The definition of luck is random chance that comes out in your favor. You have no control over whether or not your opponent sees a blunder or makes a blunder. It's a dice roll. It's the definition of luck.
If there were no luck in chess, then the better player would always win.
The definition of luck is random chance that comes out in your favor. You have no control over whether or not your opponent sees a blunder or makes a blunder. It's a dice roll. It's the definition of luck.
If there were no luck in chess, then the better player would always win.
But your opponent has that control and he/she is a part of the game ...
Also its true that better player always wins only the word "better" isn't stable in time...
Only thing on what should depends who will win are the thoughts and skill of you and your player... if you would say that thoughts of your opponent are random then there is a luck in chess and yeah they kinda are but thats a luck only from your point of view from the view of your opponent he/she just made a mistake and there is no luck or unluck in it...
Chess are unic not because there isn't litteraly any luck but because that luck there is only onesided... nothing what would any of both players cant affect... no dice rolls etc..
Adding luck to the game of chess, disappears as you and your opponents rating goes up, you can take that to the bank!!!!!
I won a Live Blitz game against an opponent ("monsieur") after I badly blundered and he badly blundered twice. As I was about to checkmate him he told me I was winning because of "luck".
I definitely didn't play brilliantly and my rating is low (about 1450) but he played worse than me so I beat him. For me, that's not luck.
I have also sometimes been called "lucky" after an opponent has dominated me positionally, but then made a blunder I have checkmated him.
Can you get lucky in chess? Or are there only good moves and bad moves?
It's not really luck, it's more about good calculation. Probably luck in chess is more about lucky not to mouseslip, other than that luck is just based on you and your opponents thought process.
What I all said was an opinion
I would say that chess and every game involving more than one player has "luck" in that you can get lucky and your opponent can make a bad move. What chess doesn't have is chance or randomness. (random outcomes from draw of the card, dice roll, a computer). Unlike a game of chance, the outcome of a chess game is completely dependent on the moves the players make. In poker a bad player can beat a much better player if they simply get a better hand because of chance.
But yes you can still get "lucky" In game I played recently I got lucky because my opponent hung their queen.
You have three chess books on the table and before an important match you randomly pick up one and start reading it and you concentrate on a particular variation and learn it by heart in 30 or 40 minutes or whatever. Your opponent by chance plays that variation and due only to having read the book, you know that he's blundered and there's a difficult to spot continuation which wins for you. That's happened to me. Exactly that. I won a lot of tournaments.
No-one, surely, can argue that such a scenario doesn't involve luck.
I studied 50 GM games that followed a move order nuance against the Queen's Indian Defense as preparation for one specific opponent. I wanted to prevent 7...Ne4, so delayed castling by first securing e4. Most of these games were long battles, but there was an inspirational miniature that could guide me if my opponent made one of six possible seventh moves. He played it.
That was lucky. But preparation played a big impact.
in chess there is no such thing as luck its only you make a good move or you make bad move and that shapes the game the people who said you were lucky were likely angry
Of course there is such thing as luck in chess.
The formal definition of luck is "success or failure apparently brought by chance rather than through one's own actions.
Therefore, if you are randomly making moves, well if its a bad move then rip. If it is a good move then it is lucky.
Another factor in is if you are lower on time, or a opening move it far too complicated to calculate in a reasonable amount of time, in these situations you have to make moves quickly. If you can't calculate fast enough it is completely up to chance and therefore luck if you will make a good move.
Another factor is the fact that even if you do make a "bad" move, or even a outright blunder, you can get lucky and your opponent may of missed it.
Even unlucky exists, Wi-Fi goes out/ server issues it and forfeits your game.
Misclicking and especially true on Lichess, the opponent doesn't let you take back your move even if it is obvious you misclicked.
Playing a rated game and being paired with a smurf who is happy to see you.
These are just some on the spot examples.
The key factor is the intention of the move, was the intention brought about by means that were intended, was the move planned out and correctly seen through before it was played and was it successful in doing what you thought it would.
I won a Live Blitz game against an opponent ("monsieur") after I badly blundered and he badly blundered twice. As I was about to checkmate him he told me I was winning because of "luck".
I definitely didn't play brilliantly and my rating is low (about 1450) but he played worse than me so I beat him. For me, that's not luck.
I have also sometimes been called "lucky" after an opponent has dominated me positionally, but then made a blunder I have checkmated him.
Can you get lucky in chess? Or are there only good moves and bad moves?
Well by definition, if you made a major mistake, then the opposition didn't see the move you got lucky. With that being said, I would think that depends completely on the position. The skill comes from finding complicated moves to win a game, this is certainly misleading because sometimes the most simple move is the most overlooked and therefore the hardest to find.
So with that being said, if your blunder was obvious then yes the win was likely lucky, and he likely got very lucky himself if he blundered two times and it was obvious. If it wasn't obvious, or strong engine moves were needed in reply, then it is purely because of your opponent's lack of skill and/or not understanding of tactics and therefore not because of luck.
Some people don't listen to correct arguments and they think they know better. Again, they will be making their own luck. They may prosper, despite their stupidity.
If this is in reply to me this is nonsensical, and doesn't contribute as a retort.
Define what it means to "make their own luck", because if it is what I think it means then that doesn't make sense. On that same note you would have to define a "correct" argument. That pair of words is very strange.
I had just won a tough game with a very worthy opponent and felt quite proud of my accomplishment, only to have another player show me where my opponent missed a move that would have stopped my winning game, did that take the wind out of my sails, because the win alone is not the important part but but how you "got it"!
For players below 1000 on this site and 1800 on Lichess, chess is entirely a game of luck.
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/game-analysis/how-beginners-play
I had just won a tough game with a very worthy opponent and felt quite proud of my accomplishment, only to have another player show me where my opponent missed a move that would have stopped my winning game, did that take the wind out of my sails, because the win alone is not the important part but but how you "got it"!
By hook or by crook, a win is a win. Take them while you can.
I don't understand why "is chess a draw with best play by both sides" is debated!
who debates that? Didn't Fischer himself literally say Chess is all memory and theory prep? In your opinion someone forgetting his line means you got lucky, but thats just your opinion. Because thats on the person and not the game. Again, I don't understand the need to even debate this.
The absolute fact is that chess does not have luck built into the game. For example its not a game where you are rolling the dice or playing poker with a flop or dealt random cares, or pulling a casino slot handle.
One or two people have seen the proposition as debatable. https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/true-or-false-chess-is-a-draw-with-best-play-from-both-sides
Your casino metaphor is a pretty apt description of the games I’ve been watching the past few weeks. Among low rated players, chess is rolling dice. In one game, a player completely outplayed an opponent who seemed to have no clue. But after chasing the queen for several moves, let three pass by when it could have been captured through an elementary fork. Later, this same player missed a mate in one and then resigned when the opponent was about to lose on time.
I saw nothing I could identify as skill on either side.
For players below 1000 on this site and 1800 on Lichess, chess is entirely a game of luck.
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/game-analysis/how-beginners-play
1800 on lichess lmao. I know people 1900 on lichess that are 1800 blitz fide rating. I think maybe part of the reason lichess inflates the initial ratings is to ensure competitive matches up at the beginner level. Since that clearly doesn't happen on chess.com. But once you get to intermediate and expert its not much different.
I’ve played hundreds of 1800s in 10 0 games on Lichess. 80% play like beginners.
Haven't read much of the thread.
Of course there's luck in chess. In a Swiss system tournament, you have little control over which opponent you get paired against, or whether you have White or Black against your most dangerous opponents. These things are determined by the number of players entering the tournament, and by the distribution of their ratings and early-round results... random factors that you have no control over.
Luck, in other words.
3. I personally can't stand this community. Its full of alt accounts and rating manipulators.
You can make this site better very easily. Leave.
Your cheating accusations are absurd in view of the quality of your play. https://www.chess.com/forum/view/game-analysis/how-beginners-play
Anyone who doesn't think there's luck in chess is just wrong.
Sometimes you hang mate in 1 and your opponent doesn't see it. Who knows, maybe at that particular moment your opponent just wasn't paying very close attention. Sometimes they would see it, sometimes they wouldn't. You have absolutely NO CONTROL over whether or not your opponent sees it, so essentially it becomes a roll of the dice, and if your opponent doesn't see it, you're not good, you're just lucky.
Ah, but you say that is only at lower ratings. Wrong. Bronstein was dead lost against Petrosian in the 1956 Candidate's when Petrosian inexplicably hung his queen. 999 times out of 1000 that never would've happened, but Petrosian had a brain-fart, pulled a Botez Gambit, and resigned. Bronstein was lucky, pure and simple. He was outplayed and he was dead to rights, but he won because Petrosian did something that even most players rated 1000 points lower than him wouldn't do.
Is there a lot of luck in chess? No. Is there no luck in chess? Don't be ridiculous.