How much of chess is luck?

Sort:
uri65
BobbyTalparov wrote:
Richard_Hunter wrote:
BobbyTalparov wrote:
Richard_Hunter wrote:
BobbyTalparov wrote:
Richard_Hunter wrote:

The way I see it, if you have a game where the players play random but legal moves, the result will be determined by 100% chance. This is akin to a game between two absolute novices. As players get more experienced and skillful, the degree of chance obviously decreases, but unless both players get complete knowledge of all possible outcomes - which not even a computer can manage - then I don't see how the amount of chance in the game can ever be completely removed.

What you are calling "chance" here is actually a gap in knowledge.

Yes, and if you have a gap in knowledge then you must depend on luck.

Lol. That is a bit of circular reasoning ...

LOL, you don't understand what circular reasoning is.

Obviously, I understand it better than you. You have asserted your conclusion. When you lose to Hikaru 100 out of 100 games, it is because he is lucky?

No that's because of skill difference and nobody ever tried to deny it. Now tell me when Magnus loses one game is it because he is less skilled?

uri65
BobbyTalparov wrote:

I will put it this way: if you think someone who beats you is just lucky, you will never improve.

I willl quote my earlier post:

I have already been accused before that by talking about luck I try to avoid responsibility for not  playing good and not training hard enough. On the contrary! It's obvious that by improving our play via hard training, concentration etc. we decrease the probablity of our mistakes and improve our chances to win. But those remain just chances...

Fabio656

Like every sports/game the luck is some %

ibraheemkhan01

I really appreciate you have asked this question. I have thought of it as well. I do believe there is luck in chess. Also, GM Levon thinks of himself as a lucky player.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QP3Y0Pw0ans (0:49)

However, I believe the amount of luck is minimal. Let's look at a 40-move game where a player encounters 20 positions in which they thought of at least two equally strong moves. The probability that they get lucky and pick the better move for at least 16 of the 20 positions is 0.6%. And getting the better move for at least 15 positions is 2%, 14 is 5.7%, 13 is 13.1%, 12 is 25.1%, and 11 is 41.2%. (This is my math, happy.png you can double check it if you want)

So, about 87% of the games have a player that chose at most 3 better moves by chance. (3 out of 20 positions will not likely be the decider of the game result). So I'd say that luck is definitely less than 10% 

Finally, the word luck seems to have pissed off a lot of people. I can see where they are coming from. In Chess, everyone chooses their own fate, unlike poker for example. But the question is asking how often does a fluke happen, if you may.

Cornfed

Those who think chess is ONLY a game of skill are living in a fantasy...and probably not very good players....they totally miss the point of what constitutes 'luck' in the game.

Your opponent may be better than you (more skillful) and outplay you for most of the game, but blunder... or simply 'make the last mistake'...and you win. That bud is LUCK, I don't care what you say.  wink.png

varelse1

Chess is 35% talent, 40% hard work and study, and 55% pure dumb luck.

HolographWars
DeirdreSkye wrote:
Cornfed wrote:

Those who think chess is ONLY a game of skill are living in a fantasy...and probably not very good players....

I couldn't agree more.

In December, the fire alarm went off during da gameand I didn't have a coat. So I lost.

HolographWars
DamonevicSmithlov wrote:

It's all luck as my sister used to say after losing every game against me she played. 

Half true. But it's better than poker.

cellomaster8
Lol this forum has turned into what is luck
forked_again

people who think luck is involved just want to make themselves feel better when they lose. 

Oh well that was just bad luck!  It has nothing to do with the fact that I chose shitty moves and my opponent found better ones! 

 

LadyMisil

To the original question - How much of chess is luck?  Clearly not 0%.  There is some luck involved otherwise weaker players would lose to stronger players 100% of the time.  Clearly not 100%.  There is skill involved otherwise the better players would not have an advantage probability-wise over the weaker players.

But how much of chess is luck?  Comparing with other games - bridge, poker, backgammon, checkers, scrabble, Monopoly, etc. - there is no built-in random factor like cards (luck of the draw) or dice.  Only checkers is similar to chess in this way.  However, Duplicate bridge in which all the North/South pairs and all the East/West pairs have the same hands is similar to chess and checkers.  Rubber bridge is not.  So Duplicate bridge, chess, and checkers eliminate luck as much as possible in their format.  These are the least games with a luck factor.

Still, luck is involved.  How much?  Maybe only 10-20%.  Maybe more or maybe less.  One thing is for certain, skill is more dominant than luck as opposed to a dice game of craps.  In gambling games, with the possible exception of blackjack and marathon poker games, there is more luck than skill involved.

I would venture to say that checkers has the least amount of luck involved, then chess, then Duplicate bridge.

Another thing pointed out, level of play.  Top players bring more skill to the game.  Weak players rely more on luck than top players.  So the more skill between the combined two players, the less luck is involved.

 

forked_again
LadyMisil wrote:

To the original question - How much of chess is luck?  Clearly not 0%.  There is some luck involved otherwise weaker players would lose to stronger players 100% of the time.  

When weaker players beat stronger players, it is because they played better.  Both players had their fate in their own hands and the "stronger" player chose worse moves.  The weaker player wins by outplaying his opponent.  All moves came out of his brain, no other factor involved.  Luck would imply some outside factor caused the loss.  That is not the case.  

LadyMisil

Sorry, Deirdre, but as you yourself pointed out, probabilities disagree with you.  A good player may see the good move 99% of the time, but a weak player might be making 50-50 guesses nearly all the time.  Weak players guess what is the best/better move more than highly skilled players who KNOW what the best/better moves are.

Quoting individual instances does not help your argument.  It is coming to a conclusion via a single incident, not an overwhelming statistic based on a big database.

But yes, even among the very top players, there is still some luck involved.  But between two novice beginners?  Almost all luck.  Whoever makes the last blunder loses.

LadyMisil

To forked_again.  When weaker players beat stronger players, it is also because the stronger player played worse.  How can a stronger player play worse than a weaker player?  Stronger player had an off day.  Weaker player got lucky.  Stronger player made a bigger mistake(s) than weaker player did, or the last fatal one.  Does not make the weaker player more skilled than the stronger player.  Only in that one game they were stronger.

forked_again
DeirdreSkye wrote:

How can we say if luck plays a role in chess if we don't know what luck is?

Yes that is still the bottom line, isn't it?  There wouldn't be any discussion if the definition clarified.  

LadyMisil

To forked_again:  Our brains do not live in a vacuum.  A person can be stressed out because her husband is nagging her about something or she did not have enough to eat before the game or whatever.  A person can be subpar that day.  Why?  Because most people are basically human.

Mockingjayfire

Well actually chess is mostly based on analysis ,skill and knowledge....

that is what most say....

But at least 10% of chess is also based on luck.Not only on skill, knowledge...e.t.c.

LadyMisil

I completely agree with you, Mockingjayfire.  👏👍🎉🎶😄

Mockingjayfire

Thanks

 

najdorf96

Indeed To paraphrase Capablanca, "Luck always follows the better player" I guess for me, I always believe that to be true in Chess. Because I understood that he was referring to "Luck" in Chess as a non-factor in a game. The "better" player being the one who played better than the other regardless of experience, talent, rating etc between them. He basically said that for the non-playing masses to readily grasp rather than to, relay variations, strategical errors etc when going over a game and why this opponent lost, how this one made a critical mistake and such and such. Heh. Having said that, do I believe in luck when playing a game? Emotionally I do when my opponent blunders in a tight game, or makes the absolute right move I had been dreading all game. Because to me, "Luck" is more of a "feeling" than a factor when I'm playing. I'm "lucky" if my opponent hadn't played a particular line I'm using or "unlucky" if he is a virtuoso! When speaking about "chances" in a game, it's more about "calculated" or "uncalculated" to me. Intuition, not luck is the relevant factor whatever the outcome when taking uncalculated chances. But emotionally after the game... I'll say, "Yeah, I got lucky!" Heh. In regards to "equal" players, in my own opinion and experience, there really are no "equal" opponents. Just "estimations" of what we perceive to be equal. We can go by their ratings, experience, talent but ultimately we're all unique inasmuch as how we approach a position. Our health status, mental state, emotional state etc define our play at the board, right? Because the board, the chess pieces, aren't affected by outside forces like using dice, drawing cards, a clay court or grass, refs, umpires, deflated balls etc... Playing chess is about skill, knowledge, experience, intuition, talent. But most of all, like in Life, you gotta have the love of the game.