes! I think there are always inconvinient opponents, no matter how strong You are, they re using chess logic, that doesn't fit for Your Thinking , and is harder for You to Play against , no matter , how weaker they are. But there is also factor, that if all is without visible mistakes , You may simply choose unlucky strategy from the start, so You will feel the pressure, even if there is no obvious mistakes from both sides.in that both cases, Luck matters. But theoreticly, when there is the highest level of chess, there would be no luck remains, but simply trace of it's influence. if 2 engines are playing both very Perfect, still there is a chance to see that trace of "luck", when 1 engine is visible pressing another, even if he doesn't wins, that may be visible, the it's "esasier" in some sense for It to play
mahhhh you give too importance Elo online where most of games are bullet...blitz... and refllexes and play fast count.
So many players lose for distractions and pieces in jeopardy... my answer?
YES "LUCK" is very important on chess.....but online! :)
So many players lose for distractions and pieces in jeopardy... my answer?
YES "LUCK" is very important on chess.....but online! :)
It's very narrow to define luck only as things that are strictly random, like dice or cards. Human limitations, or just the finite precision of an intelligent agent, is the dominant source of luck in any sport. Even in physical sports, the strength and accuracy at which the ball is kicked or thrown by the players, and the sharpness of their eyes' perception are far more important than random wind gusts, which wouldn't even exist indoors. If chess does not involve luck and only who is stronger in a given game, surely (indoor) ball games also involve only who is the stronger team in a given game. But that is ridiculous, because we can't expect humans, or even robots, to play absolutely perfectly, and we can't predict what their imperfections will be in every situation. The randomness of player flaws can be reduced with training but never completely eliminated.
Great article. It makes me think about the rating dip I just experience. Also, please consider linking Dan Brock's work if possible. I was very curious about his study. How many games were studied? In regard to the 100 rating point fluctuations, was this over 20 games? 100 games? 200 games? The article doesn't provide this valuable context.
luck, random, surprise, uncertainty would need some defintion discussion.
does the board itself has uncertainty to it. for any level of human chess player.
is a pair of dice throw, truly random? or do we just don't care to map the conditions one would need to throw the dice to have it end up on some stationary orientation after some elastic sequnces of bouces and collisions, while loose kinectic energy, and finally not having enough bounce left to rotate into another face attractor. it is willfull ignorance of the intinial conditions partition to final resting state that allows us to call the process random. too much work to do that mapping.. but with proper elastic solid body and newton equations of motions together, this is still a deterministic system.
is chess also that way. locally deterministic (from position apply a move will determine the immediate next position complet information), but at least for human players, any, always has an outcome forecasting limit.
deleted my elaboration on that. better leave it as question
does the board itself has uncertainty to it. for any level of human chess player.
is a pair of dice throw, truly random? or do we just don't care to map the conditions one would need to throw the dice to have it end up on some stationary orientation after some elastic sequnces of bouces and collisions, while loose kinectic energy, and finally not having enough bounce left to rotate into another face attractor. it is willfull ignorance of the intinial conditions partition to final resting state that allows us to call the process random. too much work to do that mapping.. but with proper elastic solid body and newton equations of motions together, this is still a deterministic system.
is chess also that way. locally deterministic (from position apply a move will determine the immediate next position complet information), but at least for human players, any, always has an outcome forecasting limit.
deleted my elaboration on that. better leave it as question
Yes they are lucky to have students play it in schools in the 1500's. Lucky too that it was educational. Luck as in a lottery of who wins or loses, not.
I appreciate your thoughtful exploration of how luck or variance might influence the game of chess, but I must respectfully disagree with the overall argument.
Chess, unlike games such as poker, is a game of pure strategy, with no room for luck to play any significant part. Your position seems to confuse luck with unpredictability or fluctuations in performance, and I believe this might stem from a misunderstanding of what luck truly entails.
Luck, by definition, is the force that causes things, especially good things, to happen to you by chance and not as a result of your own efforts or abilities. In poker, luck can be evidenced by the random draw of cards. However, in chess, every move is a direct result of the players' decisions, without any element of randomness. There are no dice to roll, no cards to draw, no random events to interfere with the game's course. Each decision, each move, is a calculated choice made by the player, and the outcome is a direct result of those choices.
The fluctuation in ratings you've mentioned can be attributed to a multitude of factors, such as emotional state, level of focus, physical wellbeing, and more. Yes, these factors can make outcomes unpredictable, but they do not equate to luck. They are simply human factors that affect our ability to perform optimally in any given situation, chess included.
When it comes to studying openings, encountering unexpected moves, or even dealing with external distractions, these are all part of the chess player's journey. The unpredictability of which opening your opponent will choose or what unconventional move they might play next is part of the strategy and skill in chess, rather than an aspect of luck.
And about the fluctuations in ratings, they represent a learning curve rather than luck. Progress in any field is rarely linear; there are always highs and lows as we learn, adapt, and grow. The trajectory of a player's rating over time reflects this journey, showcasing their growth and development in the game.
The concept of variance in poker is not entirely applicable to chess. Variance in poker refers to the statistical measure of how much a player's results can vary from their mathematical expectation, which is heavily influenced by the randomness inherent in the game. In contrast, chess, lacking such randomness, doesn't exhibit the same kind of variance.
While I agree that focusing on process over results, looking at long-term results, and getting an outside perspective are valuable advice for any endeavor, including chess, attributing the variability in performance to luck might be a mischaracterization. Chess, in its essence, remains a game of strategy, skill, and intellectual prowess.
Chess, unlike games such as poker, is a game of pure strategy, with no room for luck to play any significant part. Your position seems to confuse luck with unpredictability or fluctuations in performance, and I believe this might stem from a misunderstanding of what luck truly entails.
Luck, by definition, is the force that causes things, especially good things, to happen to you by chance and not as a result of your own efforts or abilities. In poker, luck can be evidenced by the random draw of cards. However, in chess, every move is a direct result of the players' decisions, without any element of randomness. There are no dice to roll, no cards to draw, no random events to interfere with the game's course. Each decision, each move, is a calculated choice made by the player, and the outcome is a direct result of those choices.
The fluctuation in ratings you've mentioned can be attributed to a multitude of factors, such as emotional state, level of focus, physical wellbeing, and more. Yes, these factors can make outcomes unpredictable, but they do not equate to luck. They are simply human factors that affect our ability to perform optimally in any given situation, chess included.
When it comes to studying openings, encountering unexpected moves, or even dealing with external distractions, these are all part of the chess player's journey. The unpredictability of which opening your opponent will choose or what unconventional move they might play next is part of the strategy and skill in chess, rather than an aspect of luck.
And about the fluctuations in ratings, they represent a learning curve rather than luck. Progress in any field is rarely linear; there are always highs and lows as we learn, adapt, and grow. The trajectory of a player's rating over time reflects this journey, showcasing their growth and development in the game.
The concept of variance in poker is not entirely applicable to chess. Variance in poker refers to the statistical measure of how much a player's results can vary from their mathematical expectation, which is heavily influenced by the randomness inherent in the game. In contrast, chess, lacking such randomness, doesn't exhibit the same kind of variance.
While I agree that focusing on process over results, looking at long-term results, and getting an outside perspective are valuable advice for any endeavor, including chess, attributing the variability in performance to luck might be a mischaracterization. Chess, in its essence, remains a game of strategy, skill, and intellectual prowess.
As a game evolves, so too does its (perceived) complexity. One side (e.g. black) may end up in a position with a form of complexity that is easier for a human to manage than the other side (e.g. white). Thus, the player with the side with lower complexity will now be likelier to win. The process of evolving complexity is stochastic. While position complexity can be controlled to some degree by good players, a good chunk of this process is outside the control of non-perfect players (who would not perceive any complexity in the first place).
Loved the naked beekeeping line haha