Rxd6 sure looks like a win. But I'm not certain.
I would say that blunders reflecting skill or lack of skill do not exclude luck.
The fact of the nature of something doesn't mean that something else has to be excluded. Sometimes it does.
If luck is defined as the opposite of skill and its also insisted they can't co-exist in the same context - well with such defining one could 'have' any reasoning one wants.
IRONCLAD PROOF THAT LUCK AFFECTS SOME CHESS GAME RESULTS
Sort:
Feb 18, 2025
0
#2
Feb 18, 2025
0
#3
Yeah I think when luck is debated among serious chess players the parties tend to make the assumptions you mentioned -- that for purposes of such discussion "luck" and "skill" signify mutually exclusive influences.
As I noted at the beginning of my post, subject those assumptions, chess people usually conclude that blunders reflect skill alone, and that only skill can determine results (except for trivial cases where the deciding factor is wholly external to the players' move choices -- such as a power outage or natural disaster, or a medical emergency afflicting a player mid-game).
My counter-argument is that a decisive continuation both players overlooked -- meaning, the ultimate winner went into a situation where he would have been busted if not for a saving resource he hadn't seen at the time he committed himself to that position -- represents an outcome that turned on luck.
Feb 18, 2025
0
#4
If that's the case, then I've been lucky more times than I care to admit. Not just in chess, either.
FishThatRoared wrote:
Yeah I think when luck is debated among serious chess players the parties tend to make the assumptions you mentioned -- that for purposes of such discussion "luck" and "skill" signify mutually exclusive influences.
As I noted at the beginning of my post, subject those assumptions, chess people usually conclude that blunders reflect skill alone, and that only skill can determine results (except for trivial cases where the deciding factor is wholly external to the players' move choices -- such as a power outage or natural disaster, or a medical emergency afflicting a player mid-game).
My counter-argument is that a decisive continuation both players overlooked -- meaning, the ultimate winner went into a situation where he would have been busted if not for a saving resource he hadn't seen at the time he committed himself to that position -- represents an outcome that turned on luck.
They are inseperable. Luck plays a big part in the games of very poor players but at that level, the results of games are meaningless. Luck is also something that is skilfully worked for. The idea is to play in such a way as to increase the probability that your opponent will make an errror. That's how to win at chess. I wouldn't place too much emphasis on the verbal arguments of people who are better at arguing with the pieces on a chess board.
FishThatRoared wrote:
White played Rxd6, which Black had overlooked. Does it win?
This is NOT about game-changing blunders. Blunders reflect skill (or its absence), not luck. There are other situations, however, where "luck" is the best way to describe events on the board that decided a game's outcome.
The full argument is developed here: https://www.facebook.com/share/p/17yemeosi4 Give it a read and let us know what you think.
FM Jon Jacobs
Well looking at this position, black wins white's knight back. The position of the pawns could be drawn.
Feb 18, 2025
0
#7
FishThatRoared wrote:
Yeah I think when luck is debated among serious chess players the parties tend to make the assumptions you mentioned -- that for purposes of such discussion "luck" and "skill" signify mutually exclusive influences.
As I noted at the beginning of my post, subject those assumptions, chess people usually conclude that blunders reflect skill alone, and that only skill can determine results (except for trivial cases where the deciding factor is wholly external to the players' move choices -- such as a power outage or natural disaster, or a medical emergency afflicting a player mid-game).
My counter-argument is that a decisive continuation both players overlooked -- meaning, the ultimate winner went into a situation where he would have been busted if not for a saving resource he hadn't seen at the time he committed himself to that position -- represents an outcome that turned on luck.
Jon - that's a very good point - or rather excellent point that you're making.
And yes - chessplayers tend to make the assumptions you mention.
And we seem to agree that they're invalid assumptions.
Your counter-argument is crushing. And represents reality.
Feb 18, 2025
0
#8
In the diagram it appears that after Rxd8ch although white has a move in hand how can he rescue his knight from the looming Rb2 by black ?
Well he could try Nc5 and after the continuing b6xc5 and white's b4xc5 ...
then white has a very nasty protected passed pawn at c5.
Can black survive that? I would think not but again not certain.
Point: black will have to tie himself in knots containing that passed c-pawn while white's rook goes after black's vulnerable a- pawn ...
playerafar wrote:
FishThatRoared wrote:
Yeah I think when luck is debated among serious chess players the parties tend to make the assumptions you mentioned -- that for purposes of such discussion "luck" and "skill" signify mutually exclusive influences.
As I noted at the beginning of my post, subject those assumptions, chess people usually conclude that blunders reflect skill alone, and that only skill can determine results (except for trivial cases where the deciding factor is wholly external to the players' move choices -- such as a power outage or natural disaster, or a medical emergency afflicting a player mid-game).
My counter-argument is that a decisive continuation both players overlooked -- meaning, the ultimate winner went into a situation where he would have been busted if not for a saving resource he hadn't seen at the time he committed himself to that position -- represents an outcome that turned on luck.
Jon - that's a very good point - or rather excellent point that you're making.
And yes - chessplayers tend to make the assumptions you mention.
And we seem to agree that they're invalid assumptions.
Your counter-argument is crushing. And represents reality.
I have already pointed out why his subsequent argument is incorrect. When it comes to the two of us making a judgement on it, what's the chances that if we differ, you are going to be right?? That argument should be obvious. If the two players are failing to control the game, it may turn on luck. The luck of a saving or winning resource which wasn't spotted by either of them.
What would YOU do with it if you won one? You might be better off without one!!
a rubber duck?
Oh! Would you chew it? Oh dear. Would it be good for you, do you think? Do your teeth need strengthening?
Isn't it a bit boring at the moment with so few of your friends making comments.
I'm going to bed. Goodnight.
This is NOT about game-changing blunders. Blunders reflect skill (or its absence), not luck. There are other situations, however, where "luck" is the best way to describe events on the board that decided a game's outcome.
The full argument is developed here: https://www.facebook.com/share/p/17yemeosi4 Give it a read and let us know what you think.
FM Jon Jacobs