Is there such thing as "luck" in chess?

Guys quit chatting and get to chess

It is quit annoying here so if you guys mind to lower the chatting. please

In the San Francisco Bay Area we have a century-old ice cream brand "Dreyer's", headquartered in Oakland. (They were bought by Nestle some years back and went nationwide.) Every time Breyer's comes out with an advertising campaign here, sales of Dreyer's goes up but Breyer's reap no benefit.

In most of the recent posts here those who claim luck exists in chess reason that when players can't calculate exact outcomes, the judgements they make are no different than guesses as to what number will come up on a roulette wheel. When this sort of "luck" determines the results of a chess game, then both good and bad luck DO always occur at the same time, one type for each contestant.

Then one player was lucky to get away with cheating and the other player was unlucky that the cheater did not get penalized.

I also agree that there is luck in chess, in the usual case when a player is not strong enough to notice all the facts of a position in the alotted time.

So far, no human or computer can understand every fact about the starting position in chess. There are often a set of facts about a position that are unknown when a player takes a turn because human computing power is pretty limited and games are often played quickly. Then construct a probability model for additional facts about the position that the player did not recognize when they decided on their move. For example, oops, that loses a bishop!

Whether there exists a bishop-winning reply can be mathematically modeled as a probability.

This is very complicated for me to evaluate and I am getting a headache so thank you and bye!

I’ve had both. Breyer’s is better IMO. Of course, taste is subjective. Also, Dreyer’s is better than Lucerne, and whoever is making the Safeway store brand, and …

None of the mass market brands compare well to what you can find at WSU creamery.

The judgements made in roulette and chess are quite different and based on different things, what is in common between them is that both are choices from multiple options to be made with lack of information.

If broken down enough the similarities become evident. If I'm not mistaken you did not dispute this logic before, maybe you even referred to it? Did you have a change of heart?

I don't eat a lot of ice cream, but there is a small creamery about six blocks from me which has made their own ice cream for more than 100 years and attracts customers from all over Oakland/Berkeley/Piedmont. It's product is naturally much better (and expensive) than anything at the supermarket, but the drawback is that in warm weather the line is very long.

When I'm in Italy I eat more gelato--it's lighter than ice cream so a small cup is refreshing even after a substantial dinner.

Just a couple of points:

When it is impossible to make any prediction as to the results of a play--as in roulette--the outcome is determined by luck. Where the prediction of outcomes can be determined with some degree of accuracy the skills of the players will determine the result. It isn't bad luck that causes you to lose a theoretically-drawn rook ending, it is your own inferior choices coupled with your opponent's superior play.

I have always maintained that some luck exists in chess, but your poor or brilliant choice of moves is of your own doing, the Goddess Fortuna is not involved.

As to luck being "just a word", in an earlier post here I mentioned the 15-20 different definitions of luck that can be found in the Oxford English Dictionary, some of which are obviously inapplicable to chess; others can be used to support different views of "luck" affecting chess. Many here have chosen the definition that best supports their preconceived ideas and insist that only that definition is applicable, "proving" their opinion and making any disagreement "wrong".

The compilers of the OED don't just make up the definitions out of thin air, they describe the ways the word has been used in the English language. They do not get it wrong or "fail" because they quote instances in which English speakers do/have use(d) the word. Your picking out one definition from the many available in many dictionaries just because it most closely corresponds with your own opinion and saying "this is THE correct definition, others are wrong" is no more convincing than Coolout's insistence that any activity where ANY bit of skill might be involved wholly negates the possibility of any bit luck playing any part.

The first (oldest) definition of "luck" in the latest edition of the unabridged OED is "gain, profit, financial advantage"--admittedly rare and obsolete. The most common meaning is "the chance occurrence of events either favourable or unfavourable to a person's interests".

The Merriam-Webster definition to which you direct us is "a force that brings good fortune or adversity", clearly labeling it as some sort of directed supernatural phenomenon.

Again, everyone choosing their own definition, whether from a dictionary or their own imagination, and insisting that theirs is the only valid interpretation, has been the major cause of disagreements among the thousands of posts in this thread.

So from now on you will accept my interpretation of all terms used is these forums as correct? Or will you insist that your opinion (I don't wish to use a term as undefinable as "knowledge") deserves the greatest credence?

"Where the prediction of outcomes can be determined with some degree of accuracy the skills of the players will determine the result"

This is simply a faulty definition and it would rule that luck and skill cannot both be factors in the same action. If chess is too complex, we can prove this to be false with an easier example.

A paper plane is thrown by human - result can be predicted to a degree and skill is always a factor on where the plane lands. We also know that the wind is always a factor as well. Now we have luck and skill both playing a part determining the result, even tho we can predict the outcome to a degree. Is the definition out the window already?

There is luck in everything. Everything that you cannot calculate or manipulate is a factor of luck.

You could argue that any word has a different meaning based on interpretation, therefore most arguments will never come to an end.

Hello, fellow philosophers.
If I make a clueless move that just turns out to be brilliant and I win because I found that move by chance, I would call that good luck*.
Overall amount of luck in chess is very small. If I would win Magnus Carlsen, the amount of luck needed is equivalent to winning in lottery 5 times in a row.
Some people would call rolling dice a luck element. However it happens precisely according to laws of physics without random elements. We just can't calculate it so well that we could decide, "I throw 6" and do it. It's the same for chess, we can't calculate it completely. Everybody is at least little bit clueless when playing chess, it's not 100% calculated, that's why there is element of chance, element of luck*.
 *Disclaimer: by your definition this might not be luck.

Agree with this comment fully.

As chess is an exercise of choosing from multiple given options, you don't need skill to pick the right option. This should be enough for most people to understand luck must be involved.

Practically this is usually visible in the form of situations like grabbing a free pawn and noticing a move later that you defended against check mate without knowing about the threat.

Yes, don't disagree with that but it also adds nothing to what I said.

Also a well worded post