Art or Science ?

[Jon MW]

in football no team can have total control over the ball,rebounds,the wind all sorts can happen to change a game, a chess player has total control of the board, if the chess player is good enough he will win

Total control of what moves he makes yes, total control of their later consequences no.
You do see the  intellectual equivalent of a dodgy rebound, lucky bounce, dodgy net cord etc if a chess player studys some of the top level games.

possible moves in chess: 10 x 10¹²⁰
number of atoms in the universe: 10 x 10⁷⁷

No-one's that good. Even if every computer in the world were to be put to the task, and every person in the world was building new computers, the sun would explode before the game of chess was solved.




I'm not talking about accidentally making the right moves to a winning combination. I'm not talking about casually knocking a few pieces across a board and getting lucky because your opponent didn't notice he could take your horsey.
I'm talking about high level chess players making positional moves in the middle of the game based on looking as far ahead as they can.

The evidence for this is that Grandmaster A doesn't always beat Grandmaster B.
You could attribute all such instances to statements like "Grandmaster B player played better on the day." This would not always be correct though. Luck does definatley exist in chess, I have seen it happen, I just can't explain it.

ADDENDUM

It seems to be people's insistence that because chess is a game of complete information then there is no luck

possible moves in chess: 10 x 10¹²⁰
number of atoms in the universe: 10 x 10⁷⁷

So it is technically a game of complete information (it is theoretically possible to know every possible position and how to win from them) - but nobody actually does know them (or anywhere near).

So it is not - in practise - a game of complete information, therefore it is not 100% skill.

[FuglyBaz]

Would a game of chess be boring if it was solved anyway? You just wouldnt lose anymore lol.

[gatso]

Would a game of chess be boring if it was solved anyway? You just wouldnt lose anymore lol.

it'd be about as exciting as playing noughts and crosses. you'd think it was all skill until you were about 3 years old and then it'd be draws all the time unless your opponent was drunk or a tourist from somewhere like mongolia that doesn't play Os and Xs

[WYSINWYG]

I have 72 and go all in against AA. Flop comes 777. I win through luck, not skill. I cannot see what kind of flop will develop when my money goes in, so I win through luck, not skill.
Chess is different from this because I have conrol over the movement of my pieces which lead to a win. However, the fact that at point B my pieces happen to be in a configuration which places me in a very strong position is not 100% the result of me having chosen that specific result.
I have to make A move.
I do not know what my opponent will do.
I can only plan a certain number of moves ahead.
The fact that it all ended up this way was to an extent due to factors and patterns which I did not predict.
The fact that I was an agent in getting there does not mean that the full measure of my skill created the full measure of my success. Some of it was a happy accident.
Since it was a positive outcome, to some extent outwith my control and not totally due to reasonable human deficiencies in my opponent, it can rightly be called 'luck'.

[AlexMartin]

Think someone should point out the sample size thingy. For chess variance is lower so sample size can be accordingly smaller for tests of skill, i imagine best of 10 and the best player would nearly always win. In poker the variance is infinetely bigger, i have no idea how many hands/games would need to be played to assess skill, but its probs 6figs+ (hands) once you take into account all the variables.

Art....my arse.

[kinboshi]

Art....my arse.

[FuglyBaz]

Art....my arse.

Shitting the bed can be an artform Alex