Certainly there is "chance" of a sort in chess. There's absolutely no random element, of course; but I think everyone has had the experience of being in a somewhat worse position, and going for complication that you (and hopefully, your opponent) couldn't see through completely and hoping for the best. When you're the weaker player, or in an already losing position, it's probably the right way to play -- but there is definitely an element of luck involved if things go in your favor.
If chess isn't random, then neither are dice. After all, the dice roll and land according to rather straightforward laws of physics. If you don't know the number that results, then in your perception only there is chance involved. Chess is the same way. Unless you know all the possible results of all possible moves, there is chance involved.
Originally posted by dzirilliThis is a decent argument for chance in chess, but I disagree. Nowadays we know that the laws of physics are random(read:uncertain) at some level. So maybe dice aren't random because of macroscopic laws of physics being able to predict the outcome given enough data on the initial conditions, but certainly some things are random like quantum measurements or thermal noise from black holes(and they aren't apparently random because of imperfect knowledge--so-called hidden-variable theories).
If chess isn't random, then neither are dice. After all, the dice roll and land according to rather straightforward laws of physics. If you don't know the number that results, then in your perception only there is chance involved. Chess is the same way. Unless you know all the possible results of all possible moves, there is chance involved.
Chess however isn't random. Played by perfectly logical players there is a definite win/loss/draw for best play. We don't know which, but that's because humans are stupid not because chess is random.
Nevertheless with some finite(though rather large) number of games one could at least figure out best play pretty simply.
I remark that people refusing the existence of chance in chess seem to be forced to make purely abstract hypotheses such as "if you were the perfect chess player, you could have..."
But this does not exist; it is not even a plausible hypothese, it only denotes a misunderstanding of how chess really works, and of how people think about it in daily, concrete, boring and funny games we all play.
Given this fact, chess is random (the undetermined which happens) as soon as we define random in relation not to an objective situation, but to our intention (a situation may well be objectively determined, but subjectively random), as I and dzirilli appropriately explained.
Chess is subject to "random chance" not because there is any such thing inherent in the game but because it's played by human beings, not a one of whom has ever been perfectly logical.
Me, I'll own up - I've lucked into great positions on more than a few occasions. And then done my best to remember how I got there, so I could do it again later on purpose. How else are we supposed to learn?
oh go tell kasparov he wandered into great positions by luck, common guys that makes no sense
a multipurpose move of wich all purposes are discovered later isn't luck, it's just good positional play, putting a rook oposite the king or the queen is a good move while you're not necessarily always know about how this attack is going to unfold, it isn't there by luck, you just play with the position and, since every move your adversary makes weakens him more, with your oponents moves
I guess the only luck you can have is to have a weak opponent 😉
Originally posted by MacpoOur imperfect knowledge doesn't make anything more or less random. Randomness is what is described to something that follows no deterministic process. Playing perfect chess can easily be described by a deterministic process(::algorithm).
I remark that people refusing the existence of chance in chess seem to be forced to make purely abstract hypotheses such as "if you were the perfect chess player, you could have..."
But this does not exist; it is not even a plausible hypothese, it only denotes a misunderstanding of how chess really works, and of how people think about it in daily, concrete, ...[text shortened]... e objectively determined, but subjectively random), as I and dzirilli appropriately explained.
I think we are arguing different definitions of randomness.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems your definition of randomness is any outcome we can't predict. In fact, to be more precise, I think your definition is any outcome we can't predict 'in practice'(as opposed to 'in principle'😉.
If we are arguing semantics, then this is my last post in this thread. 🙂
Originally posted by MacpoI think I see what you're trying to say, but the presentation is very sloppy.
There is nothing like dice in Chess. There is nothing like randomly distributed cards neither. Except when deciding who is White and who is black, there is apparently no chance is chess. Chess – and this is often honoured - is one of these games that apparently do not imply any kind of chance.
Apparently, yes! Because on contrary to what most people think, t ...[text shortened]... state of mind.
So please! Be kind when you win: recognize that you definitely had chance!
For starters, you need to distinguish between probability-type chance, and random chance. During your post, you have equivocated on the meaning of the word, creating confusion.
To make matters worse, this is followed by two statements that are simply false:
But, we all also agree that when we play chess, we never think like in mathematics and logic...
So discoveries are due to nothing.
Most of us would agree that there is probability-type 'chance' in chess. It is valid to say that "I have a 75% chance of beating Player X because my rating is Y points higher than his", or "I have good winning chances in this endgame". However, this is a far cry from random chance, which must by definition be outside the control of the players. You will have much more difficulty making the case that there is random chance in chess.
We do think mathematically and logically in our games. Some positions are eminently suited for it. There are 'forced mates in 3' that can be calculated exactly even by humans. There are geometric concepts in the endgame, such as "the square of the pawn" - a quick way to determine if your King can stop an enemy pawn from promoting. There are concepts such as 'corresponding squares' that help us break down K+P endings.
Our discoveries are not 'due to nothing'. Let's look at a famous example:
Black's 23...Qg3!! decided the game. I would argue that this amazing discovery did not come from 'nothing', but [in large part] from the very things you attempt to dismiss: strategy and pattern recognition! Black recognized the power of the pin on the f-file, the N check on e2, the R on h3 [which pins the h-pawn!] and exploited those elements in ingenious fashion.
Originally posted by heinzkatI simply disagree with the statement that it was 'luck' that Marshall had ...Qg3. Shots like that don't just happen out of thin air. They arise from strategical advantages: better placed pieces, local superiority on the Kingside, etc. This stuff doesn't just arise by accident; it comes from a player steering the game in a specific direction. The fact that he cannot see 10 moves in advance exactly how he will finish off the opponent does not mean he can't take the credit for a shot that arises from the superior position he has created.
@SG Still it was Marshall's "luck" this Qg3 move was correct and could be executed. What if he had seen it with all his cunning, but the position had an unfortunate refutation for the idea?
I agree with SG on the positional play,that's no luck.However,suppose I initiate a 5 move combo,at the 3rd move my opponent replies with a move that stops the mate and I hadn't considered this move but,as it turns out,I can still go a pawn up and after many more mistakes from both sides I manage to win the game because of that extra pawn.Then I consider myself lucky.Though if it's my opponent who is on the good side of this I'll say he played better.
This might be of intrest to you guys:
http://www.chessville.com/Avni/LuckinChess.htm
Originally posted by SwissGambitamazing game, thanks!
I simply disagree with the statement that it was 'luck' that Marshall had ...Qg3. Shots like that don't just happen out of thin air. They arise from strategical advantages: better placed pieces, local superiority on the Kingside, etc. This stuff doesn't just arise by accident; it comes from a player steering the game in a specific direction. The fact tha ...[text shortened]... he can't take the credit for a shot that arises from the superior position he has created.
Originally posted by RomanticusI would not call this luck. I would say that, even though neither you nor your opponent saw everything, you still were more aware of your opportunities than he, and thus won by superior skill.
I agree with SG on the positional play,that's no luck.However,suppose I initiate a 5 move combo,at the 3rd move my opponent replies with a move that stops the mate and I hadn't considered this move but,as it turns out,I can still go a pawn up and after many more mistakes from both sides I manage to win the game because of that extra pawn.Then I consider m ...[text shortened]... lucky.Though if it's my opponent who is on the good side of this I'll say he played better.
As Tarrasch said, you don't have to play well, you just have to play better than your opponent.
I agree that there's no chance whatsoever in chess. However, there is such thing as being lucky in a game. You might have put a piece on a square for one reason and it happens that it plays a key role for a reason you didn't anticipate. This is sort of being lucky, but it isn't chance.
To use a sports analogy, it's sometimes similar to positioning the fielders in a baseball game. If the batter hits a line drive at the shortstop, you could say the shortstop was lucky; or, that he was well positioned.