Chess is just a Game of luck

Chess is like poker or Parcheesi whoever has the most luck always wins.

I'm going to prove it.

If a 2900-rated player faces a 2800, the second one will win from time to time.

If a 2800 faces a 2700, the same happens, and so on.

A 2400 beats a 2500, a 2000 beats a 2100, a 1400 beats a 1500, etc.

There is a real chain.

This proves that a 600 Elo player can beat Magnus Carlsen if they get lucky.

And if Carlsen wins, it's only thanks to the luck of his superior genetics his brain naturally allows him to remember games he played 30 years ago.

It's all luck. That's why I completely understand those who dope or use anal beads with Morse code to improve their chances 

they lack the level, get frustrated, and fall to the dark side of the force. Hehe.

For this reason, all professional chess players should earn the same, as it is assumed that they all put in the same effort, and the final victory depends on neither of them but on luck itself, like rolling a die.

No, chess is a game of skill with a very small element of chance.

Negative, what you call skill is just the luck of having a brain or genetics better suited.

When two players are at a similar level, the result is said to be 50%, like flipping a coin. But this is actually an illusion because the outcome is already determined in time. Therefore, one player always has a 100% chance of winning or losing that game.

> Chess is just a Game of luck

No

prove your claim about superior genetics

if they played a quadrillion games, do u really think magnus would lose to a 100 elo player.

Let's see, Carlsen is capable of remembering games he played 20 years ago or ones he randomly read in a book two decades ago.

That alone shows he has a natural genetic advantage superior to even other grandmasters.

His brain is simply more efficient, meaning it’s better "designed"

a superior genetic makeup, no doubt. It’s natural talent.

No matter how much you try, you’ll never reach his level of play.

You might beat him in a game or two, yes, but not much more than that.

Chess is something that can be learned and with study people can get better. While there are some genetic things that can certainly influence the highest level a person can achieve, that's not luck that influences the game itself. Magnus still had to study and work hard to reach where he is today

You can say a player overlooking a winning line/move or miscalculating is lucky, it's not really. Game outcomes at all levels hinge on finding and exploiting weak move choices. However, more study and better calculations can minimize those chances and makes chess a game of skill.

Outcomes are also not predetermined. With best play the game is a draw and at the top levels a large number of games are just that. There are also instances where one player is winning but misses the best continuation, but that's not luck.

The result is always predetermined, but we still play chess because we don't know what the outcome of the game will be, and that's where the fun lies.

The winner is always the one who has the most luck

it's that simple. Whether it's because their opponent makes an uncharacteristic mistake and hands them a game that should have been an easy draw, or because they simply have more experience or a deeper understanding of the game due to having had more time to study than their opponent.

Or simply because they have superior natural talent, superior genetics, a brain that functions more efficiently than their opponent’s.

Therefore, that is also luck just like someone who is lucky enough to be born into a wealthy family and has far more opportunities than someone who comes from nothing.

That's why chess is luck. It appears to be a game of skill, but in reality, it is not.

I once met a 2500 FIDE-rated player who had never read a chess book in his life before the internet era.

However, he had that special natural talent.

According to people in my country’s chess community, this guy was a bit lazy because if he had put in a little more effort, he could have been a top 100 player in the world.

Absurd hypotheses, because maybe this 2500 rated player simply didn’t have the genetic obsession that someone like Nakamura or Carlsen has.

It's not just about having natural talent

you also need the drive to study for 10 hours a day for many years.

That’s why, as I say, in the end, luck determines everything in chess.

Having good genetics or working hard is not enough

on the day of the tournament, you also have to be in top form and make sure you didn’t get drunk the night before.

From a statistical POV even a 100 rated can beat Magnus if you give him 100 millon games

Statistics is always an illusion. It's like those who say the lottery is a tax on the poor because, mathematically, they claim it's not profitable to play. But the world doesn't run on statistics

if you win the lottery, you can laugh in the face of any mathematician.

Because, in the end, statistics are just an illusion

either you're lucky, or you're not.

Yeah, the human mind is specially bad on interpreting probabilities and statistics.

average bullet player logic

I only play bullet because there are too many cheaters

I guess that the opening post is sarcasm or parody of something. But I don't get it.

what opening

Your first post.

It clearly isn't serious, but I don't get if is supposed to be funny or witty or what.

you didn´t get it

it´s all about determinism, this is all about , this thread

so everything is luck