luck has nothing to do with it when your opponent makes a bad move. Your opponent making an error isnt lucky it just shows the difference in your skill levels which is what chess is all about.
Chess: A Game of Luck?
Sort:
I believe there is very little "luck" in chess. I think chess eliminates the influence/element of luck more than any other game. In poker for example I have seen amateurs win the top tournies even with many top pros playing. You will NOT see this happen in chess and the reason is the lack of luck involved.
Hello,
even if i was the luckiest man in the world in my luckiest day. i could not win a game against Kasparov, I'm afraid.
regards
Thank you Akuni. Very witty. Where did you find the story?
If you totally missed some threat that your opponent plays, and it turns out you have a saving move, I call that luck.
Playing good moves for the wrong reasons is luck.
Kepler wrote:
.... In the game mentioned in the original post, Korchnoi did not notice the winning move. He was unlucky because he failed to take the opportunity presented top him. On the other hand, Karpov was lucky because he gave Korchnoi that opportunity but survived! Both players had a measure of control over the situation but both failed to notice something in the position that was critical. Luck not chance.
But then you can say that Korchnoi was unlucky or that was not as good player as to see the best move in this case and because of that he could not mate Karpov...
I think that if you miss the best move, it's just because your level in chess is not so strong, and it's not a matter of chance or luck.
regards
The opinions of rubbish players...pfff.
Is it luck? who is the greatest player? What is the best opening?what day of the week is it? blah blah
blah
aadaam wrote:
The opinions of rubbish players...pfff.
Is it luck? who is the greatest player? What is the best opening?what day of the week is it? blah blah
blah
pot, kettle, black 
I like your story, thanks.
I agree there is definately an amount of luck involved, but not just luck or no luck.
The amount of luck is limited to the moves too far for us to predict, so the better we play, the less our motivations rest on chance.
There is an amount of chance involevd, as there is in all things in the world. Statistics teaches us that there is no such thing as a 0% chance. Hence, if you play Kasparov for 1,000,000 games - chance dictates you will win one. There is no activity in this world that is 100% skill due to the fact that there is never 0% chance.
Jan 15, 2009
0
#32
Brandobras wrote:
Hello,
even if i was the luckiest man in the world in my luckiest day. i could not win a game against Kasparov, I'm afraid.
regards
Ah, but if you were the luckiest man in the world, on your luckiest day, you would probably beat Kasparov, if he were the unluckiest man in the world, on his unluckiest day. That, or if he had a mate in one and had a heart attack.
nqi wrote:
There is a factor of luck in chess. Although we would like to believe otherwise, a mistake on the part of an opponent has little to do with our own skill, and thus we can be considered lucky. However, chess is predominantly skill, as each player has to take maximum care of his/her position to ensure that does not colapse.
B.t.w bad luck is why I have a bad rating
Stronger player will put pressure on you to induce many more mistakes than usual. Moreover, it takes skill to recognize a mistake and be able to take advantage of it. Even if the mistake is trivial, consistency is a component of skill too.
exigentsky wrote:
This is all kind of absurd. The word luck can only be applied colloquially to chess. As a game of perfect information, it is evidently not at all a game of luck in the traditional sense. It's true that not all games end as they theoreticaly should but this is a reflection of human inconsistency and skill level not of chess. If it were, I could claim that math is luck too when I miss a problem that I usually solve easily.
I agree completely. I don't think luck has anything to do with chess. If you consider things like a falling ceiling on your oponent as "luck in chess" then every human activity in the world would be defined by luck. It's more of a philosophical posture than something logic. Of course we are imperfect... and as such there will allways be unexpected moves and results, but ultimately it is linked directly with the skills of the players and that's what chess is about: skills.
If you play a GM and he hangs his queen (VERY unlikely), and you end up winning the game, then you still won the game because you played BETTER than him. He deserved to loose and you to win. Now you can talk about the odds of that happening and argue "But I'm lucky he made that one mistake vs me"... but that's just like the falling ceiling which doesn't mean chess is a game of luck.
We can discuss how luck affects our lives, but I strongly believe you can't say luck wins or loses any given chess game. The wonderful thing about Chess is that the winner is allways the one who played a better game.
I would argue that a computer could figure out a way to make a coin land perfectly on heads every time, and yet, a computer cannot win a game of chess every time it plays.
There is no such thing as luck in chess. It's all about good moves and bad moves.
The question of luck does not come into play when talking about a chess match between a player who plays at a 1300 rating versus a player who is rated 2000. This is a question of skill, but what happens when players are of the same skill level? If the skill level of two players is considered to be equal then something other than skill must decide their matches.
If the general was truly good he would be watching for all possibilities and the battle should go his way unless something completely unexpected entered into the battle field UNKNOWN to him. The lucky general would be barely scraping by and whatever unknown thing happened on the battle field would serve to help him.
Everyone makes blunders, even the best players. How many blunders you make is a determinant of your level of skill. If a 900 player blundered against a master you wouldnt say "Oh the master just got lucky the 900 player blundered", you would take it as an indication of the difference in skill between the two. If Korchnoi had a higher level of skill he would not have missed the mate in 4, however because he did not posess as high a level of (tactical?) skill as those watching the match, so he was unable to make use of the mate threat that was present.
Once in a Math exam I scored a 100%. When I got my blue book back I saw an answer that I had recorded incorrectly in the book once we reviewed the test and answers.
Like a nut, I went to the professor and pointed out that I did not deserve the 100% grade. He severly beat me about the face and neck and called me an idiot...no, no, that was a different test. This guy looked at me and said, "I know you knew the right answer because you had it in your proof. You just wrote down the wrong number. I never had someone get a 100 before and you earned it so enjoy." I managed a 100 average in all the tests as he inspired me to work hard because I felt like he was on my side. So that test was surely a combination of luck and skill. I doubt an opponent in chess will be so helpful.
So in the course of a game against an equally matched opponent, one could say I was unlucky for making the mistake and my opponent lucky that I goofed. Would I be polite enough to congratulate my opponent on their skill? Tough one but I would like to think so.
There is a factor of luck in chess. Although we would like to believe otherwise, a mistake on the part of an opponent has little to do with our own skill, and thus we can be considered lucky. However, chess is predominantly skill, as each player has to take maximum care of his/her position to ensure that does not colapse.
B.t.w bad luck is why I have a bad rating