Luck or Skill?

[billw55]

As an aside, I have heard people argue before that chess also has luck. But I disagree with this. As I define luck, chess has none. Same for Go, Shogi, checkers, etc.

[nige1]

You seem to be equating pulling off a "swindle" with luck. If we assume that executing a "swindle" to be a conscious effort, it would be a skillful play (not lucky).

Agree with Masse24 that a "swindle", within the rules of a game, is skill not luck.

 

"Swindling" is possible, even at simple deterministic games. Donald Michie worked at Bletchley Park, then directed the Dept of Machine Intelligence and Perception at Edinburgh University. In 1960, he built out of matchboxes his Machine Educable Noughts and Crosses Engine (MENACE). Each matchbox had a picture of a game-position at noughts and crosses (tic-tac-toe). The operator added a match to each box that was part of a game won by MENACE but took out a match from the boxes in a losing game. During each game the operator chose the next move from the box with the most matches that represented a legal move. Against perfect play, MENACE learnt to play a perfect game. Against poor play, however, MENACE learnt to make inferior "swindling" moves that exposed it to possible defeat but skittled inferior players more often.

[fromageGB]

Now suppose Monaco is playing one of the team in the 7th division of the Yorkshire league. They might have a skill advantage of about 4 IMPs/board so on a single board it is 50% luck. On a 1000 board match it will be 0.1% luck. Indeed, the weak team might well win a single board, they could conceivably win an 8-board match, but that they winn a 1000 board match is unlikely.

Glad I don't play in the 7th division of the Yorkshire league. I'm not sure I could stay awake for a 1000 board match.

[Wackojack]

How many times as declarer have you bid to 3 NT only to find one suit is open to the winds? The opponents don't lead the suit

and you run for home.Then listen with interest to the defenders post mortem. Would you not fitly call that luck(?)Then again,you have bid to a small slam missing two Aces but they are both in separate hands and you manage to discard the losers in one of the opposing Ace suits..wouldn't you consider yourself 'lucky' to have made the contract when others,not so'lucky'have gone down?

Were you lucky? You could argue that LHO lacked sufficient skill to sniff out this possibility and failed to lead his ace whereas another LHO with the same cards against the slam led her ace because she had more experience and skill in leading against slams. Thus because you were up against inferior opponents you got lucky. Then would you not expect this? One person's luck is another person's skill.

[PhilG007]

Suppose the standard deviation of the imps scored on a board is 4 IMPs. This may depend a little on actual teams playing (if NS play weak NT in the closed room and strong NT in the open room, the SD is bigger. Also, if all eight players are weak and/or crazy, the SD is higher). But let's say for simplicity that it is always 4 IMPs.

 

Now if team USA1 is playing team Monaco, the difference in strength between the two teams is maybe 0.1 IMPs/board. This is a variance of 0.01 square IMPs compared to 16 square IMPs from randomness. So you could say that bridge is 99.94% luck. But suppose they play a 1000 board match. Then the random variance is 16000 while the skill variance 10000, so now it is suddenly only 62% luck.

 

Now suppose Monaco is playing one of the team in the 7th division of the Yorkshire league. They might have a skill advantage of about 4 IMPs/board so on a single board it is 50% luck. On a 1000 board match it will be 0.1% luck. Indeed, the weak team might well win a single board, they could conceivably win an 8-board match, but that they winn a 1000 board match is unlikely.

There is also such a thing as 'giant killers' producing shock results..where is the luck or skill there(?!) One harsh lesson I learned in my time in this game,respect the enemy,whatever their level.

Even LOLs can be tricky(!) ;)

[Zelandakh]

There is also such a thing as 'giant killers' producing shock results..where is the luck or skill there(?!) One harsh lesson I learned in my time in this game,respect the enemy,whatever their level.

Even LOLs can be tricky(!) ;)

An obvious example would be an 8 board match with 7 deals of dealer holding a balanced 16 count and the other 3 being balanced 9-6-9, with the final hand being a 90% slam that happens to go down. When the Yorkists fail to find the slam they have a great chance of winning the match and being "giant killers"; but it is difficult not to see the result as lucky.

 

On the swindling front, a better analogy in bridge is being in 3NT with one suit wide open and no way of stealing 9 tricks before the defenders come on lead. A not unreasonable tactic here is to lead the open suit and hope to persuade the opponents not to attack it. Some common tactics on the bidding front that fall into this category would be the Zia cuebid and using XRKCB in your xx suit rather than the void. Comparing swindling in chess to cheating in bridge is simply trolling and does not really deserve comment.

[barmar]

Were you lucky? You could argue that LHO lacked sufficient skill to sniff out this possibility and failed to lead his ace whereas another LHO with the same cards against the slam led her ace because she had more experience and skill in leading against slams. Thus because you were up against inferior opponents you got lucky. Then would you not expect this? One person's luck is another person's skill.

So it's a game of skill, but it's not always your skill that matters.

 

But we expect that players like that will be giving gifts all around the room. The skill involved in your direction is taking the gifts when they're offered, rather than getting fixed.

[billw55]

I do not accept the notion that an opponent's lack of skill, or short term failure thereof, in any way constitutes luck. It is a straight skill issue.

[Zelandakh]

I do not accept the notion that an opponent's lack of skill, or short term failure thereof, in any way constitutes luck. It is a straight skill issue.

You don't feel unlucky when you meet the weakest pair in the room and get 2 unavoidably flat boards against them?

[eagles123]

I do not accept the notion that an opponent's lack of skill, or short term failure thereof, in any way constitutes luck. It is a straight skill issue.

 

surely the opponents skill can equate to our luck, for example the opponents are the only ones to find/miss a cold slam - that is skill on the opponents part but pure luck on our part.

[rhm]

Would you not fitly call that luck(?)

No.

 

Bridge is a game of incomplete information. Exploiting this is not pure luck, though scientists often have a hard time grasping this point.

However, luck or maybe better randomness and variations how cards happen to be dealt, is an important reason why people of very different skill levels can play against each other in bridge.

Poor players can sometimes achieve a few good boards against experts even though the odds are not in their favor.

 

In chess there is little point to let a poor or even average tournament player play against a grand master. The outcome is not in doubt.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[Zelandakh]

In chess there is little point to let a poor or even average tournament player play against a grand master. The outcome is not in doubt.

I have beaten a GM in chess, albeit before he became one. In drunken blitz chess anything is possible. B-)

[billw55]

You don't feel unlucky when you meet the weakest pair in the room and get 2 unavoidably flat boards against them?

I do. I said that chess has no luck, not bridge.

 

To me, "luck" means a random factor, inherent in the rules of the game, which is beyond the control of any contestant. So yes, bridge has luck: which boards arrive at which tables in which rounds, whether a finesse works, whether the best percentage play works. Chess does not. Although maybe someone will find an example that fits my definition.

 

Note that events such as the opponent feeling ill during our game, or distractions, etc, are not inherent in the rules of the game and so do not count. In a chess tournament, one could argue that receiving black more often than white is bad luck, but that is different from the game itself.

 

surely the opponents skill can equate to our luck, for example the opponents are the only ones to find/miss a cold slam - that is skill on the opponents part but pure luck on our part.

I consider that an execution of skill on their part (or a failure of skill, if they missed it). I do not count this as luck, per my definition above, because the contestant who finds or misses the slam has control over this.

[Vampyr]

I consider that an execution of skill on their part (or a failure of skill, if they missed it). I do not count this as luck, per my definition above, because the contestant who finds or misses the slam has control over this.

 

The opponents don't have control over this, though, so for them it is luck.

 

As to chess, there is a finite amount of time a player can read or study. So if you (unexpectedly) come up against an opening or defense that you have not got round to studying, I would say you were unlucky.

[billw55]

The opponents don't have control over this, though, so for them it is luck.

 

As to chess, there is a finite amount of time a player can read or study. So if you (unexpectedly) come up against an opening or defense that you have not got round to studying, I would say you were unlucky.

I get that. I played tournament chess for several years when I was younger. Indeed, the necessity of memorizing larger and larger volumes of openings was what turned me off the game, and on to other things like go and bridge.

 

Still, it is not what I would call luck per my definition. I could have studied that opening - I just didn't. Indeed, with more skill, I could have found the right line over the board - but I lacked that skill. And this event is not all that unexpected: when I was playing, there were plenty of people playing obscure openings on purpose, trying to catch opponents unprepared. Getting paired with one was no special surprise.

 

To me, luck is something that nobody controls, like the dice in backgammon, or the draw of tiles in Scrabble, etc.

[barmar]

Note that events such as the opponent feeling ill during our game, or distractions, etc, are not inherent in the rules of the game and so do not count. In a chess tournament, one could argue that receiving black more often than white is bad luck, but that is different from the game itself.

If this is your definition, then it seems like the original question is based on a false dichotomy. Because winning a game because the opponent is ill is hardly indicative of your skill -- a monkey can win if the opponent has to withdraw. If it's not luck or skill, what is it?

[billw55]

If this is your definition, then it seems like the original question is based on a false dichotomy. Because winning a game because the opponent is ill is hardly indicative of your skill -- a monkey can win if the opponent has to withdraw. If it's not luck or skill, what is it?

I am not sure exactly what you mean to ask.

 

Bridge is a game with elements of both luck (conditions no contestant can control) and skill (choices that at least one contestant can make that affect their outcome). This seem obvious.

 

Chess is a game of skill only, in the sense that there are no elements of the game that neither player can control or has choice of.

[barmar]

Chess is a game of skill only, in the sense that there are no elements of the game that neither player can control or has choice of.

I think that if you can win a game for some other reason than being more skillful than your opponent, it's not a game of pure skill.

 

If your chess opponent falls ill, or has a family emergency, and forfeits, you win, but does that mean you were more skillful than him?

[billw55]

I think that if you can win a game for some other reason than being more skillful than your opponent, it's not a game of pure skill.

 

If your chess opponent falls ill, or has a family emergency, and forfeits, you win, but does that mean you were more skillful than him?

I addressed that a few posts back.

[barmar]

Then we're back to my suggestion that it's a false dichotomy. There's luck: random factors in the game that no one controls; skill: the players' abilities; and something else.

[helene_t]

I can think of the following types of factors:

- general skill level

- fluctuations in performance, for example caused by bad sleep or family problems. The temporary down related to experimenting with new strategies may fit here also

- random artefacts of the tournament design. For example a lucky draw, or white pieces against the equalllevel opponents. Drawing opponents who are particularly ill prepared for your strange openings

- making the right choice in a toss up situation where you mentally flip a coin

- randomness intrinsic to the game such as dice throws

 

Only the last factor is absent in chess but I suppose one could argue that it is the only factor which is pure luck intrinsic to the game. Really it is a semantic issue.

-

[Vampyr]

Then we're back to my suggestion that it's a false dichotomy. There's luck: random factors in the game that no one controls; skill: the players' abilities; and something else.

 

Well, the main random factor, ie the "luck", is the way the cards fall. Post #5 gives some examples of this, and I find it odd that there has been further discussion in this thread.

 

There definitely is "something else". There are times, totally unpredictable in my experience, when you are in the "zone" and can do nothing wrong. You know early on that you will win the session, if not the event, or at least come much higher than your expectation given the field you are playing in. And there are times when you can't do anything right, and times in between. I guess skill does come into play here, though; the ability to be successful when not in the "zone". Still I think that this phenomenon is a little different, is not really luck and not really skill, though not a million miles away from either of those things.

[lycier]

I can think of the following types of factors:

- fluctuations in performance, for example caused by bad sleep or family problems. The temporary down related to experimenting with new strategies may fit here also

- random artefacts of the tournament design. For example a lucky draw, or white pieces against the equalllevel opponents. Drawing opponents who are particularly ill prepared for your strange openings。

 

 

 

Now I have to admire you because of your wide range of social knowledge,it usually include many of factors mainly,for example:

1- Fatigue, especially chronic fatigue or also called Chronic Fatigue Syndrom CFS which is caused by extremely nervous or mental burden for a long period of time, make the person suffered from poor memory, concentration, insomnia, headaches, dizziness, easy to make mistakes, and depression.

2- Mood swings

3- illness factors

4- Such as drinking and smoking etc.bad hobby

5- Incorrect view of competition match.

 

Here I have to say anyone who never care about these factors,difficult to get happy from the bridge.

[helene_t]

Luck becomes more important, the more the average skill level rises.

 

 

disagree, imo the weaker the field the more luck is a factor as you're more likely to come across opps doing a ridiculous action one way or the other

 

There is probably more skill variance in weaker fields. In the 7th division of the Yorkshire league, you can usually predict with good accuracy who will win a particular 32-board match. We recently won a match by more than 100 IMPs. You won't see matches between teams with such a big disparity at higher levels. Strong teams don't want to spend their time playing much weaker teams. Weak teams won't be allowed into serious competition and even if they are allowed, they won't participate in events with high entry fees and no chance of coming anywhere near the prices.

[barmar]

Well, the main random factor, ie the "luck", is the way the cards fall. Post #5 gives some examples of this, and I find it odd that there has been further discussion in this thread.

That's the random factor that duplicate bridge is intended to filter out, since the cards fall the same way for everyone else, too.