How much of chess is luck?

I haven't even spoken to you...move along.

the question is typed at the top of every page of this conversation.  and i quote "how much of chess is luck"  not how lucky are you in chess.  once you realize this things should make more sense to you

btickler - still trying to tell others what to do.  That is his first reaction to everything.

You and Tuna deserve each other, clearly.  Trolls of a feather...

I clearly stated that I was throwing out bullshit numbers... this was supposed to demonstrate a flaw in logic.  It doesn't matter what choice you make or how optimal it is.  As long as you make a choice the outcome is determined by your actions and the actions of your opponent.  if a choice is somehow made for you then luck is introduced to the game... like if you roll a die to select what piece your going to move for example. 

This is the first thread we have ever interacted in, unless you are going to own up to being a sockpuppet, so...it's lackadaisical to draw such conclusions at this point.  But I get that it protects you.  You can't handle my arguments, but your defense mechanisms are...pedestrian.  Try harder to hang in before resorting to such things, and you might learn to focus better and make some cogent/precise arguments.

Please explain.  If the title read, “How much of chess is randomness?”, then I would get what you are trying to say, but it says, “How much of chess is luck?”  Further, if it said, “How lucky are you at chess?”, then I would reply probably the same as everyone else in the long run.  Not what I have earlier said.

Again, repeating my first comment, there is some luck involved in chess, less than most other games, but it is not completely all about skill.  I do not downplay the skill factor in chess, but I do credit some wins as being just dumb luck.  Adding, for the higher ranked players, I.e. world champions, it is much more about skill than luck.  For the beginners whose games are replete with many blunders, then it can just be a crapshoot as to who will finally win.  In an unmatched game, a very strong player going up against a very weak player, then the game was practically decided before the first move.  If neither had a hand in setting up the matchup, then I would say one got lucky while the other did not.

And you deserve to be left alone friendless.

It’s skill if I win & luck if I lose

If I hang a piece and my opponent doesn't take it I consider myself lucky.  If my opponent misses a forced mate I consider myself lucky.  Neither is unlucky from their side, it's just sloppy or unskillful or whatever expression one chooses, but not bad luck.  From my side though I can I possibly consider it anything other than lucky unless I'm playing an opponent so much lower rated that I might expect them to miss such moves?

I can't believe I have to point out how you are contradicting yourself.

I believe the rate of your IQ makes you be of a bad luck or a good luck.

I'll try to condense this.  if you make a choice then the outcome is determined by that choice.  same for your opponent.  if both players are making choices then the outcome of a game is determined by your actions.  if the game is determined by the choices and actions of both players then luck did not move any of your pieces for you.  luck selected the color of the pieces for you.  that is all.  whether you feel lucky or not is irrelevant since we aren't talking about you we are talking about chess.

"Success or failure apparently brought by chance rather than through one's own actions."

is the definition of luck.  My opponent's moves are not brought about by my own actions.  Obviously they are influenced by them, but clearly my opponent failing to find a mate is not influenced by my actions.

People don't like the idea that their wins are not always through their own skill though, whereas their losses are always a result of their own choices, they'd prefer it the other way round.

Your view of luck is simply based on perception then. You can't say that their poor move is lucky for you, but not unlucky for them. If you say that it's lucky that they played sloppily, it's not luck at all: you're just the better player because you didn't play as poorly.

Seems fallacious to me, with regards to chess.

You're correct that your opponent's moves aren't under your control, but obviously you control your own moves. The fact that you control your moves means it's not "luck" when you win a game off of an opponent's mistake (the only way to win a game). It's only luck if you each pull moves out of RNG. You make decisions, your opponents make decisions, the person who makes the best decisions wins the game.

No luck involved, because you made conscious decisions leading up to the mistake that kept you from making mistakes yourself, and so did your opponent.

I wasn’t talking about your “90% luck” number.  I was talking about your “100% optimal” number.

I wasn’t talking to you.  Just talking ABOUT you, lol!

I have stated earlier and I still do.  If the title of this particular forum was “How much of chess is randomness?” then I would agree with what you are saying.  Chess, checkers, and Duplicate bridge are all games in which the random factor has been weeded out.  So if the author was talking only about the randomness factor built into chess, like cards in poker, then yes.  But I do not believe that is what the author of this thread means.

your still completely missing the point.  I'm saying that just because you can get lucky because of how your opponent moves... luck does not determine the outcome of a game.  because your opponent is still making a choice.  so you can be lucky or unlucky... thats fine.  but you yourself are not a game of chess.  in order for the game to be determine by luck a move would have to be made that was out of BOTH players control.