Is there such thing as "luck" in chess?

Yeah you're totally correct here and described it well.

With an instance where a player accidentally plays a good move it's easy to tell that they were lucky.

With nearly every move played theres chance at play, but with blunders it's harder to argue the event was unlucky, because obviously lack of skill is the first determining factor.

Coming back from time to time to agree, @kotshmot @lfpatriotgames

When we have 3 candidate moves but lack the depth of vision or the necessary concepts to make an informed choice, then we have to make an arbitrary choice. I used hands of the clock that indicate the seconds to make a truly random lottery of this at times, but an arbitrary, willed choice is a matter of luck, then, as well.

Why? Well.. because I have no grounds for moving this or that way, and it is a matter of luck if my arbitrary choice will, on the following moves, disclose a combination or concept to me in time- or rather let my opponent present me with one.

Seeing something after playing earlier or later is not a matter of luck but of disposition and training, making the first one or two moves later turning out to be leading in the right direction is.

In general, luck plays a minimal role in chess. Chess is a game of complete information, meaning that both players have access to the same set of information and there are no hidden elements or random chance involved. The outcome of a game is primarily determined by the players' skill, knowledge, decision-making, and strategic abilities.

However, it's worth noting that luck can sometimes have a minor influence, particularly in time-limited games or rapid chess formats. In fast-paced games with limited thinking time, players may make mistakes or overlook certain moves due to time pressure. In these situations, an opponent might benefit from the oversight or blunder and win the game, but it would be more accurate to attribute the outcome to the pressure and mistakes rather than pure luck.

Overall, in classical chess with ample thinking time, luck is typically not a significant factor. The game is predominantly based on skill, preparation, positional understanding, and calculation abilities.

That's not a bad idea.

Let's ask our new overlords:

Bard, what is the definition of luck?

Luck is the phenomenon and belief that defines the experience of improbable events, especially improbably positive or negative ones. The naturalistic interpretation is that positive and negative events may happen at any time, both due to random and non-random natural and artificial processes, and that even improbable events can happen by random chance. In this view, the epithet "lucky" or "unlucky" is a descriptive label that refers to an event's positivity, negativity, or improbability.

Luck can be thought of as a force that helps or hinders people in achieving their goals. It can be seen as a positive or negative force, depending on the outcome of an event. Luck can be attributed to chance, fate, or divine intervention.

There are many different ways to define luck. Some people believe that luck is simply a matter of chance, while others believe that it is something that can be influenced by one's actions. There is no one right answer to the question of what luck is. It is a complex concept that has been debated by philosophers and scientists for centuries.

Here are some of the different ways that luck has been defined:

Chance: Luck is often seen as a matter of chance, or random events that happen to people.

Fate: Some people believe that luck is predetermined by fate, or a higher power.

Divine intervention: Others believe that luck is the result of divine intervention, or the intervention of a god or gods.

Opportunity: Luck can also be seen as an opportunity that arises unexpectedly.

Hard work: Some people believe that luck is simply a matter of hard work and perseverance.

Positive attitude: Others believe that luck is attracted by a positive attitude and a belief in oneself.

Whether you believe in luck or not, it is clear that it plays a role in our lives. Sometimes, things just seem to go our way, while other times, we seem to be constantly plagued by bad luck. While we may not be able to control luck, we can certainly influence it by our actions and our attitude. By working hard, being positive, and taking advantage of opportunities, we can increase our chances of experiencing good luck.

Bard, what is the definition of luck in game design?

In game design, luck is the element of chance that can affect the outcome of a game. It can be introduced in a variety of ways, such as through random events, dice rolls, or card draws. Luck can add excitement and unpredictability to a game, but it can also be frustrating for players if it feels like they have no control over the outcome.

There are a few things to keep in mind when using luck in game design:

The amount of luck should be balanced with the amount of skill required to play the game. If there is too much luck, then the game will be too random and players will not be able to improve their skills. If there is too little luck, then the game will be too predictable and players will get bored. The type of luck should be appropriate for the genre of the game. For example, a strategy game might use dice rolls to determine the outcome of battles, while a role-playing game might use card draws to determine the results of skill checks. The amount of luck should be communicated to players upfront. Players should know how much luck will be involved in a game before they start playing. This will help them to set realistic expectations and avoid frustration. When used effectively, luck can be a powerful tool for game design. It can add excitement, unpredictability, and replayability to a game. However, it is important to balance luck with skill and to communicate the amount of luck to players upfront.

Oh no! The definition of luck is different depending on the context...who would have thought?

Bard, are random events introduced externally part of the game of chess?

No, random events introduced externally are not part of the game of chess. Chess is a game of skill and strategy, and the outcome is determined by the players' decisions. There are no random events in chess that can affect the outcome of the game.

Bard, Is a mistake by a player a random event or based on the skill of the player making it?

A mistake by a player is not a random event. It is based on the skill of the player making it.

Here are some reasons why a player might make a mistake:

Human error: Players are human and make mistakes. This can happen due to fatigue, stress, or simply not thinking clearly.

Lack of skill: Players who are not as skilled are more likely to make mistakes. This is because they do not have the same level of knowledge and experience as more skilled players.

Misunderstanding the position: Players who do not understand the position are more likely to make mistakes. This can happen if they do not see all of the possible moves or if they do not understand the consequences of their moves.

Overconfidence: Players who are overconfident are more likely to make mistakes. This is because they may not take the time to think through their moves or they may not consider all of the possible outcomes.

Bard, don't you think the initial choice of which color each players gets is luck?

You are right, the initial choice of which color each player gets is luck. White has a slight advantage in chess, so players would generally prefer to play as White. However, the advantage is small, and skilled players can still win with Black.

The word "luck" came into the English language from Middle Dutch (luc) in the 15th century. "Luc" meant profit, money, financial gain. When we see how much money top players earn from the game, or even notice that tournament winners walk out with much more $$ than the entry fee, it is obvious that luck exists in chess.

Yes. There is because if “luck” is some “random event” that caused the balance or fortune to tip in your favor , then in chess it could mean that “luck” is some sort of miscalculation, error, or brain fog of your opponent. It could be interpreted as “luck” for you and “bad luck” for them. 

If the original question was meant to refer to the way some religions frown on chess because it is a game “of chance” in their eyes, I couldn’t argue that they are wrong. Whether it is Muslims, observant Jews, or Christians. At one point or another, depending on the region, they either forbade chess or at minimum frowned upon it. Each of these religions definitely condemns games of chance in principle. Jewish people at one point in their own Judaism reformation period allowed chess BUT with a caveat. If they are observant Jews they cannot play to win any sort of monetary prize or reward because it would be considered as a form of greed and arouse desire.

I think Muslims in some countries simply consider Chess to be a game of chance, AND as something that is a waste of time which God has allotted them to do Muslim things. 

In the case of Christians I heard multiple arguments against chess that are actually also pretty good. They usually don’t consider that chess is a game of “luck” similar to how Jews do not consider it luck. But Christians sometimes argued that chess is bad because you create animosity by making someone who is not your enemy essentially play as your enemy. They observed that players become very angry and rude to their opponent and that , especially in former USSR, Christian Orthodox argue that there is too much competitiveness which caused Soviet players to resort to all sort of crooked tactics. 

Whether chess is a game of chance or not, we should not assume that it cannot be harmful simply because we like to play it. Personally I think chess can create in the player an illusion of freedom by limiting choices to the pieces in the board and thus causing a disconnection from the real world problems. I heard an argument that the communists liked to promote chess in the Soviet Union because they liked how people had an occupation of no political or social consequence. People would spend hours, months, years, essentially in an artificially constructed prison if the mind with an illusion that they had “freedom”

The only logical way of looking at luck is as an evaluation of outcome in events of chance. Any event that has any amount of chance effecting the outcome (almost all) therefore involves luck as well.

In this thread it has been logically proven that skill does not determine outcome in a chess game for 100% (or anywhere near that in most cases), but chance is involved as well.

On the contrary, the thread is stuck at the exact same impasse it always gets stuck at. Which is why you don't even address the point being made...that an AI that builds its content almost completely based on human consensus has scoured the internet and comes up with...the above. As a source, it's quite a bit more representative of the state of this argument than your unilateral proclamations .

Cheerio, I'll be back the next time enough vague circular reasoning has been posted and a reminder is needed...

That whole AI chapter was completely useless because you would need to be way more specific to get a relevant answer. Thats why I replied to you only one definition and concept is relevant and I laid it out for you.

The impasse would be your lack of understanding or will to understand, as you don't address the issue logically. Until you do that, of course theres no progress. You don't need an AI to do that.

Although there is no element of chance built into the "game design" of chess, actual games have difficulty achieving the ideal because humans are involved in the organization of events, regulating play, and actually playing the games. Unforeseen events and/or unpredictable behavior can throw a monkey wrench into anything involving humans. Practical real-life playing of the games-- that's where chance enters chess. A computer glitch, a burst appendix, myriad other unpredictable intrusions of the outside world into the realm of playing chess do affect the results, negating the actual skill of the contestants.

I assume you're new to the topic, so how would you view the following scenario.

You miscalculate a line, and based on this misunderstanding make a move. The move you chose happens to be the best move on the board, but for reasons you haven't been able to see. Would you consider yourself lucky for ending up choosing the best move or is this rather based on your skill?

Occasionally a very strong a very strong player will unaccountably overlook something as simple as a back rank mate or something else they will see 99%+ of the time, blundering away the game. Of course that is simply poor play on their part and they deserve the loss. The opponent play also deserved a loss, but they had the good fortune to be the recipient of a thousand-to-one chance. You might well say that player got lucky.

that's not what that means now though.

yes its possible to have bad wifi at the wrong time and lose from luck

also you could get an important call and have to leave the game for something like that

The Oxford English Dictionary has 17 definitions of "luck". The word is used in different ways in different situations. What it means to you may well be very different from other people's understanding. This long thread is full of disagreements about the exact meaning of "luck", and too many posters feel that only their definition is correct, using one meaning to "prove" their point of view or "disprove" others' opinions.

What do you think the precise meaning of "luck" is?

The original use of "luck" in English did in fact mean only good things that happened. Presently, expressions such as "I got lucky", or "a spot of luck", or "a lucky break" mean something positive happening; negative effects are usually referred to as "bad luck". Some people use "luck" without the qualifier "bad" to mean what you would call "good luck". That dictionaries give examples of such usages does not make the dictionaries incorrect.

My point in my last few posts is that the claim to have a singular correct and irrefutable formula to determine what is or is not "luck" and all who do not subscribe to it must be incorrect in their answer to the original question is untenable. This holds especially true for those who say that any amount of skill absolutely negates the possibility of there being any luck involved.

I realize that all this has been argued extensively previously in this forum, but many newcomers have joined in so I wished to reiterate.

As noted, the original meaning meant positive outcome, gain. Today, such expressions as "I got lucky", "a spot of luck", "a lucky break" refer only to positive results, and negative results are modified by the qualifier "bad". So, many uses of the word luck do mean exclusively good fortune. And many people believe that supernatural powers (fate, God, karma) are responsible for our success/failure, chance playing no role.

The nebulous nature of the term itself and the lack of concrete evidence as to its nature or even its existence make any definitive answer to the original question impossible. Still, it's apparently interesting enough to enough people to keep this forum going.