Does Luck Come into Chess?

Definitely a post I never thought I'd see. 

Well, I've already made one long post.

That's an understatement. (heehee!)

By my conception of long, not really ;)

It just barely qualifies.

lol

To be more pithy: there is barely any luck in chess, so it is silly to complain about it rather than blame your own incompetence for your losing move.

How about that?

I think LIM has hit the nail on the head:  it all depends on how you define "luck."  There is plenty of luck in chess if you include intuition...and your intuition usually only proves right as long as you are playing lower-rated players.   At any rate, it is by definition "not controlled," so I think it is indeed some species of luck (even if not nearly so blatant as the "random throw of the dice" variety).

A lot of times it's simply the correct idea to use your intuition rather than to calculate -- it's a conscious, logical decision.

I guess the way I view a decision based on general considerations is precisely that -- you are claiming sequence x will lead to a good position using a general principle as justification. If it turns out it doesn't lead to a good position, I would say you were simply wrong -- your general principle justification did not prove valid. Just because you don't know whether you are right or wrong doesn't mean there is luck involved, does it?

If an idea unexpectedly works out for you it doesn't mean the dice rolled in your favor; it just means you, after being uncertain, turn out to be right about the truth that was always there.

"For example, you my play an ending where your opponent knows how to draw it 9,999 times out of 10,000, yet for some reason he just brain-farts and screws it up. That's luck, and sometimes games are won that way instead of a one-sided dominance job."

If he brain farts, that will result in poor skill on his part. Of course, the fact that he had the brain fart was something you couldn't control though. But you still completed the task in front of you by winning, even if it was easier than usual.

I'm not saying that he doesn't have mastery of the ending just because of the one time he got it wrong. That is definitely not what I am arguing. Rather, that in general he has skill in that ending, but on that particular day he didn't show it.

I will concede that one cannot be psychic, especially if they don't know their opponent -- oh do I wish I could predict the exact moment where my opponent would play the blunder I wanted!

It seems to me the main body of your argument is the opponent's play. Nobody here is denying that it takes two to play a chess game. Your task in a game is to take advantage of your opportunities. I'm not saying every game against a certain player will be equally easy. But to be ready to take advantage of the opportunities when they are there, like that rare endgame blunder, is still a skill. You are lucky only in the sense that you weren't required to show as much skill as you would normally have to . I would imagine though like in poker, we'll all experience both sides of this scenario many times in our lives, and it'll even out, so there's little sense complaining. Take the good luck with the bad.

Well, I guess I'm not really sure that that phrase "pure skill" has a great deal of meaning in the context.

Again, you seem to be quibbling on the word...

A sign which might well hang like "ABANDON HOPE ALL YE WHO ENTER HERE" above the gates of the chess.com forums. 

ENTER THE DRAGON,LOL

I still think any luck that is there is quite small and would happen to everyone, both good and bad, anyway. Having good intuitive judgment will reward you with opportunities usually. Combine that with good calculation, and you'll be really hard to beat. Even in poker the more skillful player usually wins in the long run; obviously in chess you have even more control, a lot more control. And ultimately any loss you have can be attributed to a mistake on your own part. Thankfully, perfect chess, unlike perfect poker, is immune to bad beats :)

But people tend to get rather smug about the supposed lack of a "luck factor" in chess (especially when comparing it with poker).  I'm just saying that, if you look at it with complete honesty, you're not as much in control of this game as you probably think you are. 

People often talk about it like it's a closed set, like some sort of tic-tac-toe.  And people's egos (and high-handed annotations after the game) often try to foster just such an appearance.  But ask a player during a closely contested game what's really going on...and if he's honest, he'll say that he doesn't know exactly.

I don't really agree. One might not be in 100% control, but I think it's pretty close. As for why a higher rated player might lose to a lower rated player, I think it has more to do with being out of form than with "luck" factors.

"But ask a player during a closely contested game what's really going on...and if he's honest, he'll say that he doesn't know exactly."

Sure, but he's simply trying to make the best of the chaos. That's what you have to do.

I disagree.  You are only completely in control (or feel that way) when you are playing somebody so much lower-rated that they do not present a challenge.  Anything else, and the "control" factor is most likely illusory (and just an extension of one's ego).

So what are you saying? lol  That because he's trying his best, that puts him in control?