[Zelandakh]

 masse24, on 2015-May-30, 22:46, said:

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).

This is true and there is absolutely an art to swindling in chess but there is also luck to be found. An example for top level play comes in opening preparation - sometimes it happens that you prepare a winning novelty in your opponent's favourite line and they choose on a whim to play something else. At club level, whether your opponent has studied up a difficult endgame (such as R+B vs R) recently can make a huge difference in a game where that comes up. But clearly this is a different type of luck to that that we normally talk about in bridge.

[lycier]

I remembered when I began to learn the bridge, someone spoke highly of the bridge and often said the bridge is 1% luck plus 99% of wisdom.
A few years ago, someone ever said that the bridge might own the highest rate of luck is 33% in many situations,actually luck of the bridge is closed to gambling game (35%+) sometimes.
How do you think of it?
Maybe luck is the garb of the skill (wisdom).
Wisdom (skill) is an emanation of luck.
The bridge is just a pure and gracious crystallization of its divine skill and the luck.

[helene_t]

 lycier, on 2015-June-01, 03:49, said:

I remembered when I began to learn the bridge, someone spoke highly of the bridge and often said the bridge is 1% luck plus 99% of wisdom.
A few years ago, someone ever said that the bridge might own the highest rate of luck is 33% in many situations,actually luck of the bridge is closed to gambling game (35%+) sometimes.

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.

[hrothgar]

From a practical perspective, back in the weird old days I used to calculate the expected score for the various MOSCITO openings.

Some (for example the 2♦ openings) were relatively good
Other - the strong club opening - were relatively bad

In fact, it became clear the the variance in the hands that were dealt in a particular session had a not inconsequential impact on our score.

[PhilG007]

 Zelandakh, on 2015-June-01, 02:56, said:

This is true and there is absolutely an art to swindling in chess but there is also luck to be found. An example for top level play comes in opening preparation - sometimes it happens that you prepare a winning novelty in your opponent's favourite line and they choose on a whim to play something else. At club level, whether your opponent has studied up a difficult endgame (such as R+B vs R) recently can make a huge difference in a game where that comes up. But clearly this is a different type of luck to that that we normally talk about in bridge.

There is also an art to swindling at bridge although one has to be careful regarding the ethics. False carding is legitimate if partner
is deceived as well as the opponents. But deliberate hesitation when there was no real reason to is a totally different matter.
I didn't think it was possible to cheat at bridge until I read about the 1965 Buenos Aires affair involving the British pair Reese and Schapiro or the Bermuda Bowl 1975 incident where two members of the Italian Blue Team were seen giving foot signals and were subsequently
suspended and later banned following a protest from the American team. This resulted in screens being extended to the floor.

[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]

 masse24, on 2015-May-30, 22:46, said:

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]

 helene_t, on 2015-June-01, 04:14, said:

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]

 PhilG007, on 2015-May-31, 07:58, said:

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]

 helene_t, on 2015-June-01, 04:14, said:

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]

 PhilG007, on 2015-June-01, 23:59, said:

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]

 Wackojack, on 2015-June-01, 16:31, said:

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]

 billw55, on 2015-June-02, 12:49, said:

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]

 billw55, on 2015-June-02, 12:49, said:

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]

 PhilG007, on 2015-May-31, 07:58, said:

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]

 rhm, on 2015-June-03, 02:27, said:

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.

[billw55]

 Zelandakh, on 2015-June-02, 14:57, said:

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.

 eagles123, on 2015-June-02, 15:48, said:

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]

 billw55, on 2015-June-03, 06:17, said:

[size="2"]
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]

 Vampyr, on 2015-June-03, 08:38, said:

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.