Chess and Luck

by Rune Vik-Hansen
12/19/2019 – Rumour has it that the attraction of chess stems from its appeal to the intellect — the player is in control — and luck plays no role. If so, how to explain blunders and mistakes and players’ reference to luck. RUNE VIK-HANSEN explores factors beyond our control favourably influencing the outcome, debunks a few myths about chess playing and aspires to show how luck in chess differs from "lottery luck." With luck a possible part of chess, what might be the implications? Can the human ego handle the blow? Will it reduce the status of the royal game? Will it deepen our understanding, perception and appreciation of chess and ourselves or will we (GASP!) quit chess? Or…might luck even come to our rescue in our darkest moments?

ChessBase 15 - Mega package ChessBase 15 - Mega package

Find the right combination! ChessBase 15 program + new Mega Database 2020 with 8 million games and more than 80,000 master analyses. Plus ChessBase Magazine (DVD + magazine) and CB Premium membership for 1 year!


“Diligence is the mother of good luck.”
                                                          – Benjamin Franklin

Perhaps only rivaled by the question if chess is a sport, athletics or just a game (Vik-Hansen, 2013) the role of luck in chess seems to captivate and intrigue players, non-players, professionals and amateurs alike.

The mere possibility of luck seems to contradict and undermine our perception of chess as a rational activity where skills and proficiency alone, in contrast to say dice or card games where luck is assumed ‘to even out in the long run’, are supposed to decide the outcome. In other words, chess is perceived as an activity where the players control the chain of events to such an extent that by training and effort we improve and thus control the result or outcome.

However, the notion of no luck in chess is, perhaps surprisingly, inextricably linked to a notion of free will, an idea of control, which yet further is linked to a concept of consciousness and a conscious I. Therefore, our first task is to clarify what sort of agency, or control, would exclude luck from playing a part in chess.

Human agency might be summarised as (1) action, (2) thinking and (3) perception, and we start off with action.

Human Agency — Action

Regarding agency, much debated is the mind/body duality where the problem is to account for how mental states, or properties, like seeing colours, experiencing pain, tasting or smelling something, can cause physical limbs (‘arms and legs’) to move—a duality that might be summed up in two hitherto unreconciled principles:

  1. The causal closure of the physical domain, which states that every physical effect or event has a physical cause. In a physical system, like a human body, only physical causes can ‘move the meat’ (Kim, 1993, p. 280; Vicente, 2006, p. 150)

  2. The causal relevance of the mental domain, where the question is how mental properties or states can ‘move the meat.’

A problem with the term ‘conscious’ when describing actions [consciously + verb], is ambiguity, as the term may refer to common/shared knowledge, censorship, introspection, personal identity (the I as the totality of all our mental states and the answer to what or who owns these mental states) (Gundersen, 2004, pp. 8-11) or free will as an ability to act freely and unconstrained.

Examples from chess discourse, chess literature and the chess press might lure us to think that consciousness pervades all mental life but far from it because we cannot be conscious of what we are not conscious of (Jaynes, 2000, p. 23). Jaynes (2000, p. 23; Nørretranders, 1999, p. 174) compares our impression of the ubiquitousness of consciousness with a flashlight searching for something in a dark room that is not lighted and has to conclude, since there is light in whatever direction it turns, there is light everywhere.

Despite huge time gaps when the flashlight is not on, to the flashlight itself it seems it has been on all the time, and similarly, we are conscious far less of the time than we think because we are not conscious of the gaps—the time—we are not conscious of (Jaynes, 2000, p. 24).

As with the blind spot (Jaynes, 2000, p. 25; Nørretranders, 1999, p. 180), in the field of vision we do not notice—the optically insensitive region on the retina void of visual cells—both because the spot is located on different places in the right eye and the left eye and our brain and visual experience ‘fill in’ the gaps, consciousness fills in the time gaps in the stream of consciousness and gives the illusion of continuity (Jaynes, 2000, p. 25)

Since free will hardly can be thought independently of consciousness and a conscious I, it begs the question if a non-physical consciousness could cause physical limbs to move, and if so, why not ask paralysed patients in wheelchairs to use their free will and make a conscious decision and just get up? Do we blame the paralysed for being weak-willed?

However, assumed consciousness cannot initiate actions or physical movements, neurophysiologist Benjamin Libet (1985), in the wake of his experiments in the early 80s, suggested consciousness, even if not the initiator, still could lay down a veto, depending on how disciplined it is.

How often have we not caught ourselves saying ‘I was about to say/do…but caught myself’, where our mind has initiated an impulse for us to say or do something but we stop, or veto the impulse from running to action. Because we cannot be conscious of what we are not conscious of and free will hardly can be thought independently of consciousness and a concept of a conscious I, neither can we know how much of the time free will is not at work; we only know when it is at work; during the veto.

A rare and striking illustration of the veto gave the blitz game Magnus Carlsen vs Levon Aronian in the eighth round of the 6th Norway Blitz 2018.


Aronian as Black on move 52 was about to recapture Carlsen’s pawn on g4 but within a fraction of a second, with pawn in hand and hovering half way over Carlsen’s pawn, he ‘catches himself’ and the brain initiates another impulse whereupon he with a slower movement passes by Carlsen’s pawn and Carlsen resigns.

Aronian was about to play the auto-pilot move, recapture since Carlsen first captured a pawn

Carlsen’s brain, on the other hand, initiated a ‘blunder impulse’, i.e. an impulse that if converted to action (move in our context) leads to a mistake, where Carlsen was not in time to become conscious of what he was about to; he was not in time to ‘catch himself.’

Thinking and perception

Actions are one thing, but what about thinking? Can we think ‘what we want/will’?

In the early twentieth century, Marbe (2012/1901) and Watt (1906) demonstrated that thinking and judging, the supposed hallmarks of consciousness, are not conscious at all (Jaynes, 2000, p. 38). We do our thinking before we know what we are to think about. We do not know what we are thinking until we’re thinking it and only its preparation, materials, and end result are consciously perceived (Jaynes, 2000, p. 39).

Could we (consciously) select the best preparations and best materials for the actual thought processes, we would control the thought processes as well as the end result. In chess, thinking manifests itself in cognitive activity as diverse as assessment, analyzing and calculating. We are, of course aware of or conscious of the fact that we are assessing a position, analysing or calculating certain moves or variations but the processes are all subconscious, since, with access to all the (perfect) information right in front of us, we would not misjudge a position, analyse or calculate poor moves or bad variations ‘on purpose.’

Since the 1950s it has been known that only a fraction (1-40 bits) of the 11,121,000 bits of the information flooding through our sense organs makes up a conscious experience (Zimmerman, 1986), and neurophysiologist Hans H. Kornhuber (1988) states:

Thus, there is a great deal of information reduction in the nervous system. Most information flow in the brain is, by the way, unconscious. The soul is not ‘richer’ than the body; on the contrary, most of the processing in our central nervous system is not perceived. The unconscious (which was discovered and elucidated long before Freud) is the most ordinary process in the nervous system. We just look at the results, but we are able to direct the focus of attention.

The brain, and not we consciously, controls the influx of information, selects and organises the relevant information units into a coherent conscious experience and if we could direct our focus at will, how to explain errors, mistakes, blunders, mishaps or slip-ups? The phrase ‘having our attention or interest caught’ implies that something outside our consciousness does the catching. If we could direct our focus at will, why not focus on what we should focus on? Homework, chores, poverty, trapped knights and rooks en prise…? (Parenthetically speaking, how come we let our knights get trapped or we leave our rooks en prise if we at will could direct the focus of our attention?)

Delineating human agency into action (the veto), thinking and perception, when our veto depends on how disciplined our consciousness is, our actions may be said to have three possible sources: (1) Intracerebral (brain/mind alone), (2) external (impressions/information solely from outside) or (3) interplay between internal and external factors where we, because we cannot get ‘behind’ our consciousness, as it were, are in no position to distinguish, isolate or separate different types of causes from one another. We are not conscious of the preceding causes leading up to the moment of action we are conscious of.

However, our delineation of human agency suggests that the brain by subconscious physical processes plays chess when triggering moves, whereas we (consciously) play chess by the veto, i.e. when aborting or stopping our brain’s suggestions.


Winning the lottery as an example of luck might be considered paradigmatic, caused by a coinciding of several causes/circumstances/events, intracerebral as well as external:

  • Getting up in the morning
  • The idea of playing the lottery occurring to us
  • Playing via the internet (in the comfort of our own home) or at the local store
  • Picking out a pre-filled ticket or choosing the numbers ourselves
  • Handing in the ticket
  • A working lottery machine
  • The initial conditions of the balls
  • Air flow
  • Air pressure
  • The trajectories of the balls
  • The duration of the drawing
  • The way the balls bumping into one another or the walls of the machine

(Chance in lottery does not consist in the drawing but in the picking of the numbers, as the drawn numbers do not occur by chance, i.e. are uncaused, but result from causes beyond our control.)

We may now summarise our findings so far:

(1) Actions subconsciously initiated, (2) the information units pouring through our senses, (3) the mind’s processing of the information, (4) the selection and organization of information into a conscious experience and (5) external causes/circumstances resulting in our winning the lottery, suggest a tentative and general definition of luck and unluck:

  • Luck: unpredictable. favourable outcome(s) where we neither control the causes at work or how they work together (certain outcomes presuppose certain events) and an ability not to abort impulses leading to unpredictable, favourable outcomes (picking the right lottery numbers and not handing in the ticket) and to abort ill-conceived impulses leading to unfavourable outcomes (blunders in chess).

  • Unluck: (unpredictable) unfavourable outcome(s) where we neither control the causes at work nor how they work together and are unable to abort the chain of causes (often in the shape of ill-conceived impulses (blunders in chess).

Case in point: We avoided the avalanche because we missed the ferry when our friend called to tell us he had won the lottery on the same day his wife said she would divorce him after his old parrot for the umpteenth time bit her in her wooden leg.

However, chess appears essentially different from playing the lottery but if in control, how to explain:

  • Time trouble?’
  • Nervousness?
  • Spending time?
  • Poor/bad moves?
  • ‘Irresponsible play?
  • Our intuition fails us?
  • Untimely draw offers?
  • Poor judgment/assessment?
  • ‘Falling asleep’ during a game?
  • Blunders, errors and mistakes?
  • Unexpected possibilities/chances?
  • How we mess and screw things up?
  • The feeling ‘that something is at stake’?
  • Lapses or collapses during tournaments?
  • Missing tactical shots/combinations/wins?
  • How things ‘get out of control’ or ‘turn out’?
  • The relevance of/need for inspiration/intuition?
  • Following or embarking upon the wrong plan?
  • Declining draw offers we should have accepted?
  • Why stronger players (‘on paper’) lose to or draw weaker players (‘on paper’)?
  • Forgetting variations, preparations, when the round commences etc.?
  • Unfortunate off-the-board circumstances (Chess playing is not isolated from but part of an integral whole called ‘life’)?
  • Improvement (How to improve if the better player always wins? (Agdestein, 2016; Grønn as quoted in Fosse, 2017, ‘Det beste og verste med sjakk’ [The best and worst with chess], para. 3)?
  • Competing on equal terms, since we come to the board with different qualifications: mental as well a physical, preparations (theoretical, physical etc.), different off-the-board circumstances etc.?

If mistakes are not made ‘on purpose’ but still happen, are we suggesting our limbs move without us knowing?

If the better player (‘on paper’) always is in full control, always wins and luck plays no role:

Victory against weaker players (‘on paper’) would be a forgone conclusion, a matter of course, so why play at all (Beyond ‘getting the formalities out of the way’)? Unless the players are equally rated, will the games be called off?

We would never end up in worse positions against weaker players (‘on paper’) in the first place.

There is no need for happiness, rejoice or celebration when winning games, tournaments and matches, since the result, again, would be a forgone conclusion and a matter of course. (Imagine a deadpanned reaction like, ‘Hold your applause. Of course I won, I’m better.’)

However, applause, celebrations, congratulations, high-fives, rejoice, smiles, and feeling of relief after winning or drawing lost games against equally strong (‘on paper’) or weaker players (‘on paper’) and games against lower rated opponents still being played, are all visceral testimony to a realisation that there might be gaps and glitches in perception and neural networks; the result or outcome is not a given or foregone conclusion, as ratings per se only measure past achievements. The only possible praise or compliment appears to be a measured: ‘Good for you’, when we cannot take credit for our achievements or anything but appreciate we got to experience the pleasure of success.

Luck in Chess — Definition

If chess moves and lottery numbers as well result from a coinciding of intracerebral and external causes/circumstances beyond our control, how does playing chess differ from playing the lottery?

The boundaries of human agency and control summarised as (1) action, (2) thinking and (3) perception, and our veto depending on how strong or disciplined our consciousness is, distinguish luck in chess from ‘lottery luck’ as:

  • Unpredictable, favourable outcome(s) of causes and circumstances beyond our control, internal as well as external, but not in the lottery sense of the word as the brain/mind as a physical system is more stable/consistent than the drawing of lottery numbers, yielding different numbers every week.

  • Ability not to abort impulses leading to unpredictable, favourable outcomes and to abort ill-conceived impulses leading to unfavourable outcomes (blunders). (If we did control the veto-moment, we would never let ill-conceived impulses run to action.)

  • Happens over the board (OTB-luck) when gaps and glitches in our control, i.e. time gaps we are not conscious of, provide our opponents with chances and possibilities we later come to call ‘luck’, since, if conscious (no gaps), we would in not ‘on purpose’ present our opponents with such chances and possibilities the first place. (These gaps, paradoxically, do not lend themselves to dating (since we are not conscious of them) but are manifested or expressed by our moves.)

If we were in control of both internal and external causes and circumstances underlying our moves, the better player (‘on paper’) would always win against weaker players (‘on paper’) as a matter of course but, as we know, the better player does not always win and our definition may explain why: Better players have full control most of the time, no control some of the time but never full control all the time.

When better/stronger players (again ‘on paper’) do not have control, there are gaps or glitches in their perception (they see the board but don’t perceive it (Vik-Hansen, 2016)) or in the causal nexuses or causal chains in their physical neural network system (a.k.a. the brain/mind in the shape of processing the information) and in these gaps and glitches precisely lies weaker players’ (‘on paper’) chance for improvement by defeating or drawing the better/stronger player.

We might say that one causal network (the weaker player) exploits the gaps and glitches in another causal network but where neither player consciously or volitionally controls the causal neural network, neither their own nor their opponent’s.

(In the contention that the better player always wins, there is a logical trap: If a weaker player (‘on paper’) in a single game defeats the stronger player (‘on paper’), the ‘weaker’ player indeed turned out better. In other words, if the better player (‘on paper’) does not always win against weaker players (‘on paper’) they are by definition not better. How many games are better players (‘on paper’) required to win against weaker players (‘on paper’) to be recognised as generally better?)

Luck defined as gaps and glitches in perception as well as causal neural networks and unpredictable, favourable outcome(s) of causes and circumstances beyond our control, internal as well as external suggests, that luck in chess is not limited to play over-the-board but applies to (away-from-the-board) analysis or situations as well, illustrated by the following snippets from Kasparov and Anand:

  • Kasparov (2003, p. 208) on Lasker’s 59th move against Rubinstein (St. Petersburg, 1914): ‘The last critical position in this amazing game. Here, with the help of a computer, I was fortunate enough to discover something.’

  • Anand (2012, p. 187) commenting on Black’s 18th move in the 9th match game against Kasparov in their PCA World Championship match in 1995: ‘I was surprised that he was prepared to go down this line [following a Scheveningen Sicilian from Cuijipers-De Boer, Dutch Championship, 1988] so blithely….It was lucky I didn’t know about this game, or I might have abandoned the whole line!’

Our definition suggests why luck and objectivity (IM Grønn as quoted in Fosse, 2017, ‘Det beste og verste med sjakk’ [The best and worst with chess], para. 3) are not mutually exclusive: Objectivity merely signifies that moves and variations in principle, impartially and universally can be tested independently of individual subjectivity bias caused by perception, imagination, emotions, preferences or convictions, not that we control the unfolding of the events.

Along the same lines falls Valaker’s rejection of luck (Valaker, 2010) because chess is supposed to be a battle between brains/minds. However, dismissing luck ignores the human factor former world champion Lasker (1868-1941) encourages us to take into account when stating chess being a battle between brains/minds, as the battle does not imply our controlling the processes in the brain/mind.

Deserving Luck

In light of our analysis and definition of luck in chess, the axiom often ascribed to Capablanca (Winter, 2016), ‘The good player is always lucky’, may be said to be ‘playing for three results’—(1) nonsense, (2) tongue in cheek and (3) deep insight—and may serve to illustrate Italian programmer Alberto Brandolini’s (2013) Bullshit Asymmetry Principle (or Brandolini’s law), stating that ‘the amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it’, (he principle can be sharpened by differentiating between different types of nonsense or bullshit: some types taking longer to refute than others) captured also by the old proverb, ‘a lie is halfway round the world before the truth has got its boots on.’

If a good player is always lucky, we’re not talking luck and although the contention ‘there is no luck in chess’ are only six small words, it takes quite an amount of analysis and elaboration to prove it problematic, if not flat out groundless.

Grønn (as quoted in Høiby, 2016) praises Carlen’s queen sacrifice 50.♕h6+ against Karjakin (New York, 2016), as something that happens to people who deserve it, as a reward for good play, and according to Hillarp-Persson annotating Carlsen-Nepomniachtchi (London Chess Classic, 2017), ‘… luck usually comes to those who deserve it’, which opens for worthy and unworthy recipients of luck. However, since the chain of causes leading up to the luck moment is beyond our control, luck is something we do not deserve but merely something that happens us ‘(Good for you’).


Accepting and coming to terms with the fact that luck indeed is an inherent component of chess and that we do not possess the control traditionally ascribed to conscious agency, may, as the presence of luck grants us adequate space to distance ourselves from our misery and cushion the blow, help us lower the bar of expectations and help us deal better with defeats and better cope with tension.

Concluding our analysis, we bid the reader farewell with the winged words of late Dutch grandmaster Donner (2006, p. 86):

Chess is and will always be a game of chance. ‘How now, sir?’ I hear you cry. ‘Isn’t it precisely the best and noblest aspect of the game of chess that the chances are equal and that the players control everything themselves?’ ‘Yes, gentlemen, quite, but who can control himself?’


  • Agdestein, S. (2016). Tenkesport [Mind games]. Oslo, Norway: Press.
  • Anand, V. (2012). Vishy Anand: World Chess Champion: Life and games. London, UK: Gambit Publications Ltd.
  • Brandolini, A. [ziobrando]. (10 January 2013). The bullshit asimmetry [sic]: the amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it. [Tweet]. Retrieved from Tweet.
  • Chess Studio. (27 May 2018). Incredible Carlsen blunder [sic] pawn endgame!!! Magnus Carlsen vs Levon Aronian - Blitz Norway Chess 2018 [Video file].
  • Donner, J. H. (2006). The king: Chess pieces (R. D. Weger, Trans.). Alkmaar, The Netherlands: New In Chess.
  • Fosse, M. S. (13 August 2017) – Da Magnus gikk, sa jeg at dette kan vi ikke si videre (-After Magnus left, I said that we cannot tell anyone about this.). Matt & Patt.
  • Gundersen, S. (2004). Bevissthet og materie. Et argument for nøytral monisme [Consciousness and matter. An argument for neutral monism] (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
  • Høiby, I.-E. (1 December 2016). Derfor er supertrekket til Magnus Carlsen så spesielt: - Det er en amatørs våte drøm. Det skjer kanskje en eller to ganger i livet [Therefore is Magnus Carlsen’s brilliant move so special: - It’s an amateur’s wet dream. It happens perhaps once or twice in life]. Retrieved from here.
  • Jaynes, J. (2000). The origin of consciousness: In the breakdown of the bicameral mind. Boston, MA: First Mariner Books. (PDF, 479 pages).
  • Kasparov, G. (2003). My great predecessors: Part 1. London, England: Gloucester.
  • Kornhuber, H. H. (1988). The human brain: From dream and cognition to fantasy, will, conscience, and freedom. In H. J. Markowitsch (Ed.), Information processing by the brain: Views and hypotheses from a physiological-cognitive perspective (pp. 241-258). Toronto, Canada: Hans Huber Publishers.
  • Kim, J. (1993). Supervenience and mind: Selected philosophical essays. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  • Libet, B. (1985). Unconscious cerebral initiative and the role of conscious will in voluntary action. The Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 8, 529-566.
  • Marbe, K. 1901). Experimentell-Psychologische Untersuchungen über das Urteil: Eine Enleitung in die Logik. Leipzig, Germany: W. Engelmann.
  • Marbe, K. (2012). Experimentell-Psychologische Untersuchungen über das Urteil: Eine Enleitung in die Logik. Barsinghausen, Germany: Unikum-Verlag.
  • Nørretranders, T. (1999). The user illusion: Cutting consciousness down to size (J. Sydenham, Trans.). London, England: Penguin Books.
  • Peterson, M. (11 December 2017). London Chess Classic: Magnus on tilt. Chessbase.
  • Valaker, O. (14 February 2010). -Jeg tapte fordi jeg tenkte på Tone [I lost because I was thinking about Tone]. Nettavisen.
  • Vicente, A. (2006). On the causal completeness of physics. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 20(2), 149–171. DOI: 10.1080/02698590600814332
  • Vik-Hansen, R. (30 May 2013). Do you think chess is a sport?
  • Vik-Hansen, R. (9 February 2016). Why chess players blunder?
  • Watt. H. J. (1906). Experimental contribution to a theory of thinking. Journal of Anatomy and Physiology, 40(3), 257–266.
  • Winter, E. (13 November 2016). Luck in chess. Chess Notes.
  • Zimmermann, M. (1986). Neurophysiology of sensory systems. In R. F. Schmidt (Ed.), Fundamentals of Sensory Physiology (3d ed., pp. 68-116). Berlin, Germany: Springer Verlag.

About the author

Among his philosophical interests, Rune Vik-Hansen nurtures a passion for the question of free will and has over the last decade suggested how it might be relevant to playing chess. Drawing upon philosophy and recent findings on brain and consciousness, Vik-Hansen offers an original and fresh approach to classical chess problems and has in great depth explored different aspects of chess playing, from analyzing blunders to questioning the concept of pattern recognition.

| Photo: Anniken Vestby, Tromsø

ChessBase articles


Born in 1968, Rune Vik-Hansen graduated from the University of Tromsø in 1999 with a thesis on Heidegger's concept of Dasein. Other fields of interests are metaphysics, ontology, theory of science and political ethics. Besides having worked as a teacher on different levels, Vik-Hansen also writes philosophical texts, chronicles, papers and essays as well as children’s literature.
Discussion and Feedback Join the public discussion or submit your feedback to the editors


Rules for reader comments


Not registered yet? Register

SevenBySeven SevenBySeven 1/8/2020 06:43
SevenBySeven Just now
We must not forget that "luck" is an 'abstract notion', which may encompass a multiplicity of subjective factors. "Luck" is a noun, not a verb. Definition: 'success or failure apparently brought by chance rather than through one's own actions'.

I understand that the 'veto' is 'a conscious choice', also that we are not and can never be 'fully' conscious. So we left with the commingling of the unconscious forces of consciousness, "luck" among them.

This being the case "luck" is an individually generated phenomenon. Like "karma", "chance", "fortune", "serendipity", etc, [the definition of] "luck" 'changes' from one person to the next. It is an accidental, or perhaps one of self sabotage, circumstance in which an individual has no warning or control.

To be lucky is to be human.
Rune Vik-Hansen Rune Vik-Hansen 12/22/2019 03:04

"How can something non-physical have an effect on the physical? It cannot. The common argument but very compelling imo."

This is where we beg to differ, as the phrase "having an effect on the physical" itself is ambiguous as well, as Libet's veto suggests: the non-physical consciousness can affect he physical, not by initiating actions by causing limbs to move but by stopping them from moving. Look at the video at 2:54:44 and you'll get a striking illustration. If we are about to blunder our rook or kill somebody but refrain from, then, clearly, our non-physical veto has an impact on the physical; we keep our rook and our possible victim remains alive:)

Regarding the physical, Gundersen, whom we refer to, is discussing what it means for something to be physical in great detail and concludes that what it means for something to be physical is not all as straight forward as perhaps assumed. For instance, he explains that the laws of nature does not tell us anything about entities' intrinsic properties but only about relations between properties. (Unfortunately, his thesis is only in Norwegian.)

However, the physicalism-debate, is rather a detour from what the article aspires to explain: There is luck in chess because we do not have the control many think we have, a misunderstanding, we gather, stemming in particular from Descartes' "Cogito ergo sum."

Now, we suspect the three of us ("SevenBySeven" included) all agree: there is luck in chess as there are factors beyond our control influencing the outcome and results.

besominov besominov 12/22/2019 04:50
@Rune Vik-Hansen

I think that most people are out of their depth on this subject matter. And so am I. ;-)
I don't want to go into a whole debate with you, that's a bit above my pay grade, but I just thought of something:

Let's compare with Leela Chess Zero, the neural network chess program.

A certain state of the neural network (the non-physical) leads to a certain move (the physical).
However it seems clear to me that "a certain state of the neural network" is NOT non-physical at all, it's just a whole bunch of number values. (And a number value in this case would be a certain state of a whole bunch of molecules, atoms etc in some kind of electronic circuitry.)

The confusion comes in when we ourselves are the "Leela Chess Zero" program reflecting back upon ourselves. A distinction needs to be made between reading a sheet of numbers that corresponds to the mental state of "seeing the color red" and actually "seeing the color red". When we are reading the sheet of numbers our brain is not actually in the state the sheet of numbers is describing. We cannot simultaneously read the sheet of numbers and be in the state the numbers are describing.
When we are in the state the numbers are describing nothing out of the ordinary has happened, except that we "experienced" it rather then reading about it.

The confusion falls away when we look at something external like a neural network program.

How can something non-physical have an effect on the physical? It cannot. The common argument but very compelling imo.

Historically the non-physicality argument was much more appealing because of limited understanding of physics. How do you explain gravity? Good luck without guys like Einstein around. (Gravity btw is physical, for those wondering.)
SevenBySeven SevenBySeven 12/21/2019 03:06
Besominov is correct. If I may add to the conversation...

Are prodigies "lucky"? Are professional chess players with coaches and retired GMs at their side also "lucky"? Are GMs who are known to be "hard workers" (sometimes a pajarative term for a lack of talent) "lucky"?

A friend of mine once quipped 'you can be lucky enough to get a stupid opponent'. Funny, sure, but also containing much truth. If, for example, your opponent does not get a good night's sleep, or something disturbed his inner peace, such as an argument with a girlfriend, then "luck", whatever that means, has arrived. Yet herein lies the rub. Just as with the word "karma": having to do with "transmigration, ethical consequences, future existance and all that crap", "luck", is a 'subjective term', that 'changes' from one individual to the next.

People sometimes throw around the word 'semantics', but this subject is pure semantics. The words "luck", "karma", "chance", "conciousness", "fortune", "soul", and so on, are words that people often use to describe the processes of something they do not understand.

"Luck", a ubiquitous noun essentially meaning 'to stumble upon by accident without knowing why'. "Luck" is not a 'thing'. It is an abstract notion labeling a seemingly incomprehensible circumstance for or against one's self. "Luck" may also be thought of as a lack of understanding and knowledge.

Finally, "luck" is 'the uncontrolable and simultaneous coalescing of forces in one direction or another'.

Thank you and good luck!
Rune Vik-Hansen Rune Vik-Hansen 12/21/2019 01:46

Hi, and thanks for responding. At least ONE reader:)

Without being "too philosophical", let's try to respond to your great objections :

(1) "Aren't you creating a straw man here? Who says consciousness is non-physical? Is this a proven fact?"

Are you familiar with the physicalism-debate? There seems to be general agreement that consciousness is non-physical and cannot be explained by physical terms. Frank Jackson's knowledge-argument states that conscious states are not identical to or possible to reduce to physical properties. According to the knowledge-argument we can have complete knowledge about a physical system but still no knowledge about an organism's conscious states.

The knowledge-argument is among one of the most controversial within physicalism, a theory suggesting that all phenomena are physical phenomena, and accordingly implies that complete knowledge of an organism's brain activity simultaneously would be knowledge about its conscious states, i.e. what it is like to experience pain, smell, colours and so on.

Related to the knowledge-argument, is the problem of explaining consciousness in physical terms, known as the "explanatory gap", which means we're talking about to essentially different entitites.

(2) "Shouldn't we agree on a definition before trying to explain something?

Absolutely correct, and this is the way to go about it when studying other entities and phenomena. However, consciousness appears to be somewhat of an enigma, a complete stranger in an otherwise physical universe. Where does consciousness fit in? How does it fit in?

Well, as noted, one problem with the concept of consciousness is ambiguity, which means that we can never know in what sense people use the term when using it. So what exactly do we mean when saying that playing chess or engaging in any other activity is conscious?

I wish you a merry Christmas and a happy New Year when the time arrives.

besominov besominov 12/20/2019 05:25
>> "Since free will hardly can be thought independently of consciousness and a conscious I, it begs the question if a non-physical consciousness could cause physical limbs to move"

Aren't you creating a straw man here?
Who says consciousness is non-physical? Is this a proven fact?

Imo (haha) so called "consciousness" does not exist, and that's why we can't explain it. It's a trick the mind is playing on itself.
(This would also explain why to this date nobody can agree on a definition. Shouldn't we agree on a definition before trying to explain something?)

>> "If mistakes are not made ‘on purpose’ but still happen, are we suggesting our limbs move without us knowing?"

In theory we can predict everything that happens in the universe (assuming our knowledge of the laws of physics is perfect).
In practice this would be impossible because it's impossible to build (lets say) a computer that can hold all the relevant factors (it would have to be bigger than the universe).

The brain is a similarly limited computer, so of course it's going to make mistakes, I don't see the problem here.

Chess players make mistakes for the same reason that chess computers do: there are too many variations to calculate. (At least that's the main reason.)
I feel like this article is saying the same thing but in a more complicated way, but I'm not sure because the article is too complicated (for me at least).
malfa malfa 12/19/2019 07:17
I have been playing chess for more than 45 years, more than 30 of them at master level, so I think I have gathered enough evidence to take one thing as sure: those who maintain that there is no luck in chess have absolutely no idea of what chess is. That said, Capablanca was totally right when he claimed that a good player is always lucky.