How much of chess is luck?

100 new posts since this morning which adds up to zero value added.  I'm done have fun!  

Sadly, not the case.  Most of my friends have been such for decades, probably longer than your lifetime (based on your personality/apparent maturity).

Right?  It's absurd and somewhat surreal.  Almost worse than Ghostess Lola in the fuzzy logic department.

In the context of games, there no other "sense" of what luck means.  Landing on Boardwalk 3 times in a row is luck.  Players' choices in chess are not luck, they are skill-based and subject to human failings.   Human failings are not the same as "luck", no matter how many times you pretend the contrary.   It's really that simple.

Google "games with the least amount of luck", then start reading how many of the thousands of hits identify chess as one of, if not the most, luck-free mainstream/popular game.  You might think your viewpoint is somehow more enlightened than Google's crowd-sourced opinions...let me assure you, it is not.

I'll leave you with this graphic from Wired magazine:

I'll take that complete dodge as admission that you know you're full of it .  Let me know how your budding romance with Tuna goes...it may be weeks or months before each of you realizes the other is not really saying anything.

don't you dare slight Xena you chode gargling huff bag.  Xena could decapitade 20 stubborn chess girls and all their fanboys with a single motion

This is like people arguing whether the earth is "Flat or not". 🤣😃😂

Which is quite silly.  It is curved since it fits on the back of a giant turtle.

the bunny thinks (a rare occurrence) that most of the luck plays off the board where you have a minimum IQ enabling you to understand chess, physical capability or technology availability to make the moves, as well as availability of opponents and time.   perhaps we take these things for granted here and today.

or maybe it's not luck but natural selection and actions of our ancestors.

or maybe the bunny should just go back to not thinking.

It's not clear to me from this post why Chess is 'Pure Skill' whilst football, basketball etc are not.

hi

and that's why

Luck has no precise meaning in these activities. Luck is only a whining word from the entitled losing player. Luck is what occurs in expressions like "aargh you're lucky you don't win because your skills but because your luck". Believe me I was into backgammon for years, I do know that the typical bg player "wins because of his skills, lose because he's unlucky".

If you ever attempt to define things precisely, you'll notice that you will never come up with an accurate, logically sound definition of luck in these games/or sports. What matter instead is how various elements affect the outcome of the game, whether it be:

-physical elements like in basket, which can be out the control of players or not (gravity, wind, state of the ground, ...)

-dice (Backgammon and other stuff)

-hidden information (Stratego, Poker, Starcraft)

Chess or go doesn't involve any of these things and in fact belong to a class of activities called "perfect information and zero sum games" which properties have been established in math. 

For instance the difference between that kind of game is that when you lose, you cannot track back the chain of event that led to your loss to things like "the ground was slippy",nor "you had impossibly good dice rolls", nor "I couldn't know you'd had these cards in hand". See a difference here?

Also sage this thread.

Someone could, if they had all the skills (or luck?!) create a mathematical model of a game of chess.  Given a player's rating and the time available for each move the model could assign a probability of the player finding the best move or 2nd best move or whatever else.

Putting aside staring your opponent down or kicking them under the table or sneezing over the board at them etc in an over the board game the other player has 0 control over what their opponent plays. So if their opponent is deemed to have a 98% chance of finding the best move, but they don't then you hit a 2% chance on something you had no control over at all. 

If it was the lottery you would consider that luck, but apparently it is skill after all when you hit a 2% chance.

People just hate the idea that some times when they win they were lucky their opponent didn't find winning moves.  Just because you can't claim any element of luck when you lose doesn't mean it isn't there when you win.

It seems that LadyMisil is the most brainiest person here.........

Well, for starters, it's because you were only looking at a graphic...sports were never mentioned.  This would make it hard to be clear about the sports thing.

Anyway, the answer is that those sports have this thing called a bouncy ball, which, while not truly random, is unpredictable enough to be impossible to control by human beings in many situations even when playing at the highest degree of skill.  And before you even try to pounce on that, I'm talking about bad bounces on a kickoff, or a weird angle off the rim, etc.  If a football player fumbles (i.e. commits a blunder), that's not luck.  That's the player's mistake.  If a player misses the final free throw and loses the game, that's not "luck" even if most NBA players sink 85%-90% of their free throws.

So basically luck doesn't exist at all.  In any form.  Anywhere.

The losing player is the creator of the winners luck. When he generously blunders he creates huge  luck for the winner. Pure luck is the losers present. If the loser is good at chess he deeply understands that his opponent won because of luck.  The loser knows, because he made that luck.

Losers makes luck.  Winners takes luck.

The bounce of the ball in football is entirely deterministic. If it were not, the laws of physics would have to be completely rewritten. Skilful players are able to take advantage of that. If Chess is 100% skill, I don't see how football isn't too.

Luck is not a pesence. It is an absence.

An  absence of predictibiity. An absence of controlability.

As such say you do not believe in luck is an oxymoron.

There is nothing in luck,  to be be believed. Luck is the absence of other things, that can be believed.