A lot of luck good and bad in chess and other sports and in every walk of life.
Is there such thing as "luck" in chess?
Sort:
Aug 15, 2024
0
#3203
Everyone makes occasional uncharacteristic mistakes. Should you be clearly losing and your opponent overlooks a back-rank mate that they would see 99% of the time, that is poor play on their part. Being the one-in-100 recipient of that gaffe was not superior play on your part--you got lucky that time.
Aug 15, 2024
0
#3204
OctopusOnSteroids wrote:
playerafar wrote:
Of course there's luck in sports.
Including when your opponent doesn't play as well as he might.
Athletes don't control eveything their muscles do because muscles tire.
If they did they could be top gymnasts in addition to their special sports.
But top gymnasts aren't perfect either.
Like in chess - athletic sports are chalk full of imperfection.
There's so many ways to crush the delusion there's no luck in sports.
Like at a critical point in a tennis match the wind takes the ball and reverses the result of a critical break point.
People know there's luck in almost everything.
Corpses in cemeteries are not subject to luck.
-------------
Usually the issue is not whether there's luck in sports - but how much.
Like in poker. There's a big big luck issue.
But its not all luck. There's a lot of skill too.
Your opponent doesn't always play as well as they might because skill is a range, not a spot. None of that is down to luck.
Muscles tire depending on how effectively you use them and how well you trained them. Less trained guy tires quicker.
Wind is an external force that acts as a random variant, that is luck yes. Anything about human performance is never down to luck.
"Anything about human performance is never down to luck."
Such a position requires that the outcome of dice rolls or coin flips by a human is not lucky, but rather the result of the persons effort to, e.g. roll a 1 or flip a head.
playerafar wrote:
There's luck in chess just like there's luck in other sports.
You're in the final round of a tournament - (no not some big world class event)
You're contending for top spot. A #1 finish.
Your opponent just happens to play an opening variation you're very familiar with and are very prepared for - instead of one you're not.
You win. Instead of him.
Whew! Good thing he didn't play that other thing!
-------------
Believing there's no luck can lead to other problems too.
Like arrogance and conceit on the one hand
or despair and self-defeat on the other.
--------------------
Much much better is to admit there's luck but take the view you don't want to depend on good luck and if there's bad luck you'll have to accept that at the time and then go ahead and put that aside and concentrate on what you've set out to do.
So what if you know the variation? Your opponent is still in control of his moves can play as good a game as ever. If he can't play the position it's due to HIS lack of prep - lack of skill. You can't blame luck for not being able to take your opponents prep.
Aug 15, 2024
0
#3206
mpaetz wrote:
Everyone makes occasional uncharacteristic mistakes. Should you be clearly losing and your opponent overlooks a back-rank mate that they would see 99% of the time, that is poor play on their part. Being the one-in-100 recipient of that gaffe was not superior play on your part--you got lucky that time.
I had that very thing!
Second last round of a tournament.
I was getting killed on the board and the clock.
My opponent missed the Q-sac rook back-ranker mate!
After the game my friend who was watching a bit said:
'You pulled that one Out? Whaaatt?
mpaetz wrote:
Everyone makes occasional uncharacteristic mistakes. Should you be clearly losing and your opponent overlooks a back-rank mate that they would see 99% of the time, that is poor play on their part. Being the one-in-100 recipient of that gaffe was not superior play on your part--you got lucky that time.
No. He was in full control blundering back rank mate. You were in full control playing check mate. Skill is a range, an IM is gonna beat GM x amount of time. Everyone is gonna play bad moves. It's not down to luck.
Chessflyfisher wrote:
You can get "lucky" by winning games that you have lost. You can also get "unlucky" by losing games you should have won or drew. Mic drop!
This is a terrible take. A game you should've won doesn't exist, since it was you in full control who lost that game. Having a winning position doesn't mean you "should" win, it means you have to keep up good play to win.
Aug 15, 2024
0
#3209
OOS doesn't get it that the 'full control' came 'after the luck'.
But that's okay.
Worse things happen.
If he doesn't want to get it that's his choice.
And to each his own.
------------------------
Regarding 'luck in chess' its a big subject.
And there's various ways to go at it.
Some might try to maintain that chess is the sport with the least luck.
I doubt that's true though.
-------------------------------------
Other mistakes are to believe that chess is a good measure of intelligence.
It isn't. Far from that.
And you'll see many chessplayers including some good ones obsessing over IQ scores.
IQ scores are a very narrow very failing way to measure intelligence.
It is 'intelligent' to understand that intelligence is a multi-phased multi-dimensional activity that extends far beyond abilities to relate 3d shapes on a 2d-surface and the like.
Is the ability to make money a better way to measure skill and 'non-luck'?
Too many outside factors - including Luck again.
You inherit. Early.
Paving the way. Money getting more money. And so on.
-------------------
Lots of good luck and bad luck in the stock market.
--------------------------
Was George Soros 'lucky'? I'd say he used a lot of skill.
But there was still luck. In that he got a lot of good opportunities.
Bill Gates? The best ever at getting paid.
Doesn't mean there wasn't some luck.
Aug 15, 2024
0
#3210
There's a saying.
'Luck is where opportunity meets preparation'
I like that one.
Aug 15, 2024
0
#3211
OctopusOnSteroids wrote:
mpaetz wrote:
Everyone makes occasional uncharacteristic mistakes. Should you be clearly losing and your opponent overlooks a back-rank mate that they would see 99% of the time, that is poor play on their part. Being the one-in-100 recipient of that gaffe was not superior play on your part--you got lucky that time.
No. He was in full control blundering back rank mate. You were in full control playing check mate. Skill is a range, an IM is gonna beat GM x amount of time. Everyone is gonna play bad moves. It's not down to luck.
Of course your opponent was "in full control" when they overlooked the fact that they were allowing you a simple back-rank mate. That was poor play on their part and they deserved the loss. I did mention that the opponent was s strong enough player that they could hardly be expected to overlook such a move, and that they were clearly winning at the point they blundered. The fact that you could see the mate-in-one and take was also skill. The element of luck was that you were the recipient of a "gift" that was less than 1% likely to occur.
mpaetz wrote:
OctopusOnSteroids wrote:
mpaetz wrote:
Everyone makes occasional uncharacteristic mistakes. Should you be clearly losing and your opponent overlooks a back-rank mate that they would see 99% of the time, that is poor play on their part. Being the one-in-100 recipient of that gaffe was not superior play on your part--you got lucky that time.
No. He was in full control blundering back rank mate. You were in full control playing check mate. Skill is a range, an IM is gonna beat GM x amount of time. Everyone is gonna play bad moves. It's not down to luck.
Of course your opponent was "in full control" when they overlooked the fact that they were allowing you a simple back-rank mate. That was poor play on their part and they deserved the loss. I did mention that the opponent was s strong enough player that they could hardly be expected to overlook such a move, and that they were clearly winning at the point they blundered. The fact that you could see the mate-in-one and take was also skill. The element of luck was that you were the recipient of a "gift" that was less than 1% likely to occur.
It doesnt matter how likely they are to make a particular mistake. I'll say this one more time - Skill is a range. Somebody you beat 50% of the time because you're as good as them - the games you win and lose are both down to the skill you show in that particular game. Some opponents you can only beat 1% of the time when they show their lowest skill. But there is no component of luck anywhere here. Just human performance varying from game to game as it's supposed to. From there you can calculate expected win ratios etc.
What WOULD be luck is some outsider making a bet on that one game you happen to win. What ISNT luck is you winning that 1%er - it was all you displaying your skill.
playerafar wrote:
OOS doesn't get it that the 'full control' came 'after the luck'.
But that's okay.
Worse things happen.
If he doesn't want to get it that's his choice.
And to each his own.
------------------------
Regarding 'luck in chess' its a big subject.
And there's various ways to go at it.
Some might try to maintain that chess is the sport with the least luck.
I doubt that's true though.
-------------------------------------
Other mistakes are to believe that chess is a good measure of intelligence.
It isn't. Far from that.
And you'll see many chessplayers including some good ones obsessing over IQ scores.
IQ scores are a very narrow very failing way to measure intelligence.
It is 'intelligent' to understand that intelligence is a multi-phased multi-dimensional activity that extends far beyond abilities to relate 3d shapes on a 2d-surface and the like.
Is the ability to make money a better way to measure skill and 'non-luck'?
Too many outside factors - including Luck again.
You inherit. Early.
Paving the way. Money getting more money. And so on.
-------------------
Lots of good luck and bad luck in the stock market.
--------------------------
Was George Soros 'lucky'? I'd say he used a lot of skill.
But there was still luck. In that he got a lot of good opportunities.
Bill Gates? The best ever at getting paid.
Doesn't mean there wasn't some luck.
Full control in a chess game is start to finish - not after some point. Oh and also before the start, when you're preparing.
When there is full control - no external variants - there is 0 luck.
hello guys, I am trying to get 100 friend awards and am very close to it, you can help me by sending me a friend request!
R0L wrote:
hello guys, I am trying to get 100 friend awards and am very close to it, you can help me by sending me a friend request!
Hi, not sure but how about I report you for spamming?
Aug 15, 2024
0
#3218
R0L wrote:
hello guys, I am trying to get 100 friend awards and am very close to it, you can help me by sending me a friend request!
You didn't mean any harm.
Its off the forum topic but no crime.
As to whether chess.com would stop you on that one - maybe.
Or the opening poster.
Anyway I do hope you achieve that goal. However.
there's no luck in chess, unless ur talking Abt u making a mate in one and hoping ur opponents don't see it
playerafar wrote:
R0L wrote:
hello guys, I am trying to get 100 friend awards and am very close to it, you can help me by sending me a friend request!
You didn't mean any harm.
Its off the forum topic but no crime.
As to whether chess.com would stop you on that one - maybe.
Or the opening poster.
Anyway I do hope you achieve that goal. However.
thanks man, the other dude is such a downer
You can get "lucky" by winning games that you have lost. You can also get "unlucky" by losing games you should have won or drew. Mic drop!