CronoDAS comments on Can chess be a game of luck? - Less Wrong

-2 Post author: Rune 06 July 2009 03:08AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (41)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: orthonormal 06 July 2009 08:51:25PM *  0 points [-]

Correct, of course; but we can make some pretty strong quantitative distinctions. I'm more likely to win the lottery than to beat Kasparov (assuming he's healthy and playing at his usual level, etc). But I bet I could beat any human being or computer program at Candyland half the time.

Similarly, if you put me heads-up against a poker pro, I might stand as much as a 10% chance of knocking them out (by getting lucky on the river on an all-in); but that level of luck averages out to a great degree over a long tournament, so that again my chances of making the final table at the WSOP are order-of-lottery bad.

Comment author: CronoDAS 06 July 2009 09:51:25PM 0 points [-]

Correct, of course; but we can make some pretty strong quantitative distinctions. I'm more likely to win the lottery than to beat Kasparov (assuming he's healthy and playing at his usual level, etc). But I bet I could beat any human being or computer program at Candyland half the time.

Indeed. (Assuming nobody's cheating, of course.) Garfield's statement does not necessarily reflect my own opinions on things.