If something is not real, it doesn’t mean that its less complex and more predictable. Real physical object may be more simple and more predictable. While its possible to think about math that will never be fullly solved because our universe has not enough atoms.
i think where we all agree,
when you throw a die you its a 1:6 chance to guess what the result will be..
when you place a stone its fairly certain where the stone will land..
however, the outcome of the game is uncertain..
the uncertainty includes; each stone placement can aid or subtract to the chance of winning, and or it can aid or subtract from the final score.. if one sticks to only playing sequences where one can read completely what the local result will be, there is still uncertainty involved in whether the resulting score and chance of winning will be great enough.. one can only play to one’s own ability, and hope the opponent does the same.. the uncertainty for the result is the same.. 55% chance to win for W and 45% chance to win for B, if both play at the current known maximum.. since this is humanly impossible, and humans tend to limit their moves to what they can fully read, unless desparation hits, one can say the win or loss is because of skill and skill alone, which is in human terms sufficient.. we must of course then ignore sequences where either player played beyond their reading and or counting comprehension..
when one considers a 55% chance to win vs a 45% chance to win, it is equivocal to a coin toss.. the factors involved are simply too complex to calculate to determine the outcome 100%..
so, is it luck when a 7d defeats a 1d, no.. but is it luck when katago defeats katago?
What makes backgammon interesting is to manage luck while what makes go interesting is to manage what is not luck.
2 Likes
This is semantics since that’s more or less the definition of luck.
Anyway, here is some rare backgammon luck, from a game of mine in 2011. If you know how it is played, I was black and I was losing so much that I should have resigned, but it was our last game and we were just tossing the dice.
At some point everything was closed down and just for fun, my opponent (yellow) left his most important pawn open (the base one) and the only way to capture it is by throwing 5-5.
and, 5-5 I got: 
And I won.
There was only one dice combination that could bring that result.
No skill was involved, ergo this was luck. We can quibble on the semantics of luck, but I didn’t really do anything skillful to win that game. Just a lucky throw.
I’d still argue, if an opponent makes a blunder, the advantage one gains is not caused by ones skill, but is caused by factors outside ones control, and would fall under the category of luck, in my opinion..
on a semantic level I agree with your definition, I did like chatgpt’s description of it, after some explanatory questions..
(chatgpt excerpts included it below)
| Feature | Die Roll | Go Game (between imperfect players) |
|---|---|---|
| Outcome from known inputs? | Yes, in principle | Yes, in principle |
| In practice, predictable? | No | Partly, depending on player strength |
| Hidden from players? | Yes (initial conditions unknown) | No (board state is visible and public) |
| Source of uncertainty? | Physical chaos | Cognitive/computational limitations |
Thus:
- In both cases, what we call “luck” is ignorance of causes or failure to compute outcomes, not intrinsic randomness.
- But only games with deliberate randomization mechanisms (e.g., dice, cards, RNG) are designed to produce luck as part of the system.
Go is not such a game.
3 Likes
and because komi is not integer, one of sides has advantage
2 Likes
Explain me more
1 Like
One might imagine two gods can play Go perfectly (just like humans can play tic-tac-toe or 5x5 perfectly)
If one assigns color and an imperfect komi, the result of the game is essentially a coin toss.
1 Like
I don’t see why the komi should be an integer. Note that under Chinese counting with no komi a tie is not possible.
There are different types of Komi. Non-integer Komi is designed to break ties (which is good for tournaments and stuff). Perfect Komi is the number that would give Jigo under perfect play. By definition, it is integral.
2 Likes
I did end up discussing it further with the chatgpt, to mention what one would ascribe to being unlucky in real life, not only within the realm of games, such as lightning strikes, and it did give some more analysis of interest..
following chatgpt excerpts, only special interest reading, added only for context:
✦ At Superhuman Level: Why Losses Still Occur
Strong AI agents like Katago do not play perfectly. Instead:
They simulate billions of positions using probabilistic search (Monte Carlo Tree Search).
They prioritize moves based on policy and value networks, trained on large data sets.
These methods are statistical, not exhaustive.
Thus:
Even at the highest level, outcomes are sensitive to initial randomness, search depth, or evaluation function imperfections.
Two equally strong agents may play a match where:
One finds a better variation due to deeper or luckier exploration.
The other misses a winning sequence due to search limits.
This is not true aleatory randomness, but it does mirror the epistemic structure of luck.
✦ Applying the “Lightning Luck” Concept to Go
Let’s reapply the criteria we used for the lightning example:
| Criterion | Does it apply to Go (AI vs AI)? |
|---|---|
| Beyond the agent’s control? | Yes—given finite compute, some outcomes are unreachable. |
| Foreseeable in principle? | Yes—but not computable in practice. |
| Efforts made to act optimally? | Yes—each plays to its trained limits. |
⇒ Conclusion:
A loss by a superhuman AI in Go can be called “bad luck” in the epistemic sense:
Not because the game is random,
But because the agent did everything within its power to win,
Yet lost due to uncontrollable limitations in its computational search.
Go, at the highest level, contains no aleatory luck—but it still contains epistemic luck.
Ok this clarify a bit my mind and makes @square_fuseki statement more understandable. A jigo is a nice balanced result but there is a problem; the AI tells us that the komi is sadly not an integer to be fair.
1 Like
Yes, I think that was my original point 
I will admit that I have no idea about the chatGPT gobbledygook and I am not sure it does, either.
Good point, I had forgotten about that.
2 Likes
that does not give very much credit to the proofreader..
1 Like
I would love to know what triggers someone to being irritated or angry with me. I doubt there is any method for discovering this other than a lifetime of trial and error.
My trigger is when my opponent keeps adjusting the stone positions, especially mine. Yesterday it happened again during a tournament. After a while, I began responding by doing the same. Every time he touched a stone that had already been placed, I did the same. I still lost by two points after Komi, but it did seem to unsettle him a bit.
5 Likes
On the other hand, I am triggered when my opponent doesn’t place the stones on the intersections exactly. If it’s obviously off, then I will try to adjust it so that it falls at its correct position. Sometimes during the game the stones may move slightly due to table movement, and I will adjust once I notice the stones are out of their place.
4 Likes
Asking in a friendly manner is legitimate, isn’t it?
2 Likes
Just wanted to share a valuable lesson I’ve learned: It’s incredibly helpful to first identify what truly triggers our own irritation or anger.
For a quick and insightful read on human interactions, and also for valuable self-reflection (to discover your own primary 'appreciation/non-appreciation language), I highly recommend ‘The 5 Languages of Appreciation in the Workplace.’