Is there luck in chess

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
You can have luck in any one game, and ... longer matches historically tend to produce [statistically] better results, but as matches get longer and longer, the effect of the match itself begins to have an impact. This is even more clear in tournaments. When you get a bunch of players together luck plays more of a factor.

[/ QUOTE ]This is my cure for the infamous quote from Rounders. You know which one.

[ QUOTE ]
The Karpov-Kasparov 1984 match ... was aborted because Karpov was becoming violently ill due to the extreme length of the match.

[/ QUOTE ] I'll digress. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Karpov actually protested the abortion of the match, and he presented a very convincing case for his side. While Kasparov did eventually become the undisputedly strongest player in the world, this does NOT mean that he would win that particular match. The two of them were most probably equal in skill at the time. When the 1984 match was interrupted, Karpov was still ahead.

In fact, Raymond Keene from Kasparov's camp sent a telegram to Campomanes asking for the match to be aborted, but later pretended to ignore it and joined the chorus of those who accused Karpov and the FIDE president of "cheating Kasparov" out of the title.

[Cooker]

I think the whole idea of luck is being misconstrued throughout this post. First, I doubt if it is even known if there is luck in chess, and I haven't played enough that I really feel I could make such a judgment. People seem to be focusing on the monkey vs. GM, but this argument relys on the idea the the GM is a human and can be beaten. However, if the monkey is pitted against a truly perfected computer program then I think it is possible that the random player could never win. What I am saying is that the perfect player could always produce a draw against the best random games. If no such perfect player can be constucted, then you would have to consider that there is some element of luck in the game.

Of course the human can be beaten by the brute force of numbers, but I think it must be shown that there is no strategy that can always produce a draw against all possible random opponent games in order to prove that luck really plays a role. Further, I think you would need to believe the random player can win from either side or else it is just a connect 4 type situation where one side has a significant inherent advantage.

[atrifix]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You can have luck in any one game, and ... longer matches historically tend to produce [statistically] better results, but as matches get longer and longer, the effect of the match itself begins to have an impact. This is even more clear in tournaments. When you get a bunch of players together luck plays more of a factor.

[/ QUOTE ]This is my cure for the infamous quote from Rounders. You know which one.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the poker game of life, women are the rake?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The Karpov-Kasparov 1984 match ... was aborted because Karpov was becoming violently ill due to the extreme length of the match.

[/ QUOTE ] I'll digress. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Karpov actually protested the abortion of the match, and he presented a very convincing case for his side. While Kasparov did eventually become the undisputedly strongest player in the world, this does NOT mean that he would win that particular match. The two of them were most probably equal in skill at the time. When the 1984 match was interrupted, Karpov was still ahead.

In fact, Raymond Keene from Kasparov's camp sent a telegram to Campomanes asking for the match to be aborted, but later pretended to ignore it and joined the chorus of those who accused Karpov and the FIDE president of "cheating Kasparov" out of the title.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, but Kasparov also was vehemently opposed to interrupting the match, and understandbly so--although he was still behind 5-3, he had just won 3 games in a row and Karpov looked extremely shaky. My opinion is that if the match had continued Kasparov would have won it.

[Darryl_P]

An entertaining post, but...

[ QUOTE ]
Bringing this over to chess, there is less chess "luck" when two opponents of approximately equal skill** are competing, ie when the "EV" in the zero-sum game is low.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is simply untrue. The HIGHEST variance in results (ie. the MOST luck) occurs when you have two equally matched low level players. After 100 games there will be about 48 "-1"s, 48 "+1"s and 4 "0"s in the sequence of results. Take two players with a 1000 point rating difference and you'll get about 100 "1"s in the sequence yielding no variance at all!

Sticking with evenly matched players, the number of draws increases as their common skill level increrases, with the number approaching 100% as the skill approaches perfection, thus making the variance in results approach zero.

Conclusion: in games with evenly matched players, lack of perfection on the part of the players is a MAJOR source of luck.

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
Not just that. I am the Green Arrow , a perfect archer. You talk about "limitations to human abilities" and I spit on such silliness! I shoot with 100.0% accuracy, probability 1.0. But the archery competition is conducted always on an open field -- and this archery field is notorious for its winds

[/ QUOTE ]

Fine, so limitations of human ability is not the ONLY factor. I'm saying it's over 90% of it, though. What factor in a top-level game of chess could be analogous to the winds in your archery example that could be of any significance?

Best answers that come to mind...

1) Dudes having fights with girlfriends/wives affecting performance. We all know women's actions/behaviors are random so there's a luck element.

Rebuttal: Most of these guys don't have chicks and even those who do take measures to avoid such problems during important tournaments.

2) Getting ill, feeling bad physically etc.

Rebuttal: How often does this happen? And even if it does, it can be known before the game, factored into the betting line and thus removed from the luck equation before the game starts.

3) Biorhythms

Rebuttal: Are you serious?

Anything else?

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]
It's been said that chess is a game of pure information and skill. I wonder if there isn't some luck to it, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's say you're a level N player playing a level N+1 player (assume one increase in level is rather small). You're playing him facing a wall, he's facing the rest of the room, and while considering a line of moves, he sees an incredibly hot woman walk by and that throws him off his concentration just enough to miss the correct move, which enables you to win the game. I think most people would consider that "luck," although I wouldn't rely too heavily on the luck factor when choosing one's chess matchups [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]. ("I'll play you, Kasparov, but only on the main strip of Miami Beach - if you do not accept my challenge, you are a coward.")

[Wools]

[ QUOTE ]
while considering a line of moves, he sees an incredibly hot woman walk by and that throws him off his concentration just enough to miss the correct move, which enables you to win the game. I think most people would consider that "luck,"

[/ QUOTE ]

How is that luck? Your opponent blundered. He made a mistake.

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]

How is that luck? Your opponent blundered. He made a mistake.

[/ QUOTE ]

...a mistake which was caused by nothing more than luck.

[ThePost]

The real question is what are the odds that that same monkey will reproduce Shakespeare while playing chess?

[vhawk01]

That depends on whether there are regularly scheduled breaks for poo flinging. Even monkeys need to blow off steam.