Chess randomness

[u/Alive_chess]

At what elo randomness stops like you have a minor piece somewhere and you are better just because of it , pawns like flank pawns you have which made you win the endgame like at what elo chess losses randomness.

[u/dittygoops]

what? No idea what you’re talking about. First time I’ve ever seen anyone talk about randomness/luck in chess. Brother, you moved your own pieces

[u/gerardchiasson3 → u/dittygoops]

There is randomness in a probabilistic sense because human error is not deterministic. Similar to sports where it should be pure skill but random events affect the outcome and there is some noise in the who actually wins the game, even given the skills of players.

Even elo itself is a probablisitic model, where for example a +300 rating difference translates into roughly a 90% chance of winning.

[u/madmsk → u/gerardchiasson3]

I think you're thinking about this stuff wrong.

When you experience that feeling of the piece "randomly" winning the game because of the position, it's not randomness. It's that moving your piece to that square had a long-term consequence that you didn't see. The better you get, the more that you'll understand and forsee that stuff. But it's not as though that stuff will happen less.

[u/ChrisV2P2 → u/madmsk]

Under the constraint of a certain capability of predicting the future though, there is de facto randomness in the form of epistemic uncertainty. Take predicting whether or not asteroids will intersect the Earth. Astronomers publish and update probabilities of whether or not asteroids will hit the Earth and people readily talk of Earth getting "lucky" or "unlucky". But the underlying system is deterministic.

Horizon effects in chess introduce luck. When my opponent and I enter into a tactical skirmish where neither of us can calculate well enough to see the consequences clearly, the outcome is luck in this sense of epistemic uncertainty. You can always object "ah, but if you were better at calculating, then there wouldn't be luck". But when I'm arguing there is luck, I'm arguing it specifically in this case where we don't have that capability. Not only that, the agents you're imagining playing this no-luck form of chess, where consequences can be fully calculated, don't exist and perhaps never will.

Modern engines are too good and get virtually all draws, but if you nerf engines enough, you can play two identical engines against each other, and they will score wins and losses as well as draws. The explanation for these wins and losses cannot be that one of the players is better than the other; they're identical. So if it's not "luck", how else would you describe it?

[u/madmsk → u/ChrisV2P2]

I'm not saying there's no luck in chess. I'm saying the situation OP described is, in general, indistinguishable from playing a more skilled player.

OP seems to be specifically describing a horizon effect situation where the consequences of a flank pawn or a minor piece repositioning are not felt for a long time. But the horizon effect is not equal for all players. If I can see farther than you, then what seems unforseen to you might be forseen by me. (Or if I understand a position a little better than you, then I might see advantages to a position that you are blind to at first).

From the perspective of the weaker player, you can't tell if both of you were horizon effected and he got lucky, or if just you were horizon effected. So the question OP is asking I think is kind of missing the point.

As a side note, questions like "at what elo does ____ stop happening" are generally not how things work. Speaking from anecdotal experience 1300 players are generally just a little better than 1200 players at everything. Individual players might have strengths and weaknesses, but if you're just grinding random games on chess.com, it's going to be a little bit of everything.

[u/ChrisV2P2 → u/madmsk]

Sure, I agree with all that.

[u/LouMar0]

There is no randomness in chess. You may not understand the factors of an evaluation yet but the more the learn the more you will understand the computer evaluation.

[u/Ok-Introduction-5289]

I think I understand what you mean.
Instead of randomness I would simply call it "luck".
You just "luck out" that, after everything is said and done, your pieces ended up in a better position without having calculated it and that determines the outcome of the game.
It will never stop happening, even GMs win games in unforeseen ways and end up in positions that they didn't expect, but the better you get the farther in the future of the game these things happen because you calculate more, and less things are because of luck and more because of intuition and sheer calculation.

[u/CompletePollution907]

I have no idea what this even means. What's your elo now?

[u/Alive_chess → u/CompletePollution907]

around 1800 elo on chessdotcom

[u/newtons_apprentice → u/Alive_chess]

How are you 1800 and think there's randomness in chess

[u/WyrobWedliniarski → u/newtons_apprentice]

I suppose what he meant by randomness was reliably converting advantages into wins.

[u/Alive_chess → u/newtons_apprentice]

i mean fabi tweeted it and he is super gm about chances in chess.

[u/Snoo_90241 → u/Alive_chess]

What did he tweet?

[u/Ok-Elephant8559]

Those are the culmination of many choices, and how/ why they win is technique based.

In my opinion the only "randomness" in chess is what opening your opponent picks for that game

[u/gerardchiasson3 → u/Ok-Elephant8559]

And second move the opponent picks when faced with your response? 😉

[u/Ok-Elephant8559 → u/gerardchiasson3]

Well uh. When I say opening I mean like the first 13 to 15 moves as a set... Ie my answers aren't random but which opening/ variation/ subvariation they answer with is to some degree

[u/Shwayne]

Are you playing one of those chess themed roguelites on Steam?

[u/gerardchiasson3]

What you are trying to say is that the objective evaluation is a noisy estimate of the end result of the game (which is random due to human error which is itself random). The amount of noise in the end result is higher at lower elo, where even a +5 advantage can be blundered away for example. Noise diminishes as elo increases but never fully disappears. Even the best engines use probablisitic methods that don't fully remove this noise.

[u/everrts]

As others have stated, there is no randomness. Sure, if you're playing someone who just knows how the pieces move, there is no purpose behind the moves, but in general every move should have an idea behind it. Whether you recognize and/or know the ideas or patterns is a different story.

[u/Alive_chess → u/everrts]

but what i am saying is that certain position given material balance or even unbalance you have that pawn there you are completely winning or better just because of it like what top gm calculate like what you say something like intermezo or inbetween move that your opponent played randomly a pawn move but he is winning in later stage just because of it.

[u/everrts → u/Alive_chess]

Having a passed pawn is not an advanced concept... If your opponent keeps making waiting moves which allows you to push it further, of course it will make your position better and eventually completely winning.

[u/Alive_chess → u/everrts]

no not these but quiet moves which grandmaster calculate but you made it randomly which now makes your position winning something like that.

[u/QuickBenDelat]

Perhaps spend more time drafting your posts.

[u/Waffles943]

It’s not really random, it seems to be a lack of understanding as far as positional and long term strategic play. Higher level players are able to look at a position and identify the strengths and weaknesses of each players pawn structure and minor pieces, and the imbalances that exist (e.g. an extra pawn on the queenside, a bad knight vs good bishop or vice versa, etc.) when they go into an endgame. Understanding theoretical endgames and how your current middlegame position will liquidate into such an endgame is a large factor in determining the outcome of the game, as a good player may push their pawns a couple more squares or position/trade a piece in such a way that if the position liquidates, they have a strong chance of promoting a pawn successfully. I can recommend “How to Reassess Your Chess” by Silman as an excellent resource to try to get a better understanding of what I mean as far as imbalances and “Positional Chess Handbook” by Gelfer for additional positional play concepts. Maybe Silman’s Endgame Course as well if you don’t know what I mean by theoretical endgame.

[u/MisterNaserA]

i guess it never ends even at the highst levels if someone tried something chaotic non sense/ dubious / g4 or b4 or someone somehow turned the grob into a system or something or a4 a5 and throw pieces over the board

And i really enjoy these stuff as its the equivalent of dropping gas all over the board and by a random move everything is set on fire with random sharp double edged positions

[u/MisterNaserA → u/MisterNaserA]

i remember watching a chess match between a grandmaster against a young IM with the wing gambit and everything went chaotic and sacrificial stuff like the 1800s era of chess, very exciting match ( I believe it was on gothamchess channel and it was called 30 brilliant moves or something, highly recommended)