How much of chess is luck?

This is the original post.  It is slightly different in meaning than if you take the title literally as you do.  Like btickler, you have a problem listening to what other people are saying.  You stick to words than meanings.

I do not disagree with you that a game, including its outcome is made up of a series of moves by two players.  I do agree with you that those moves are chosen by the players and are not random.  But I do not think that randomness in chess is the subject matter.

have you ever actually randomly chosen a chess move?  in order to do that the choice would have to be out of  your control...  you could flip a coin to randomly select a move for you.  I am taking the authors question literally word for word and his answer which he posted himself to his own question to be narcissistic and unintelligent. 

Lol what a thread. There is no luck in chess, only blunders and excuses.

I guess if you don't have any real answer to a question, you might as well just fling out some insults.

Just like the author said in his first post, I too have had choices of equal potential.  Most every game I do.  I rarely get no-brainer wins.  I might then turn to other factors, like my opponent’s personality or chess style.  But sometimes I have absolutely nothing to go on and yes, I will randomly choose any one of my candidate moves.

Your “flipping” a coin remark is an exaggeration that has no basis in a real discussion, but I am beginning to wonder if we are having any kind of meaningful discussion.  Maybe you are like Btickler and others that are so defensive that you will do or say anything because you cannot face the fact that you might have to rethink any of your opinions.  I hope not.

Please understand that the author is not talking about luck in the sense of randomness.

You made me think about my first otb longchess versus Andreas Tenold, 9 years old.  He , that supertalent destroyed me with his virtous knights. I got  a lot material behind and spend much time figuring how to survive. It got late in the evening 9 o clock, 10 o clock and Andreas had to wait, wait and wait . He should have been in bed an hour ago.  His eyelids was slipping, and then he blundered the queen.

It was luck only. Pure luck. Making him tired was not my plan, It just happened because my position was so difficult that i spend very much time.

im only using random chance as an example of something that would be out of both players control.  which is necessary for luck to be a factor in the game.  focus is necessary in order to answer a question without wild conjecture about what the question actually is.

we are both trying to answer a different question and although I don't agree with you about the interpretation of the question.  I won't disagree that you have accurately answered a different question. 

I think only the men in chess don’t get lucky.

you two are cute.  honestly.

Yes.  There is no randomness in chess like in card or dice games.  So luck in the sense of a dice throw or deal of the hand does not occur in these type of games.  But luck in the general sense, as in luck in everyday life, does occur.

Thank you for understanding my answer to what I believe is the question.

Yes, I would say that if I played Magnus Carlsen and won, I got VERY lucky!  I certainly wouldn’t go around bragging that I am a more skilled chessplayer than Magnus.

Thank you for repeating my joke.  I liked that one a lot.

It all depends how luck is defined.  If RNG is what defines luck then luck doesn't exist at all in the real world because RNG is just a computer thing.

It doesn't matter how many conscious decisions were made.  If my opponent could have won the game, but didn't see the move or miscalculated if it was a multi-move tactic then I was lucky.  Whether it's perception or whatever the alternative is (what exactly is the alternative?  Most of life is perception and chess is part of life like anything else).

If I arrive at the train station 1 minute late, but find my train was 2 minutes late then I am lucky as I don't get to work late.  It doesn't mean RNG was involved, the train driver made decisions, the people getting on his train made decisions, the mechanics who maintain the train made decisions.  Whatever it was that caused the train to be 2 minutes late doesn't matter.  What matters is that according to expectations I should have missed it, but didn't.  It's just the same in a game of chess.

Luck certainly doesn't have to be symmetric though.  My opponent's move that failed to win the game is 100% the result of his own actions that he had control over so he is not in any way unlucky just because I am lucky.

h

hd

What the heck are you saying here??  

“Ahhh, but Carlsen et al say they got lucky, they are really talking about luck...not playing to an audience or sparing their opponents feelings?” - Btickler

Do you have any point that you are trying to make?

The win was lucky, not the moves.

Bye

In a way, both.  Using Emmanuel Lasker’s chess psychology, Tal used openings that he was better at than his opponent.  Openings that would lead to complicated double-edged positions.  In the return match, Botvinnik did the same, dropping his beloved French Winawer for the tame Caro-Kann, hoping to “tame” Tal, as he put it.

During very critical positions of the first match, Tal sought complications.  He did not see them as leading to wins for Botvinnik, of course, but later post-mortem analysis showed that Botvinnik should have won.  So choosing complications over an evenly balanced position was a gamble.

Tal won with brilliant tactical play, but he could not have won without Botvinnik’s inability to wend his way through the complications and find the win.  Tal needed luck besides skill to win the first championship match.

Now, do you want to give credit to Tal winning or to Botvinnik losing?  Was it Tal’s skill or was he lucky that Botvinnik did not find the right moves?  I say both, to varying degrees, depending on which game of the match you are talking about.