[barmar]

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

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]

barmar, on 2015-June-03, 09:30, said:

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]

billw55, on 2015-June-03, 09:57, said:

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]

barmar, on 2015-June-03, 10:12, said:

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]

barmar, on 2015-June-03, 10:20, said:

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]

helene_t, on 2015-June-03, 11:07, said:

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]

nige1, on 2015-May-28, 13:09, said:

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

eagles123, on 2015-May-28, 15:40, said:

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]

Vampyr, on 2015-June-04, 06:02, said:

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.

[mycroft]

True. Cue the Howell that I got a little suspicious of off the top, so starting counting HCP. I averaged 7.7 (including the 14-count that I opened an Acol 2♠ on). "But everybody had the same hands". Yes, but nobody else had my 27 :-(.

I am so well known as being a bad card holder that there's a convention on my card (that is not on my partners'): APAD. Always Pass As Dealer. I pity those playing in my line, sometimes to the point of apologizing to them.

This is cherrypicking and confirmation bias, I know; just as much as "those damn computer hands are". But it's fun.

But seriously, on the "cards fall the same way for everyone else" - that would be fine if bridge players were uniform spheres of constant density skill. And it is better than non-duplicate. But if you defend the no-way-to-bid grand showing up against the only pair in the room playing Relay Precision, or play your easy grand opposite the only pair in the room that opens that dreck 3♥ EHAA in front of you, or the "auto" squeeze against the best pair in the room, who figured out how to break it up at trick 3 - "everyone else gets the same cards" doesn't have the same ring.

[barmar]

This month's Bulletin has a review of the latest Menagerie book by Mollo. It includes an excerpt about a hand where Hideous Hog was in a doubled contract, which he figured out how to make on any normal defense. But he didn't account for Rueful Rabbit. He made a play for the totally wrong reason (as is normal for RR), but it happened to ruin the timing needed to set up the end-play. And the only reason RR was playing with Papa in the first place was because Karapet missed his flight and wasn't available.

If that isn't bad luck, what is it?