“There is luck in chess. My opponent was lucky that he was playing against an idiot”
In a certain sense, luck exists in Chess. A winning continuation that was not forseen by either side might suddenly surface and decide the game. It's hard to call it "skill" when you didn't see it coming, didn't intentionally play towards it, and were just as surprised as your opponent when it materialized on the board.
If my thoughts we amplified, it might be frightening for small children, the elderly and household pets....
Chess is all luck: the luck to be introduced to it
the luck to learn how to play, the luck to be interested in it,
the luck to want to work hard, the luck to have the time to work hard,
the luck to have the ability to work hard, the luck to have enough health
to play, the luck to have sufficient lighting and clean air etc.
Well. . .reading the above notes I concluded that we must start to define luck, even though Congruity makes it clear what "luck" he is talking aboaut.
Later Beardog--- writes down this: ". . . the luck to learn how to play, the luck to be interested in it. . .,", which implicity includes ". . .the luck to have been born...to survive. . .etc".
All those "lucks" imply the existence of a "human" issue.
The real "luck" we should talk about should be that one with the minimum of human inherence. And that is only possible with the throw of dice or raffling . . . and nothing of this is done in chess (backgammon uses dice).
So for me, chess does not depend on luck. If you make a mistake during the game or were born more intelligent, that does not have anything to do with the rules (the spirit) of the game.
Lucky:
You make a mistake and your opponent fails to capitalize
In an extremely complicated postion, you can do no better than make an educated guess at the correct move, and you are right!
Unlucky:
Your choice of opening is that which your opponent knows best.
Your opponent plays above his usual skill level
There is an element of luck in chess but in the long run--the better players win.
The key in poker for me is, you have to be willing to lose your money completely, every hand. It is the only way your bluffing can can be convincing.
On the physical slips -- I had noticed that a player did that (it was entirely obvious -- unless you know of a 1500+ rated player that drops a Queen in front of a pawn). The player asked for the draw, and I agreed. The player thanked me, and I appreciated that.
More recently, a player in a bullet tournament dropped and recovered a signal, then sprang up with :37 seconds. He/she hit "offer draw" and in chat typed "Please!" And I gave in. HOWEVER -- this one leaves, not a WORD. Now, this isn't the "GG" thing -- I know that's another topic -- this is a "thanks" that I stayed on chat like an IDIOT waiting for -- nothing.
Needless to say, if that one every gets in a jam (technical or otherwise) and asks for another draw I will happily OBLITERATE him and watch him throw pieces around in his :21 second window-of-time. But I need to develop a policy here I think. My heart said "this is the right thing to do" twice, and it I guess it was. What do you think? (And if a stern lecture is coming my way that's OK. This is my first year, and learning often requires one to sit still and take the medicine).
Chris
Is it skill or luck that causes your opponent to fold his pair of 5's while you have nothing but a good bluff, as opposed to them gambling and calling your bluff?
Even in a chess game if an opponent doesn't have the particular skill set to know the exact move to be made, they are making an educated guess, based on potential replies, initial resulting position, material gains, etc. They aren't trying to get lucky by taking a gamble, as much as, making skilled calculations. It isn't simply a matter of the 50/50 guess that you get lucky and call a bluff.
If one regards being a good liar as a skill, there is something wrong with that picture. There is only intuition and experience, in terms recognizing a liar. I wouldn't really call those things a developed skill. They are more of a defense mechanism that one tries to adapt over, to use in gambling.
I have seen very naive people continually get lied to. Their only recourse is learn to pick better company. If you learn to trust liars, you'll eventually be decieved, no matter how "skilled" you think you are.
It still befuddles me how some people think their swagger ( a way of acting as if special, though it is in it's self, nothing special), mojo (I still don't understand how people claim their mojo, as if it is their skill), cheap sunglasses, emotionless stares and good lying translate into skill.
They might as well just put on a mask and get a robot to speak for them upon typing input. All they are doing is taking away the points of connection, that others use to detect their thoughts. With so many of them being artificial and a gimmick, how are they genuine skill ?
Chess requires far more skill than poker ever required. This is why really good GM's who aren't among the elite, have went into poker and began winning easily. Ever hear of elite poker players becoming Super GM's over night ?.... lol... sorry I do laugh at my own jokes.
The only "skill" you need in poker is to be dead serious about not caring if you lose your money and letting your opponent know it. If you do that, they'll never know when you are bluffing. That isn't what I'd call a skill.
This argument comes down to semantics and there is no argument at all. It is a matter of definition. There is no luck in chess in the sense that if you always made a correct move you would never lose (presuming that the original position isn't zugzwang) and would win many games perhaps all if you are White. The game itself contains no element of luck. However, no one knows what the correct moves are. Both humans and engines must make an educated guess as to what the correct move is based on experience and principles. The principles aren't always true in the mathematical sense but are true in a majority of cases. While there is no luck in the game itself, until chess is solved there will always be luck in the play of the game by less than perfect machines and people.
Take it from me, a highly competitive backgammon player. It's easy to bemoan your luck, but when you improve your game consistently you will win more in the long run. There is a moral victory in playing well, even if chance causes you to lose.
Two more examples of bad luck I experienced today:
1) Power outage in the middle of a game. Crashed the modem. Opponent got the W.
2) Wife came home with kids screaming bloody murder in the middle of a game. Had to abandon. Opponent got W.
There is no luck in the game of chess itself. Luck is introduced only by players and outside circumstances.
"A good chess player makes their own luck". Inspirational phrase from a book called the Tao of Chess. ;)
Thing is, there's a lot of 'outside circumstances' that factor into a game of chess. Chess don't operate in a vacuum. I wonder how many wins I've had came as result of an opponent getting distracted by a phone call, a knock at the door, the boss checking in on someone's cubicle during working hours, a ding on your inbox, hunger pains, the need to pee, tired eyes, bad light, the room being too cold. Heck, I bet all of my wins are a matter of luck.
Thing is, there's a lot of 'outside circumstances' that factor into a game of chess. Chess don't operate in a vacuum. I wonder how many wins I've had came as result of an opponent getting distracted by a phone call, a knock at the door, the boss checking in on someone's cubicle during working hours, a ding on your inbox, hunger pains, the need to pee, tired eyes, bad light, the room being too cold. Heck, I bet all of my wins are a matter of luck.
Absolutely, I'd agree with all of that 100%.
"A good chess player makes their own luck". Inspirational phrase from a book called the Tao of Chess. ;)
Though I believe Tal was really good at assessing his opponents limits, I think he pressed his luck in that, they could have been better at surveying other sets of circumstances, than those Tal used for his conclusion. This must be why this was said about him...
There was a joke between Russian masters, which said "if Tal makes a sacrifice against you, then accept it, offer a draw and pray. If Petrosian makes a sacrifice against you, there's no need to do anything: resign immediately".
I've seen it said previously on these forums (quite forcefully) that there's no such thing as luck in chess. I disagree but would like to hear your explanations one way or the other. One aspect that is entirely a matter of luck is who you get as an opponent. Secondly, I would say there are physical slips (i.e., a player intends to place a piece on one square but accidentally drops it on another.)
It is this latter "luck" that I offer as an example from a recent blitz game. Here I'm playing as white against an opponent closely rated to me. I slipped on move 5, intending to move c3 to block the bishop. However, this "bad luck" by mouse slip (from which I almost resigned) ended up securing my queen the a1-h8 diagonal that led to complications for black... and ultimately white's win.