There's luck in chess and in everything else in life too.
You need a little stronger argument than that. Anything outside of your control will bring an element of luck. Chess doesn't have such variables. There is only your varying ability that you apply to make the best moves you can.
There's luck in chess and in everything else in life too.
An instance of the game of chess isn't life. It's a separate logical construct and its own little universe, effectively. You interact with it, but are not part of it beyond your move choices. There's luck in life, but not in the logical construct of chess, beyond random selection of the initial move.
The "skill is a range" argument is accurate. This is just rehashing of the thread, though. People that believe there's no separation will insist that external luck factors are part of chess, people that believe a game of chess is its own logical construct will not accept that.
As a former systems analyst and software designer, I fall into the latter camp.
Take scholar's mate...that same instance of chess has been played countless times. Do the specific players matter? No. Not one iota. That instance with that set of moves exists regardless. There's no luck in that outcome beyond who got to play white, but there is a lack of skill in allowing the early mate. Lack of skill != luck. Uncertainty of outcome != luck.
[the symbol "!=" means "does not equal"]
There's luck in tournament pairings, but tournament rules and procedures are not part of the game of chess. They are added. When someone eats a bad burrito the morning of the tourney, it might be lucky if you are paired against them...but that luck is yours, and is not part of the game of chess. If you are the one eating the bad burrito and you make bad moves because you are not feeling well, your losses are a lack of skill/discipline ("I knew I shouldn't have eaten that burrito"). And so on. Let's not go down the road where people argue that luck rushes in the fill the void when uncertain outcomes happen...been down that road several times on this thread already. Uncertain outcomes in an instance of chess are not a proof of "luck", they merely show a complexity of skill application that you cannot decode, and so you label it luck.
There's luck in chess and in everything else in life too.
An instance of the game of chess isn't life. It's a separate logical construct and its own little universe, effectively. You interact with it, but are not part of it beyond your move choices. There's luck in life, but not in the logical construct of chess, beyond random selection of the initial move.
The "skill is a range" argument is accurate. This is just rehashing of the thread, though. People that believe there's no separation will insist that external luck factors are part of chess, people that believe a game of chess is its own logical construct will not accept that.
As a former systems analyst and software designer, I fall into the latter camp.
Take scholar's mate...that same instance of chess has been played countless times. Do the specific players matter? No. Not one iota. That instance with that set of moves exists regardless. There's no luck in that outcome beyond who got to play white, but there is a lack of skill in allowing the early mate. Lack of skill != luck. Uncertainty of outcome != luck.
There's luck in tournament pairings, but tournament rules and procedures are not part of the game of chess. They are added. When someone eats a bad burrito the morning of the tourney, it might be lucky if you are paired against them...but that luck is yours, and is not part of the game of chess. If you are the one eating the bad burrito and you make bad moves because you are not feeling well, your losses are a lack of skill/discipline. And so on. Let's not go down the road where people argue that luck rushes in the fill the void when uncertain outcomes happen...been down that road several times on this thread already.
Yes. And if your tournament final opponent blunders and causes you to win, that is just your opponent displaying their ability or lack there of on the day and the game result has nothing to do with luck. What you could say is that is lucky it happened in a final - but the luck would be related to the tournament setting, not chess as a game.
Hi Dio!
"There's luck in life, but not in the logical construct of chess, beyond random selection of the initial move."
in the actual chessboard no - but in most other things about the game - yes.
The movements of the pieces on the board aren't like dice rolls.
But I could say the geometry of a tennis court has no 'luck' and no 'dice rolls' in it too.
I think a lot of people will hold that chess is 'pure from luck' and a lot of others won't.
"Uncertain outcomes in an instance of chess are not a proof of "luck","
but that isn't the argument.
But factors in the game are subject to luck.
The chesspiece motions and rules and the board aren't 'luck' but that also is not the argument.
-----------------
Some of this might just come down to what is meant by 'luck'.
Re the "skill is a range" premise: suppose that the opponents' "skill ranges" are such that player A will play at a level low enough to dip into player B's very top level less than 2% of the time, and player B achieves his top level with similar frequency. The odds against both happening in the same game are very high, and player B would be justified in feeling that he had "caught a break" should he ever obtain a win.
The idea that chess exists in its own little universe and cannot be affected by "real life" is specious. Yes, that would seem to be ideal, but sometimes players have had heart attacks or strokes at the board and forfeited games because they were rushed to the hospital. Precisely how did their opponents' chess moves decide those games? I was once losing a game to a doctor who got an emergency page--he resigned and rushed away. My skill had no bearing on the result. Human activities exist in the real world and sometimes that negates all our best efforts.
There's a lot of talking at cross purposes in this thread, people mean different things by luck in chess.
From a game theory point of view there's no luck in chess whatsoever (in a way there's luck in poker or backgammon) because it is a deterministic, perfect information game. It is purely a matter of the rules of the game.
Once you extend the definition of luck by considering factors external to the rules (like your opponent having a stroke or anything of that nature) that may impact the outcome of the game, then, of course, luck is undeniable.
The latter interpretation is rather uninteresting, though. It just says everything we do involves luck, which makes this position kind of empty.
Certainly in the normal course of events there is no luck in chess. This doesn't mean that extraordinary events never occur. If you have read many chess.com forums you will have noticed the number of outraged complaints concerning power outages or interrupted connection resulting in undeserved losses. If we consider the ultimate result of a game as part of chess we can't ignore unfortuitous events that determine some results.
There's a lot of talking at cross purposes in this thread, people mean different things by luck in chess.
From a game theory point of view there's no luck in chess whatsoever (in a way there's luck in poker or backgammon) because it is a deterministic, perfect information game. It is purely a matter of the rules of the game.
Once you extend the definition of luck by considering factors external to the rules (like your opponent having a stroke or anything of that nature) that may impact the outcome of the game, then, of course, luck is undeniable.
The latter interpretation is rather uninteresting, though. It just says everything we do involves luck, which makes this position kind of empty.
Even 'external' there has interpretations.
Like your opponent's choice of opening.
Is that 'external' to the rules?
It doesn't have to be him having eaten the wrong burrito as Dio suggested earlier.
Is external-internal a binary thing in this context?
It is if you want it to be. One could 'insist' or try to.
Certainly in the normal course of events there is no luck in chess. This doesn't mean that extraordinary events never occur. If you have read many chess.com forums you will have noticed the number of outraged complaints concerning power outages or interrupted connection resulting in undeserved losses. If we consider the ultimate result of a game as part of chess we can't ignore unfortuitous events that determine some results.
In tournaments players often 'get lucky' according to who they're paired with.
Or not paired with.
An issue of how temperaments and playing styles go up against each other.
The weaker player might win because his way of playing was anathema to the stronger.
Many might then try to 'insist' that the weaker was therefore 'stronger' on that occasion.
Let them. Everyone has their own take.
It doesn't have to be a 'terrible take' because there's disagreement.
There's a lot of luck in chess. Recently I lost a game because i blundered since it was so noisy in my house so i was distracted.
There's a lot of luck in chess. Recently I lost a game because i blundered since it was so noisy in my house so i was distracted.
Mental lapses display a lack of skill, not luck.
Certainly in the normal course of events there is no luck in chess. This doesn't mean that extraordinary events never occur. If you have read many chess.com forums you will have noticed the number of outraged complaints concerning power outages or interrupted connection resulting in undeserved losses. If we consider the ultimate result of a game as part of chess we can't ignore unfortuitous events that determine some results.
In tournaments players often 'get lucky' according to who they're paired with.
Or not paired with.
An issue of how temperaments and playing styles go up against each other.
The weaker player might win because his way of playing was anathema to the stronger.
Many might then try to 'insist' that the weaker was therefore 'stronger' on that occasion.
Let them. Everyone has their own take.
It doesn't have to be a 'terrible take' because there's disagreement.
As mentioned, things outside of a chess game can bring an element of luck that contributes to the game itself. Both stroke and tournament pairings are in this category.
Certainly in the normal course of events there is no luck in chess. This doesn't mean that extraordinary events never occur. If you have read many chess.com forums you will have noticed the number of outraged complaints concerning power outages or interrupted connection resulting in undeserved losses. If we consider the ultimate result of a game as part of chess we can't ignore unfortuitous events that determine some results.
In tournaments players often 'get lucky' according to who they're paired with.
Or not paired with.
An issue of how temperaments and playing styles go up against each other.
The weaker player might win because his way of playing was anathema to the stronger.
Many might then try to 'insist' that the weaker was therefore 'stronger' on that occasion.
Let them. Everyone has their own take.
It doesn't have to be a 'terrible take' because there's disagreement.
As mentioned, things outside of a chess game can bring an element of luck that contributes to the game itself. Both stroke and tournament pairings are in this category.
Pairings are not 'outside' of the game unless you want them to be.
Insistency to the contrary is misinformation.
Everybody does their own categorizations and the dictionary is not bible.
Certainly in the normal course of events there is no luck in chess. This doesn't mean that extraordinary events never occur. If you have read many chess.com forums you will have noticed the number of outraged complaints concerning power outages or interrupted connection resulting in undeserved losses. If we consider the ultimate result of a game as part of chess we can't ignore unfortuitous events that determine some results.
In tournaments players often 'get lucky' according to who they're paired with.
Or not paired with.
An issue of how temperaments and playing styles go up against each other.
The weaker player might win because his way of playing was anathema to the stronger.
Many might then try to 'insist' that the weaker was therefore 'stronger' on that occasion.
Let them. Everyone has their own take.
It doesn't have to be a 'terrible take' because there's disagreement.
As mentioned, things outside of a chess game can bring an element of luck that contributes to the game itself. Both stroke and tournament pairings are in this category.
Pairings are not 'outside' of the game unless you want them to be.
Insistency to the contrary is misinformation.
Everybody does their own categorizations and the dictionary is not bible.
The pairings absolutely are outside the game. It is a human construction to decide who plays chess against who, but it's not a part of a chess game itself. The pairings could be decided by a roll of dice, of course it's down to luck and of course it's a factor outside of the game itself.
Obviously somebody wants to insist the pairings are outside the game.
Obviously there is a lot of controversy on the whole subject.
In theory - extremes at either end and a 'big middle'.
But in reality nobody tries to claim chess is 'all luck' because it just isn't.
But that doesn't mean the opposite extreme is valid.
Validities tend to live in 'the middle' between extremities.
Not arbitrary 'central positions' which might mistakenly aid the more invalid of t two extremes.
Not in one-dimensional spectrums.
But in grey areas.
As one gets older and the hair gets grayer - 'grey areas' are often better recognized.
Don't have to be 'murky' because they're grey.
------------------------------
Paradox? Yes. Often easily resolvable. Unlike conundrums and enigmas.
The good student will notice and observe and encounter paradox and even seek it out. And find it. And then resolve it. Instead of pursuing binary dogma to avoid paradox.
Paradox is often an excellent learning method. Or way to make progress.
And a way to maintain objectivity.
Certainly in the normal course of events there is no luck in chess. This doesn't mean that extraordinary events never occur. If you have read many chess.com forums you will have noticed the number of outraged complaints concerning power outages or interrupted connection resulting in undeserved losses. If we consider the ultimate result of a game as part of chess we can't ignore unfortuitous events that determine some results.
In tournaments players often 'get lucky' according to who they're paired with.
Or not paired with.
An issue of how temperaments and playing styles go up against each other.
The weaker player might win because his way of playing was anathema to the stronger.
Many might then try to 'insist' that the weaker was therefore 'stronger' on that occasion.
Let them. Everyone has their own take.
It doesn't have to be a 'terrible take' because there's disagreement.
As mentioned, things outside of a chess game can bring an element of luck that contributes to the game itself. Both stroke and tournament pairings are in this category.
Pairings are not 'outside' of the game unless you want them to be.
Insistency to the contrary is misinformation.
Everybody does their own categorizations and the dictionary is not bible.
The pairings absolutely are outside the game. It is a human construction to decide who plays chess against who, but it's not a part of a chess game itself. The pairings could be decided by a roll of dice, of course it's down to luck and of course it's a factor outside of the game itself.
"The pairings could be decided by a roll of dice, of course it's down to luck"
By your own previous arguments ("There is no luck in chess or sports. You control every move your body makes", " skill is a range, not a spot", "Anything about human performance is never down to luck."), your highlighted statement above is an admission that luck is a part of chess, (if humans are the ones rolling the dice, and if you are being logically consistent).
Certainly in the normal course of events there is no luck in chess. This doesn't mean that extraordinary events never occur. If you have read many chess.com forums you will have noticed the number of outraged complaints concerning power outages or interrupted connection resulting in undeserved losses. If we consider the ultimate result of a game as part of chess we can't ignore unfortuitous events that determine some results.
In tournaments players often 'get lucky' according to who they're paired with.
Or not paired with.
An issue of how temperaments and playing styles go up against each other.
The weaker player might win because his way of playing was anathema to the stronger.
Many might then try to 'insist' that the weaker was therefore 'stronger' on that occasion.
Let them. Everyone has their own take.
It doesn't have to be a 'terrible take' because there's disagreement.
As mentioned, things outside of a chess game can bring an element of luck that contributes to the game itself. Both stroke and tournament pairings are in this category.
Pairings are not 'outside' of the game unless you want them to be.
Insistency to the contrary is misinformation.
Everybody does their own categorizations and the dictionary is not bible.
The pairings absolutely are outside the game. It is a human construction to decide who plays chess against who, but it's not a part of a chess game itself. The pairings could be decided by a roll of dice, of course it's down to luck and of course it's a factor outside of the game itself.
"The pairings could be decided by a roll of dice, of course it's down to luck"
By your own previous arguments ("There is no luck in chess or sports. You control every move your body makes", " skill is a range, not a spot", "Anything about human performance is never down to luck."), your highlighted statement above is an admission that luck is a part of chess, (if humans are the ones rolling the dice, and if you are being logically consistent).
I'm not exactly sure what you mean. Humans have no ability to control a dice roll. That's the purpose of the dice, human can't affect the result, which means it's a tool of luck.
One could obsess all day over the meaning of the word 'luck'.
But even more to the point is the word 'in'.
If a person wants to restrict the meaning of the word 'in' so that his/her preconceived position looks more accurate - then that's an invalid argument.
Luck 'in' chess.
Of course there is.
If it influences the game its not 'in' the game?
Come on now.
-----------------------------
Try an analogy to show how silly restricting 'in' is.
Is there luck in aircraft piloting?
Some lighting hits a plane ... it crashes.
Is whoever going to now be vehemently trying to Insist:
'Oh - the lighting was 'external' to the aircraft.
That doesn't count.
The lightning wasn't 'in' the plane.'
Of course there's luck 'in' chess - no matter how much whoever tries to obsess over 'luck' or 'in' or 'chess' semantics.
-------------------
Trying to say that something within an activity is 'pure' and therefore other factors are 'disqualified' is kind of silly.
--------------
Why would whoever try to impose such an invalid view?
Perhaps to feel more comfortable in the choice made?
'cognitive disonnance' and its big brother 'cognition bias' can be looked up and studied.
I do not think there is ''luck'' in chess. Chess is a game of strategy and brilliancy, the more skillful wins. If you win it's not because of luck, it is because you played well with more skill and managed to outplay your opponent who played with less skill. If you lose that means your opponent had more skill than you and that you played with less skill and lost. If you drew, that means both you and your opponent had a equal skill level.
There's luck in chess and in everything else in life too.